I have a feeling that’s how all of our elections are going to be from now on.

deleted by creator

Starting at five? That’s too progressive!

Kids these days don’t respect a one, a two , a one two three four.

You call that a pirouette? Chin up and again!

Anyone thinking about responding to this poster, please look at their post history so you know what you’re getting into with regard to ANYTHING even tangentially related to Biden.

It’s an important fact, but hardly a major or unique case. I know I’ve personally never felt like any of the candidates in any of the elections I remember were great, just “good enough” or “better than some of the alternatives,” I certainly would’ve replaced them if I could.

Looking at some recent primaries

Back in 2020, Biden only had 51.7% of the votes in the democratic primaries. That made him by far the biggest single candidate, but that also means that almost half of democrats would have probably been happy to replace them with one of the other 4 candidates if they could (though they would have disagreed on which of the 4.) Most of them would still go on to vote for biden despite him not being their first pick.

In 2016, trump won with 44.9%, again the biggest single candidate, but that means that 55.1% wanted not trump. Of course most of that majority still held their nose and voted for him in November, but the majority of them probably would have been happy to replace him at that time if they could.

2008 was really fucking close for the Democrats, Obama beat out Hillary with 48.1% of the vote to her 48%, and the remaining 3.9% voting for various other candidates, that means that the majority (51.9%) of people wanted a candidate other than Obama. Same year, McCain won his primary with 46.7%, so again the majority did not vote for him but for various other candidates.

And I think it’s pretty safe to say that in just about any election throughout history, voters would like to replace the opposing party’s candidate if they could, no surprise there.

A really big news story would be if the majority of the party not only would replace their candidate if they could, but were actually in agreement on who they would replace them with. If 6 in 10 Democrats said “We would like to replace Biden with this one specific other person that we all agreed on” then that would be big news.

They dont do it often enough else these fuckheads that have latched onto the taxmans tit for 30/40 years wouldnt still be there.

I’m running on mbin; it shows randomly selected stories / random communities in the sidebar (which I think Lemmy doesn’t do) with no additional details besides the title.

The Community Info. Depending on the website layout it is often displayed on the side of the screen, as a sidebar next to the main content. It usually has things like community rules. Some layouts and mobile apps refer to it as the sidebar, community description, or the community info.

Everyone to your left is a trumper. Got it.

That wasn’t a compliment lol

Seems like they’d have done better with 62% of the voting public behind them.

Trump faced an entire gaggle of conservative opponents and rarely failed to clear the 50% mark by state.

Biden’s biggest defeat was to the 20% of voters who cast spoiled ballots in Michigan. Marianna Williamson and Dean Phillips were barely acknowledged.

Even RFK Jr isn’t polling at better than 10%.

Who do these people actually want for the position?

Lol, it’s here now.

Except for the fact, of course, that the Democrat primaries have never been more democratic. But let’s not let the facts or history get in the way of the narrative!

All the way up till 2024 democrats were furiously protecting Biden. Shutting down any critism of him. Now it’s election time and all the discussions they refused to have for the last 3 years are at the forefront. Shame they waste their energy defending the presidential elect rather than vetting the better candidates. Like thats never blown up in their faces.

Well, I mean it’s a lot of effort rigging things so they don’t look completely janky. Debbie Whatsername-Smith was done worn out at the end of 2016 making sure it was Her Turn.

That’s just not good enough anymore

no primary challenger has ever beaten an incumbent for president

So, a bit of history.

https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/

Before primary elections became the dominant way to pick a nominee, party leaders were more able to either shut down challengers or smoothly pass the nomination to someone else. Notably, four incumbents who were denied the nomination in the 19th century — John Tyler, Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur — had been Vice Presidents who rose to the Presidency following the deaths of their predecessors, perhaps suggesting they’d never won their parties’ full support in the first place.

Then

In the 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries, President Harry S. Truman was challenged by Senator Estes Kefauver. Truman lost the New Hampshire primary to Kefauver and dropped out of the race shortly after.

Also

TIME reported that McCarthy’s surprisingly strong showing in the New Hampshire primary was a statement that was “as much anti-Johnson as antiwar,” citing a NBC poll that found more than half of Democrats didn’t even know McCarthy’s position on Vietnam. Less than a week after New Hampshire, Attorney General Robert Kennedy jumped into the race. Then, on March 31, Johnson announced he wasn’t going to run for re-election.

As TIME reported in the April 12, 1968, article on Johnson dropping out, “So low had Johnson’s popularity sunk, said one Democratic official, that last-minute surveys before the Wisconsin primary gave him a humiliating 12% of the vote there.”

It should be noted that Ford nearly lost to Reagan in 1976

He racked up 1,187 delegates compared to Ronald Reagan’s 1,070, which was barely more than the 1,130 he needed to secure the nomination.

And Kennedy nearly beat Carter four years later

Carter won 36 primaries that year, but Kennedy’s 12 victories included important ones in New York and California, and he didn’t concede until Aug. 11, 1980, at the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.

In another historic race, William Taft was nearly edged out by Theodore Roosevelt, who went on to place second behind Woodrow Wilson in 1912. That gave Taft the dubious distinction of being the only incumbent to come in at third place in a general election.

62% of the voters seem to think it’s a worthwhile endeavor. You’re probably right in the sense that democrats couldnt find a progressive candidate if they came up and kicked them in the ass.

Is the Hill trying to get Trump elected too because they published it? And these 62% of democrat voters - paid shills? Russian bots?

No pro-genocide centrist cares.

Removed by mod

And then those normal people are in for a rude awakening when it is the end of democracy as we know it.

“I didn’t think the Supreme Court would actually overturn Roe!” – People in 2016 who said to not threaten them with the Supreme Court

Although, as I’ve read, people who don’t vote are more likely to vote for trump (basically the argument is that trump convinced them he was an outsider, and appealed to people who don’t normally go out to vote because they feel there is no point), so a drop in turnout would actually favor Dems. And I do think Dems will be fired up more over abortion.

It’s a little late for Biden to terminate his campaign. Best thing he can do is pick a progressive VP (I don’t know much about Kamala right now) and then resign day 1.

I think Democrats have focused too much on who they don’t want as President for the last 8 years, and now the party doesn’t have any other candidates that have the name/brand power to go toe to toe with trump and his base of far-right brainwashed quislings. The best bet to win this thing is to run Biden at this point, but they need to build some candidate brand/visibility for their next election.

An admin account?

It is well documented that many political-influence organizations have extensive social-media-fakery arms, and I’m absolutely certain that most of them have as their #1 priority from now until November to get Trump elected. And Trump is clearly a pile of elephant shit in human skin, so going after Biden for a variety of random bullshit (or just talking down the whole concept of democracy in general) is their best angle of attack.

It’s not self-evident that they’ve discovered Lemmy, but I feel confident at this point that they have. And if they have, it would be weird if they decided on posting only, that voting was a red line they didn’t want to cross.

I actually spent quite a while looking at it. Honestly, I found some things that I found a little suspicious, but nothing really all that compelling. I decided I was chasing ghosts and abandoned the analysis.

Since you asked, though, here’s what the ratio for this post looks like over time:

So, pretty much, exactly ordinary and as you’d expect it.

I mentioned some things I found a little suspicious – as an example, here’s the graph for this post which I also would have predicted to be a magnet for fake voting:

That one, to me, looks hinky. The slow dropoff after an initially elevated ratio looks like exactly what I’d expect if there was an organized effort right at the beginning to drop a bunch of fake upvotes. But… there could be a bunch of alternate explanations. It’s actually pretty difficult to get a prediction of what a “typical” post should look like, because there are a lot of variables and not a lot of data points (there aren’t that many posts that display the right combination of “controversial post” + “enough votes in total to get above the noise.”)

Like I say, I gave up the idea concluding that, on the balance, there’s at least not a strong indication that anyone is dropping fake votes in big batches.

Fuck trump

Any state after super Tuesday has no voice. I won’t vote for Biden but at this point I don’t know if I’ll just cast no vote or if there will be another option?