With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.
If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.
If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.
Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, I think you do get my point - it's just a bit funny that you dismiss my criticism as superficial for Thatcher and Vance, but (and I make some assumptions here not knowing you) would accept my criticisms of Harris as being a historically bad candidate. Probably Clinton as well.
The point is that almost all of these 1-2 sentence comments about Harris being an unlikable whore who sucked her dick to the vice presidency is about as substantial and knowledgeable as me saying Vance is a 1%er puppet of the SV elite. I don't think these people know anything about politics, have never worked a political campaign or crafted a bill or written a political speech.
But hey, it sure is easy to wake up the morning after and rant about how the losing candidate was historically bad and the dems are a bunch of morons.
I'm saying they weren't bad candidates, depending on what you mean by bad candidate. If you strictly mean they lost elections, well, I guess Biden wasn't a bad candidate? Or do you mean something else?
Maybe to put it differently, would you have taken 50-50 odds for Biden v. Trump in 2020? Or would you have taken 50-50 odds for Obama v. McCain?
So far as anyone could tell, it seemed like a true toss up last night. People with money and reputations on the line with access to similar information as the most of us agreed those were the odds.
No... I didn't... But I do now - so thank you for explaining.
Whilst I agree that there are superficial criticisms of all candidates, the difference is that Thatcher and Vance have ameliorating qualities to them whilst it's hard to parse what positive qualities Biden and Harris have when it comes to their candidacy.
Thatcher was intelligent, articulate, charismatic and had a penchant for leadership. Vance is intelligent and articulate; I wouldn't say he's particularly charismatic but he does come across as overwhelmingly normal and down-to-earth which has a charm to it, even if you wouldn't call it charisma.
This seems to be the difference that people are gesturing towards: whilst you can come up with superficial criticisms for all candidates, Biden* and Kamala seem fairly unique in their lack of positive qualities.
*2020 Biden.
No, I would say they are bad candidates. Why would you say they're not bad candidates? What positive qualities could you name? Are they great orators? Especially charasmatic? Wonkish? Great leaders? I'm really struggling to see what your argument would be here.
Yes to Biden v. Trump in 2020 and then I was too young back during Obama v. McCain to make a call there.
However, I imagine they were close.
Campaigns spend millions trying to secure the vote of a slither of the electorate. Given how few people the campaign is actually fought over, it kind'a means that all elections are close.
It's difficult to say without defining your terms. Do good presidents craft legislation, compromise and build coalitions while good candidates just win elections? I believe the majority of the electorate doesn't care about policies (and honestly, I include myself in this category - I care, but I rarely have time to educate myself properly on any given bill or proposal) and is more into vibes and public persona, so again, what is a good candidate/president? But whatever, I can answer in kind.
Biden is not a good speaker. But I do believe Biden (or his team) has a great nose for politics. He was smart enough to distance himself from the BLM riots early on when many other democrats weren't. He went through with the Afghanistan pullout despite what I bet was enormous pressure internally in DC to keep troops there, in a way that I believe was immensely net positive for the country. He pushed immigration bills (crafted in collaboration with some pretty conservative senators) in the last 6 months in an attempt to blunt Trump's attacks on that issue, when I doubt many progressives or democrats were willing to do so. His experience over decades allowed him to compromise and shepherd large bills on infrastructure (which Trump failed to do) and industrial policy through congress during historically polarized times. There are one or two other moments over the course of the campaign where I was impressed with his foresight on issues years ago that paid dividends this year.
I also liked Hillary and Obama. At the risk of undermining my own point, I was less excited about Kamala although I think she mostly inherited a bit of a mess. Most agree that she won the debate against Trump, and regardless of whether you're sour grapes about the moderators, I don't think Biden, Hillary or the entire Republican primary field in 2016 can say the same. She was disciplined with her messaging. And unfortunately, I've run out of time to continue this comment but I may revisit it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link