• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    23 days ago

    You’re not wrong. Biden never formally promised to serve one term, but heavily implied it. Many of us were disappointed when he announced he was running again, but conventional political wisdom that the incumbent has a massive advantage was still a compelling argument. For an incumbent to be forced out is nearly unheard of in presidential politics.

    Even after the debate, I was willing to lend Biden the benefit of the doubt insofar as I considered him to be doing what HE believed to be the best chance of winning. When I learned that he had internal polling showing a total massacre long before the debate, my opinion soured from “Idiot, but I get it” to “Narcissistic moron who lost the country to fascism”.

    Harris started with strong support she could have, potentially, won with, but in the process of ‘defining’ herself to the electorate, chose what she saw to be the ‘safest’ choices in a attempt to not lose that lead. Unfortunately, that lead was largely built on possibility, and in the process of defining herself, especially defining herself in the ‘safest’ possible way, obliterated the ability of all people to see her as all things, and cratered her chances of success. She would have probably had more success with at least a vague argument of change rather than “I can’t think of anything I’d do differently [than Biden]”, even if it created bad blood between her and the president. Whether that would have been enough to win, God only knows, but I think we can all look back and say, at this point, that the ‘safe’ choices were not, in any way, safe.

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      23 days ago

      Tbh honest I was surprised Biden was even a consideration back in 2020, he was too old even then and it made the criticisms of Trump’s age and mental health not land so well. The moment it was a close call in 2020 the plan should have been ‘popular dem by any means necessary’. Not, double down on aging incumbent when they rarely do better on re-election. I can’t tell it if was hubris or a complete failure of the party apparatus to believe it could come up with someone more appealing than Trump…

    • Benjaben@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      It seems like your take on the Harris campaign, boiled down, is basically that they tried to optimize for center too hard? And should have gone farther left? I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth, that’s how it reads to me.

      I agree. Like you said it’s impossible to know how that would’ve turned out, but after seeing this last election, hard not to conclude that Dems need to start spitting some fire and getting spicy. This milquetoast party of reasonable takes really isn’t getting anything done.

      Sure they’d lose some (many) moderates, and I bet they’ve polled and “determined” that they’d lose more votes than they’d gain, but polls can’t capture the momentum generated by a movement for change, the potential support is de facto unobservable under current conditions.

      Regardless, even when Dems “win”, it seems little changes. Really wish they’d start swinging for the fences and see what sticks.

      Edit to add - I agree with your post as well, don’t want to (yet again) hyper focus on Dems-the-party

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        It seems like your take on the Harris campaign, boiled down, is basically that they tried to optimize for center too hard? And should have gone farther left? I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth, that’s how it reads to me.

        I would love if they had went further left, but ultimately it’s that they ran on a platform of ‘everything is okay’ when the mood of the country was not ‘okay’.

    • Fosheze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      She would have probably had more success with at least a vague argument of change rather than “I can’t think of anything I’d do differently [than Biden]”, even if it created bad blood between her and the president.

      Exactly! She should have thrown Biden under the bus! He’s done with politics, his polling no longer matters and fuck his feelings. She should have used it as an opporitunity to highlight all the shit people dislike about him and promise to do differently. She should have used trashing him as a springboard to promise to be better. Instead, she just promised to be Biden 2.0 when nobody even liked Biden to begin with.

    • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 days ago

      That tracks. I was hopeful that Harris would put some more distance between Israel and us than Biden had (not a big or difficult ask, I thought). Her consistant distancing from any Palestinian-adjacent ideas really put the nail in that coffin.

      She was either disappointing or unnoteworthy on most other fronts, but I voted for her anyway.