1558
Joe Biden ends re-election campaign
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
1558 points (100.0% liked)
News
23296 readers
2848 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately we also have:
It remains to be seen if the racists and sexists will prevail.
Having said that, this might energize women who are on the fence and want to see the first female president. It might energize black voters. It will almost certainly energize Indian voters, possibly even all South-Asian voters. It will definitely energize voters who were worried about the age of the candidates. And now, suddenly, Trump has to go on the defensive about his age.
As long as all the democrats fall in line and push for Kamala, it might go really well. If Hillary Clinton goes out and works for Kamala, it could energize the people who are still angry about her loss, and can now channel that into the new option for a first female president. If Biden campaigns for her, it could reassure all the people who just wanted some stability.
OTOH, if there is infighting, and people trying to take her down so that they can become the nominee, then that could be trouble too.
The racists, as OP mentioned, would have voted for Trump regardless. The Dems need to convince the moderate, undecided voters
Not at all. The Nazis would have voted for Trump regardless. But, there are a lot of biased people out there who wouldn't even think of themselves as racist or sexist, they'll just "have doubts".
Unconscious bias is a major issue.
Anybody right now who is undecided is not moderate. The moderates are all already voting against Trump. Anybody undecided is either a very-low-information voter, who mostly gets their news from TikTok or conspiracy forums, or they're a very right-wing voter who hates the democrats with a passion, but are having trouble getting over their dislike of Trump too.
If they chose to vote, sure. Plenty of them that would have stayed home are now going to be highly motivated.
How many people, realistically, would vote for a white male Democrat but NOT a non-white female?
People are talking about this, but I don't know who this voter is. The hard line racists and sexists were not moderates, they're all already Republican.
There are far more democrats that were against Biden because of his age than would be against Harris as a woman. This is a net gain. Fuck the people who won't vote for her along gender or racial lines. I don't want to try and appease them.
Give people something to vote FOR rather than vote against.
Far too many. It doesn't mean they're going to admit, even to themselves, that the reason they're making that choice is that they hate women. But, unconscious bias is a helluva thing.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/
Would you rather appease them and win, or not appease them and lose?
Sacrificing your values to win is no true victory.
Here's the way I see it:
If you're right and there are too many closet racists/sexists for a black woman to win, and we run her anyway, then we lose. If we don't run her in order to appease the racists and we "win" we've actually still lost because we sacrificed a core value. That sacrifice will haunt the Democrats as the decay that was already happening will accelerate.
It's the same cowardice that has plagued the Democrats for decades. Choosing appeasement for political convenience over and over, each time removing a section of their spines until there's none of it left. Do not let fear control you.
Holding on to your values without compromise and losing is no true victory either. In fact, it's true defeat.
Is a tainted victory better than a complete loss? I'd argue it is, especially in this case where a loss might mean permanent damage to the institutions of the country by a fascist.
Maybe you'd prefer to hold your head up high while you're being trucked off to a re-education camp. I just don't want re-education camps to exist.
Appeasing them is dangerous. I see this line of thinking a lot, but it has never led the dems to victory and it has repeatedly compromised our own values and degraded trust in the party. We cannot and should not cater to the worst people in the room at the expense of our own morals. It is wrong, but it is also a losing strategy.
Right... We become beholden to the laggards of social progress because we think we can't win without them, and we alienate and stagnate the progress of those doing the most.
Appeasing them could be dangerous depending on how it's done, and to what extent. But, what if the appeasement is merely choosing a man for her VP? Maybe that's all it will take.
The worst people in the room are voting for Trump. This is catering to people in the room who are on the fence and might need a nudge. You can stick to your principles and ignore them, or you can consider their opinions. Ignoring them might mean losing the presidential race. And if you lose, then the purity of your agenda and message is meaningless because the other side wins. And, in this election, the other side winning might mean permanent damage to the whole democratic process.
I think you skipped part of the argument. I'm sure those people exist, but what about the number of disengaged voters who were over Joe Biden or disagreed with him on various issues? I think the number of votes lost because of race or gender is not 0, but the gains through reinvigoration are far, far higher.
We don't know, that's what makes this scary. I'm more pessimistic. IMO the whole reason Trump got elected in the first place was backlash over the first black president. I think the US is a lot more sexist and racist than people want to admit. Even people who don't think they're racist or sexist will still show huge cognitive biases in an unconscious bias test. So, they're not going to say "I'm not voting for Kamala because she's a non-white woman", they'll say "I'm not voting for her because she's underqualified" or "I don't like her record as a prosecutor" or "she doesn't seem like someone I'd want to have a beer with".
I see your points here. I don't think they are wrong, but I have a different opinion on Trump's election.
I think the onset of social media created a real shit storm of misinformation particularly during the Obama years. I don't think it was backlash because he was black (though I admit this is not knowable, just my opinion), but more because of the overall grievance with how things operate.
You can't really separate race out of the equation, because I think Democrats had good messaging showing the effects of institutional racism and sexism against minority groups, particularly at a systemic level. However, there was a massive concentration of wealth in America at the same time.
Trumo came along and his message wasn't really that novel. He just said hey, this shit sucks for everyone, not just minorities. White people are getting screwed too. And I'm the guy that's going to fight for the rural voter.
I take your point that it's not outright racism. It's not someone saying I'm not voting for this person solely because they are X, it's some end around way of going about it. But I think Trump played the White Greivance card and I think Democrats are getting a little better at leaning into it. The unfortunate truth is that both things are totally true. White people are getting screwed (concentration of wealth to hover levels) AND minorities groups are getting screwed (because of systematic racist effects that are still residual in daily life for them).
As I'm talking this out, I'm not sure where to land. There's multiple pieces here that intersect with race, but I'm not sure they are the core tenant. I think there might be some voters who realize that everyone is getting screwed, but maybe worry that Harris would prioritize racial issues before overall everyone getting boned issues. Maybe that's the group?
Didn't come to a great conclusion, but your comment had some layers to it so it got me thinking.
I think this was the excuse, but the real reason was that Obama was black.
Trump came along and said "show us your birth certificate!" He was the original birther, which was clearly a racist conspiracy theory.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-perpetuated-birther-movement-years/story?id=42138176
This is 2011. This was 5 years before he became president. He wasn't even running for president yet. He didn't run in the 2012 presidential election. His main focus was questioning whether Obama was actually American, and whether he was a secret muslim. In other words, he was already the focal point for all the racists in the country who hated having a black president.
The funny thing is, although Trump is clearly a racist, and has been a racist all his life (see the Central Park 5 stuff as one tiny example), IMO he really threw his energy into the project because he was upset at Obama making fun of him at the White House correspondents dinner. Of course, that's also tied in with racism. It's not just that someone made fun of him, it's that a black man made fun of him.
Sure, by the time he actually officially started running for president in 2015, he had a list of other grievances, and they weren't all overtly racist. But, his entry into national politics in 2011 was essentially focused on racism against Obama. That's where people first started noticing him.
These are great points. I'll have to think on this a bit further - thanks for the info!
Both a black guy and a woman have won the popular vote before.
That's nice.
Don't also forget the liability Biden had with Arab-Americans over Gaza. Kamala is not Commander-in-Chief, so even though she's part of the administration she carries none of that baggage.
Can't wait to see what the disinformation brigade cooks up for Lemmy now that they can't keep complaining about Gaza.
I get the issue over Gaza, and I guess that could make some people stay home. But, can anybody honestly think that the guy whose signature policy was a ban on muslims entering the US was going to be better on Gaza than Biden?
Anyhow, you're right that a change in leader offers an opportunity for a new policy on Gaza. I'm sure Netanyahu will redouble his efforts to get Trump elected. OTOH, I'm not convinced Kamala will necessarily be any better than Biden. The US has been backing Israel for decades, vetoing any UN security council resolution that touches Israel, etc. I'd love it if Harris cut ties to Israel, but I can't see it happening.
Oh, of course U.S. policy at large won't change. It hasn't for decades. The difference here, for the election at least, is that Kamala doesn't have to balance words vs actions. Biden and Trump have both lost Arab-Americans. Kamala doesn't have that challenge.