• lemmyng@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Approve” is not the same as “want”. 79% of democrats would likely approve of a ham sandwich if that was the only alternative to the cheeto.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well I don’t like the ham sandwich’s record on gun rights but I think it’ll put the right team around it.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s why what Dems feel about it doesn’t matter. What matters is how moderates, both-siders, and never-Trumpers feel about it. It’s their votes we need to beat Trump. I don’t have high hopes for Harris swaying them.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      While there’s only one way I could vote for the future of our society, I’d prefer someone else. She’s had four years to succeed at something and hasn’t. People on the left might still balk at her prosecutor history. People on the right probably vote against anything connected to California and against anything not white male. I just don’t see her succeeding

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s sad, because it’s not fair to anyone that that needs to be a concern. But given the risk, I just want Gavin Newsom to replace Biden. I don’t want to take any chances. A milquetoast white guy who is middle of the road. Then president AOC if I had my druthers.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yea for both! Newson 2024, 2028, AOC: 2032 , 2036! Let’s get this country working for its people again! Let’s unironically and Truthfully Make America Great Again, for all its citizens, for their children and the future, and be a force for good!

  • Today@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    79% of the people we asked chose the response we guided them towards.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Seriously, what did the other 21% say?

      “Michelle Obama!”

      “Trump!”

      “Jon Stewart!”

      Just kidding, that last one would be genuinely a good idea, which is why you don’t hear it in these weird slanted editorials

      • digredior@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        4 months ago

        As much as I love Jon Stewart, saying he’d make a great president is not a leap I’m willing to make.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’d love to have him in the WH instead of any of these shitty options we have. Dude has a good brain that clearly functions, and seems to be a better person in general than any of the candidates.

        • barkingspiders@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          One of my low-key unpopular opinions is that this is why Obama never accomplished much. Charismatic, gifted speaker, seemed like a great person etc… but not terribly experienced in politicking. Honestly if you compare Biden’s presidency with Obama’s blow for blow I think, hands down, Biden wins on number of things accomplished. He just knows all the right buttons to press to get things done around Washington.

          Definitely have to acknowledge the unprecedented pushback from congress that plagued Obama, but overall I think an experienced politician can vastly outperform a “good guy” in a lot of elected positions. It’s why I’m not as stoked about term limits for Congress. Sure it hurts to see some of these lifers grift for years on end but it also fosters experienced people in the role. You think AOC is doing great stuff now, give her 5-10 more years of experience in the role and she’ll be capable of doing way more.

          • digredior@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I agree with the whole experience thing, but there are tons of roles to play in and out of congress. So maybe instead of hard term limits, we do something like, no more that 4 consecutive terms for House members and 2 consecutive terms for Senators, but unlimited non-consecutive terms. That way you get some turnover but experience keeps getting built.

            Idk… just spitballing

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean, at this point, she’s polling better than him without campaigning. Once she starts campaigning those numbers will only go up. In terms of beating Trump, she’s an improvement. In terms of being an inspiring candidate with progressive ideals…I guess you could argue it’s a lateral move.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I don’t say this specifically about Harris, but in general, that’s wrong. The moment someone actually starts campaigning and running their polling falls. That’s because it’s easy to offer support to someone before they’re under harsh scrutiny, and you can bet Trump’s team has a ton of crap to fling at her the moment she’s the candidate. Most of it will be nonsense of course, but so is most of the crap he’s flung at everyone else.

        Don’t get me wrong - I think she’s by far the best choice. But expecting it to be a simple and easy transition to a Trump loss is unrealistic. This is going to be an uphill fight regardless.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t think that’s true. I’m sure there’s some initial drop when some voters start to learn about the candidate, but generally, more exposure increases someone’s appeal to voters, especially when they don’t know them as well.

          Also, what type of poll are you talking about, head-to-head voting matchups or approval polls? Harris’ approval has been about the same as Bidens in the last 4 pr 5 polls, but her disapproval is a lot lower, which indicates there are a lot of people who aren’t sure about her. Unless Harris is a complete train wreck, I would be very surprised if she not only lost the approval she already had, but didn’t turn any of those unsure respondents into supporters.

      • casmael@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Cool literally my only concern is beating trump tbh. Bit worried about a 2016 rerun and whatnot. Although I suppose Harris probably isn’t as wildly unpopular as Clinton? Idk

        • dudinax@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          My teenaged, properly Trump hating kid: I don’t like Harris.

          Me: Why not?

          Kid: I don’t know, I just don’t like her. She’s awful.

          Me: Do you know anything she’s done?

          Kid: No, I just don’t like her.

          Me: Have you ever even seen or heard her speak?

          Kid: … No.

          Let me tell you, the propaganda is powerful.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          She’s not well known enough to be that disliked. She’s also got very little charisma, which is why she did so poorly in the primary. But she’s generally considered a good debater, which would be helpful right about now. Honestly, I think voters are just looking for someone who wasn’t alive when Germany surrendered, and she does fits the bill.

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    God please no. It will be Hilary all over again - got nominated only because it was her turn.

    Kamala has been MIA since past 3 years. Beyond casting tie-breaking votes during last congress I haven’t even heard if she was still living on this planet.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    That sounds horrible honestly. But I’m just here to vote against the convicted felon who said he wants to be a dictator.

  • RozhkiNozhki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ll vote for whatever Democrat there is on the ballot but I have zero confidence that this will work out the way op thinks it will. It will be Hillary all over. Oh well.

  • Hux@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If I was trying to to get somewhere, and had the choice of a broken train or no train, from a safety perspective I’d probably choose “no train”.

    But if the reality was that choosing “no train” better enabled a “crazy train” to show up and take me to “crazy town”, I’d probably just roll my dice on the broken train to Dullsville.

    What I really want is a high speed train to Happytown, but nobody is selling tickets for that…

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    not my first pick but if she’s it then it’s still an easy vote.

  • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is still a terrible idea, they have already drafted legal challenges if Dems do this, and Biden is polling fine. They just need to hold the fucking line.