politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Probably ninety percent of those would want to replace any relevant Democrat that made it on the ballet. Big deal. What a useless story.
Yeah, that’s the expected result for any party that isn’t a cult.
If 62% wanted to replace him with the same alternative candidate, that would be significant.
That’s because we don’t respect dance.
Ah five! six! seven! eight!
Starting at five? That's too progressive!
Kids these days don't respect a one, a two , a one two three four.
You call that a pirouette? Chin up and again!
What?
This is percentage of Biden voters...
The majority of people who would vote for him. Wishes there was any other option.
That's a pretty big story
Anyone thinking about responding to this poster, please look at their post history so you know what you're getting into with regard to ANYTHING even tangentially related to Biden.
True for the OP too. There's definitely an element on some of the Lemmy communities that seems to exist only or at least primarily to push negative Biden prop (or barring that, anti-US prop in general). I checked Reddit recently for the first time in months (kind of like going to Walmart--avoid it like the plague, but sometimes you just can't), and I was genuinely astonished at how little anti-Biden content was present by comparison.
I'm voting for Joe in November, and you should too. Joe's administration killed non-competes, flipped the procedure for airline canceled and delayed flight refunds (i.e., pro-consumer), and pushed back the exempt employee loophole--and that's just the news from this week. He's an awesome president without even considering that the other side is composed entirely of criminals, Russian assets, and fascists.
I don't think you mean NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreements). I think you mean Non-compete agreements.
You are correct. I haven't seen the two separated in years, so I tend to use NDA as a blanket term. Editing for clarity.
That actually relieves me. Like, people going, "I won't vote/will vote 3rd party" seem to not realize that if Biden doesn't get in, Trump will, and he not only would push genocide MUCH more, but also WILL destroy the electoral system to stay in power and avoid jail.
Hell, Project 2025 leaking proved this
So a good reminder that the Fediverse is being echoey helps the fear some
I think people saying that are well aware a 3rd party vote means a second Trump presidency. Most are saying that in bad faith. The posters posting it either have no plan to vote third party, or they're not even US citizens (as their posts would suggest they are) and they're not allowed to vote anyway.
I just had to block them. Don't even need to see the username to know who it is. Engaging with them and even the OP here is nothing but a carnival of bad faith arguments.
The above commenter is a well known Hawaiian Pizza lover, he's the absolute worst. /s
Stop being paranoid about the mods they're actually pretty fucking reasonable.
Why don't you just respond to the article. This poster has a habit of posting controversial articles that are critical of Biden's actions but America is a fucking democracy and we can have an adult discussion about his flaws.
Having those conversations makes it more likely people will vote for him - compared to just muzzling everyone and saying "he's so perfect" because we can fucking see his flaws. Silencing discussion drives down voter turn out and low voter turnout is how asshole GOP folks keep getting elected. Also those anti choice church goers are going to blindly vote for the adulterer - so we need to overwhelm the idiot factor.
It's an important fact, but hardly a major or unique case. I know I've personally never felt like any of the candidates in any of the elections I remember were great, just "good enough" or "better than some of the alternatives," I certainly would've replaced them if I could.
Looking at some recent primaries
Back in 2020, Biden only had 51.7% of the votes in the democratic primaries. That made him by far the biggest single candidate, but that also means that almost half of democrats would have probably been happy to replace them with one of the other 4 candidates if they could (though they would have disagreed on which of the 4.) Most of them would still go on to vote for biden despite him not being their first pick.
In 2016, trump won with 44.9%, again the biggest single candidate, but that means that 55.1% wanted not trump. Of course most of that majority still held their nose and voted for him in November, but the majority of them probably would have been happy to replace him at that time if they could.
2008 was really fucking close for the Democrats, Obama beat out Hillary with 48.1% of the vote to her 48%, and the remaining 3.9% voting for various other candidates, that means that the majority (51.9%) of people wanted a candidate other than Obama. Same year, McCain won his primary with 46.7%, so again the majority did not vote for him but for various other candidates.
And I think it's pretty safe to say that in just about any election throughout history, voters would like to replace the opposing party's candidate if they could, no surprise there.
A really big news story would be if the majority of the party not only would replace their candidate if they could, but were actually in agreement on who they would replace them with. If 6 in 10 Democrats said "We would like to replace Biden with this one specific other person that we all agreed on" then that would be big news.