225
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

She has zero interest in the gig and, other than being first lady, has absolutely zero qualifications... but then... neither did Trump.

Whatever happened to the "Draft Oprah" movement?

[-] massacre@lemmy.world 76 points 1 year ago

Fuck Oprah. She's an out of touch Billionaire who's commitment to junk science set Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil loose on the world and gave Jenny McArthy a platform for her anti-vax autism bullshit. She's absolutely not who we want running for president.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She’s far more qualified than Trump but according to her husband’s book she didn’t even want to be First Lady. And as much as I don’t hold what I view as Barry’s presidential shortcomings against her, we have had far too many political family dynasty’s in this country. Let’s not have another

[-] itsnotits@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

family dynasties* in this country

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

has absolutely zero qualifications

This is completely false.

[-] Delusional@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah she is definitely way more qualified than trump is. He's not qualified to do shit except cause problems for anyone for personal profit. I wouldn't trust him with any fucking job let alone being president.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

For President? What elected office has she held? Oh, right, none.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Eisenhower would like a word. As would Hoover, Grant and the orange man.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Eisenhower had a decorated military history, excellent for commander in chief. As did Grant.

Hoover and Orange man? Well, you saw how THEY turned out.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Eisenhower had a decorated military history, excellent for commander in chief. As did Grant.

That wasn't the question.

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You know she's a lawyer right? That's already more credentials than Regan and Bush (being Governor of Texas doesn't count)

[-] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

While I do not believe she ahoukd run, unlike Trump, she is qualified. She has degrees from Princeton and Harvard and is an attorney. And more importantly, she is wicked smart.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Please stop dragging her into this.

She'd never want to be President. I'd argue we wouldn't like her very much if she was the kind of person that did.

[-] vga@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She’d never want to be President.

Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, that would make her the best candidate. But in real life, perhaps not so much.

[-] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

A spouse of a former president running against Trump? That can't possibly go wrong.

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

That would be one hell of a thing.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago
[-] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

I'm also wary of any poll that shows such a strong showing for Kamala Harris. Not saying it's wrong, it legitimately looks like it's got a lot of good data, but every other poll I've seen has been fairly unfavorable to the idea of her running against Trump.

[-] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well it does seem that more people would vote for trump against her as well as more people vote for her. So maybe it's legit?

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah this just looks like a name recognition poll. Kamala's chances of beating trump aren't any better than Biden's.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In polling there's a piece of wisdom that journalists don't listen to. Ignore the outlier polls. If there's multiple polls saying one thing and one poll saying something else then there's far more likely to be something wrong with the one outlier. But clickbait machine goes brrrrt.

https://am11.mediaite.com/med/cnt/uploads/2024/07/Screen-Shot-2024-07-02-at-5.06.44-PM.jpg

Okay looks like Clickbait Machine goes brrrt for a different reason here. The upshot is that many respondents skipped the follow on questions. So assuming any amount of campaigning is competently done then the 12% Don't know/skip category is likely to shrink closer to the 4% of the Biden-Trump match up. Then you can see that 40% of the respondents just answered Trump no matter what. In fact the Democrats percentage goes down nearly in lockstep with, Don't Know/Skipped. So, in my opinion, there's a really good chance the Democrats could actually pick up most of that column for Beshear or Pritzker.

[-] bamboo 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~Are there raw results published anywhere? The most recent IPSOS I can find is from May 2024 and based on this, it seems Biden and Trump are unchanged at 40% each between surveys.~~

EDIT, nevermind the July 2024 raw survey is here

[-] Potatisen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Time to put in Big Mike, coach!

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Nothing against Michelle, but I highly doubt she wants to run for POTUS.

this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
225 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24969 readers
2520 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS