245

Joe Biden campaign volunteers are quitting in "droves" (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Silverseren@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

190 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a letter published Wednesday on Medium, an anonymous group of Biden's campaign staffers demanded the president call for a ceasefire in Gaza, citing concerns that not shifting his policy on the issue could hurt his 2024 chances.

"Biden for President staff have seen volunteers quit in droves, and people who have voted blue for decades feel uncertain about doing so for the first time ever, because of this conflict," the Medium letter read.

"It is not enough to merely be the alternative to Donald Trump," the campaigners continued. "The campaign has to shift the feeling in the pits of voters' stomachs, the same feeling that weighs on us every day as we fight for your reelection. The only way to do that is to call for a ceasefire."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This smells like #WalkAway psyop bullshit. Anon letter on Medium as a source, lol please.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 21 points 10 months ago

The letter was organized by campaign staffers. Five of them confirmed the authenticity of the letter to West Wing Playbook. Those staffers, who were granted anonymity because of their concern of backlash, said they were motivated to organize their letter out of a sense of moral responsibility.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/03/biden-campaign-anonymous-letter-israel-hamas-00133705

Nice try though to ignore the issue.

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I jumped to conclusions, at least someone has confirmed it's legit. Wasn't ignoring it but the astroturfing "Anon outside any verifiable or published source says" is a problem that keeps recurring.

They are entitled to their opinions, and I'm not even in disagreement - the entire conflict is an abomination and horrendous... but I'm curious who they'd vote for otherwise. No one worth talking about in US politics would chart a different course.

[-] logi@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

It's much easier to hold your nose and vote for the (much!) less bad option than it is to decide to spend your time and effort working for their campaign.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

17 people is not a significant portion of his campaign staff, and the campaign hasn't even mobilized for staffing heavily yet.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

The letter is the latest example of internal rifts not just within the Democratic Party but within the Biden operation over how to approach the conflict. Since the fall, a flurry of protest letters — often written without names attached — have urged the president to support a ceasefire. In November, 500 political appointees and staff members from 40 government agencies anonymously signed one letter, while another letter included the names of over 500 alumni of Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. White House interns also sent a letter to the president and staffers on Capitol Hill have also sent similar letters to their bosses. Biden supporters have raised questions about the veracity of those numbers, noting that the anonymity makes it impossible to confirm.

How about 500 people? Is that number more significant?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Not particularly, no. Something to the tune of 2-3 million people volunteered for the Biden campaign in 2020

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

The 500 number isn't volunteers, but "political appointees and staff members from 40 government agencies".

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Ah well then definitely no.

this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024

245 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3051 users here now

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News