Yes. There are quite a few people who are enthusiastic about Biden, and a whole lot more who might not be Biden-fans specifically, but who enthusiastically support the Democratic party. If this wasn’t true, he wouldn’t have won the primaries the way he did, nor would be polling as well against Trump as he does.
2 Likes
Yeah, and this thread falls so easily into the trap: because Fiorina endorses Biden, it must mean something: he is beholden, or corrupt, or not sufficiently ideologically pure… (Because of course this “endorsement” is a reflection on Biden and not on Fiorina.)
It means nothing, except that Fiorina craves attention.
3 Likes
Not if Trump decides to secretly support a third candidate to milk votes from Biden.
Goddammit, I was actually starting to feel a little better about voting for Status Quo Joe Biden. Then you tell me this oligarch-fellating scumbag is endorsing him, and I’m thinking, “Does Carly Fiorina think Joe Biden will do for American what Carly Fiorina did for HP?”
2 Likes
He says that, but all primary challenges to Trump were laughed out of the room. If there was any will to have someone other than Trump on the ticket nobody was willing to stick their neck out for them. Probably rightfully so given how vindictive Trump and his allies at Fox News are with people who stray from the party line.
Biden promises to be the same kind of defense-industrial friendly but generally competent administration that Obama ran. A bit out of touch with the working class voter but far from the dumpster fire of the Trump presidency. Plus he’s going to start out his term inheriting a total economic meltdown from the Trump era which is going to tie his hands a lot. But that’s what every Democrat President gets the modern era. Any hope of change gets tangled up in trying to fight all the fires the previous administration started.
3 Likes
If by strategy you mean, he won the primary because he received more votes than the other candidates, then yes, this is why he is the Democratic candidate in the general.
2 Likes
good job missing the point entirely.
What point was that? The inherent anti-democratic idea that Biden only won because of some DNC master plan, and not that he got the most votes? Or the idea that the first state with an actually-diverse electorate, which ended up strongly going to Biden, was perhaps indicative of the fact that yes, maybe he actually appealed to a more mainstream and diverse set of voters than other candidates?
Listen, Biden was my second-to-last pick (Bloomberg being the very last) of everyone running in the Dem primary. OK maybe third to last, forgot about Gabbard. But this narrative that he won for any reason other than “he got the most votes” is highly BS-oriented IMHO.
2 Likes
i was replying to this comment:
the point being, that by showing a strong tendency toward seeking out the “safest” candidates, which often requires a thoughtful consideration of who would be most likely to pick up votes from moderate or disgruntled conservatives, the democratic party has fairly consistently demonstrated that they are far less interested in adhering to any meaningful set of principles than they are in the expediency of holding onto nominal power. it’s more than just being sore about more progressive candidates falling by the wayside, it’s a real issue that creates real harm to oppressed people. democrats are deluded about some sort of chivalric code that republicans left behind ages ago, trump’s camp doesn’t give a shit about incrementalism, compromise, or tact. nobody is disputing that biden won primaries with the most votes (although the system is unjust in that some states don’t even get to vote before the winner is chosen,) but he had already been recognized as the establishment favorite despite tons of problematic issues, and while i’m really doing my best to keep my chin up and hope he defeats trump, this strategy has not done well for the trajectory of the party or the nation as a whole historically.
1 Like
Well let me ask you, and I ask as a registered Democrat really only because here in Maryland and Baltimore, it’s the registration that gives one most access to participating in the electoral process, thus allowing one to actually shift the party as you seem to feel is a good thing.
But these “Democrats” of which I am included in, and everyone else across the country who are these “Democrats” AKA a large number of the voters in the country, and the not-so-great, awful things they are doing for the causes you reference. Let me ask – what is YOUR voting block doing that is soooo much more productive? Your party, which one is that?
You seem to want to disparage a huge number of the much-more-sane Americans who vote in Democratic primaries (vs the ones who vote in GOP primaries, IMHO of course) but I’m not understanding what you are exemplifying, then, as an alternative approach.
The fact is, the Dems HAVE been pushed to the left over the past number of years, and Bernie and other progressive candidates running as Dems has been a big part of this. Last time I checked, AOC was a Democrat. I know it’s a lot easier to be an armchair critic on the internet than put real prolonged work into reforming the Democratic party, but if you have any silver bullets you’d like to share, I would certainly be open to hearing about them.
1 Like
wow, you packed a lot of assumptions/ projections into that “question.” thanks for your concern.
yes, the party has been moved to the left by the energy behind sanders, et al. moved almost by force, kicking and screaming. if you think that’s good enough, congratulations on your privilege.
a biden nomination is not a win for oppressed people. a biden administration is not a win for oppressed people. it is a starting point and we should be ashamed that it has taken this long as a nation and a species to get to this point. i will breathe a sigh of relief if biden is elected, but i will not be ready to celebrate.
I see your largely rhetorical response failed to actually answer any of my questions. Of course I don’t think “it’s enough.” I’m also smart enough to know that real lasting change really doesn’t tend to happen quickly, and I might not personally live to see the ultimate outcome. I’m fine with that, and it does not diminish the fight and its utility at all.
Your logic could be applied to literally any movement, and a person could argue “the struggle isn’t worthwhile because it didn’t lead to all the change that we need.” I think that’s a silly perspective, and a dangerous one, to be honest.
2 Likes
my argument is not even remotely that “the struggle isn’t worthwhile,” my premise is that while we pat ourselves on the back for making incremental changes and relative progress, people are literally dying. a silly and dangerous perspective is being content that you may not live to see needed change. that speaks volumes about where you are situated and how you view the needs of those who cannot wait.
I find your argument to be a whole lot of you know what. Have a great weekend!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
