The poll, which was conducted from July 7 to July 9, found that 73 percent of Democratic voters “somewhat” or “strongly” approve of Harris as Biden’s replacement. In an earlier iteration of the same survey, conducted from July 3 to July 6, a 66 percent majority of Democrats approved of Harris as a replacement.

  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    So it won’t matter if she replaces him, right? I mean, if it doesn’t matter who the candidate is with polling, then changing the candidate shouldn’t matter, right? Like, why are we keeping Biden if it doesn’t matter who the candidate is? Theoretically, if it doesn’t make a difference who the nominee is, and it won’t change anything, then changing the nominee shouldn’t be a problem, right?

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It more has to with polls. If the electorate is more or less set, then the numbers game turns into a get out the vote campaign. There is no reason to think that the candidate will have an affect on that, unless of course if you’ve already voted for them once

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If polling is static for all potential candidates, then what harm can come from changing them? Why fight so hard for a candidate that you know is going to lose, unless you want that candidate to lose? 🤨

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          First of all - more or less static

          Second ‐ it stops being who do you want as President, and who you’ll drag your ass to the polls for.

          Current polls don’t answer that

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      We aren’t “keeping” Biden, the primary process was when other people could run against him and we got to pick. Now that he has secured the nomination, only one person on Earth decides if Biden continues to run or not–Biden himself.

      Unless he gets impeached and removed from office or something, which is not very likely.

      Hell, he even gets immunity for all sorts of possible crimes now, thanks to the Supreme Court.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, all they can do is stop donating. They cannot hold a gun to his head and control his actions.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s why you’re seeing a struggle within the party. It’s over, it’s been over, Biden just hasn’t accepted it yet.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Maybe, I don’t know. I was just shooting down that standard DNC conspiracy theory nonsense. “Donors deciding” is just a step away from “Jews run the world”, with the George Soros conspiracy theories being the step in the middle.

              Common sense dictates that money does not grant you mind control powers, however, just sway.

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I am not saying there is not a shitload of money in politics, it is true there is a ton of corporate money in our politics.

                  However, does the money grant control? Yes or no?

                  If I give you one billion dollars, you personally, could I then force you to do something you did not want to do? Murder a loved one perhaps? Or resign a presidency you’ve probably wanted your whole life?

                  Think about specifics, not vague bullshit. Money does not grant control, people retain their free will. It can only help convince. Lobby. Sway. Influence. Not control.

                  That’s the line between reality and conspiracy theory bullshit.

                  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    Money doesn’t give you control over people, it influences decisions.

                    Why do we pay rent or mortgage? Do the landlords or banks control us, or influence us to pay? Why do cult leaders exists if adherents have “free will?” Are they controlled or manipulated?

                    If money didn’t influence and control politics, we would have gun regulations, healthcare, and climate reform.

                    It’s not a conspiracy theory.

              • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                This is an incredibly bad position. Saying that donors decide is nothing like saying “Jews run the world”. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it is a recognition that campaign funds are integral to a presidential election. If Biden can’t bring in money then his campaign will fold.