bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

438

Joined

2 yr. ago

If it makes you feel better, I did the same thing, but it took your comment for me to realize.

The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don't want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.

I call myself "Top Lover" but if you talk to my wife you'd get a different story...

Acting like she wasn't a "cop cop" is disingenuous.

I think the word you're looking for is accurate. She wasn't a cop.

Haven't you ever seen an episode of Law & Order?

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.

as a former cop

When was she a cop? Thought she was a (assistant ) district attorney and then AG.

'this is the most important election of my lifetime'... Bunch of bull.

I don't know, because of 2016 a lot of rights got stripped away by right wing justices. Their rulings will have a lasting impact. Roe is in the news, but overturning Chevron deference is absolutely huge.

Project 2025 overturning civil service reform and returning to patronage would be terrible, not to mention Christian nationalism.

The people who want to do evil shit don't take elections off, so if you care about anything at all, you shouldn't either. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to just vote.

This actually isn't true. When you vote in the primary you aren't actually voting for a candidate, you are voting for a slate of electors. Biden won the primaries and his slate of electors would have been seated at the convention. The electors remain the same, they have just decided, with Biden's endorsement, to vote for Harris. Nothing has changed about how democratic the process is or would have otherwise been.

I don't have a criticism of her, but I do have concerns. My biggest concern are the people who won't vote for her based on her gender or race. As you said, they'll shroud it in ambiguous statements about just not liking her, but that'll be the reason for some people.

As for me, she's not as centrist as Biden, which is nice, but not as progressive as I'd like to see. But I'll vote for whomever the nominee is because they're not Trump. Knowing I'd have to vote for Biden again was bothering me though, he's given his life to public service, but his time was done, too many concerns.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I worry that people take that attitude. Some not voting for her because she's a woman, and then her supporters taking the Hillary Clinton angle that any criticism must be misogyny. All that did was ignore legitimate criticism that pointed out her low approval and failure to speak to her constituents. In the end, Dem voters didn't turn out.

Literally from the article you linked.

But under a more likely scenario, Biden would take advantage of rules that allow unlimited transfers to the candidate's political party. In that case, Biden's Democratic Party could spend the money supporting the party's new candidate.

He can also transfer to a Super PAC.

Edit: In case you don't believe me again.

Biden could also potentially transfer his funds to an independent super PAC if Harris is not on the ticket.

https://www.vox.com/joe-biden/361991/361991biden-campaign-funds-after-drops-out

Yes, she's the only candidate, but the funds can also go to the DNC or a Super PAC if Biden directs them there.

It's not a narrative as much as it is a fact. Her approval numbers are pretty terrible. Not insurmountable, but not great.

until your child gets pregnant...

until your child mistress gets pregnant...

There, I fixed it for you.

Anyone who thinks EVs aren't the future is wrong. But anyone who thinks there's not a rightful lull in the EV market is also wrong.

All the early adopters are already onboard. Next are the people who are inclined towards EVs but need to be convinced they're ready. There aren't chargers everywhere, they're slow to charge compared to pumping gas, there isn't yet a universal plug, and battery technology needs to improve. Until these issues are addressed adoption is going to be incremental.

That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.

So you didn't mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that's analogous?

In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I'm not sure which one is the, "last time we did this" though.

If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.

Sorry for having other things going on, it won't happen again.

Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?

To my knowledge the President and vice President haven't stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn't be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.

How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven't come to an opinion on yet?