Democratic strategists and organizers are hoping that if 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris performs well in the November election, there will be a down-ballot effect in gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and U.S. House races. Democrats have a small majority in the Senate, while Republicans have a sing...
  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    246·
    2 months ago

    Please, for love of all the gods, let us win the presidency, keep the senate, and take back the house.

    Fucking please.

    • ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world
      184·
      2 months ago

      And with some damn wiggle room this time.

      We had multiple Democrats Peel off and stymied loads of progress (Manchin, Sinema etc).

      We need enough room for the wolves in sheep’s clothing to not make a (D)ifference in the progress we need to shut down authoritarianism.

      The supreme court being public enemy #1 means we need everything else to be operating seamlessly to be able to prevent every single goal for project 2025 line by line immediately and permanently.

      Undoing regulatory capture will also be a monumental feat, as will reforming media’s ability to platform lies and disinformation that are objectively false.

      Huge fucking task list and we haven’t even talked about running the actual country yet. We’re gonna need one hell of a blue wave to drown the fascists and drain the swamp.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        61·
        2 months ago

        We had multiple Democrats Peel off and stymied loads of progress (Manchin, Sinema etc).

        This is a consistent problem with Dem “majority” coalitions dating back to the '77 Carter coalition that cracked up while trying to pass a universal health care plan and fossil fuel exit strategy. Clinton’s '93 coalition also splintered due to conservative Democrat infighting. Lieberman famously killed a host of legislation in '09/'10 (although he was mostly a cat’s paw for other conservatives in the House and Senate). And then Manchin/Sinema upended Biden’s reforms in '17, before squandering the House majority the following year.

        These failures aren’t accidental. They are the direct result of Democrats saying “We need to vote candidates who are electable” and then getting a bunch of shitty corporate flaks who bought their way through the primaries.

        We just watched Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman lose their House seats to AIPAC lobbyists, while Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlahib had to muscle through enormously expensive primaries funded by the same far-right donor groups that favor the Republican Party.

        The supreme court being public enemy #1 means we need everything else to be operating seamlessly

        The SCOTUS is a distraction, as they’ve got no real power to enforce their decisions. The real fight is between a liberal federal government and the assorted red state and municipal governments. We’ve seen this proven out with AGs like Ken Paxton and governors like DeSantis who routinely break laws in their quest to pump up the base with high profile acts of cruelty to their minority populations. They’ve discovered its easier to ask forgiveness than permission, and the Biden admin’s response has been to just kinda shrug its way through rather than risk open confrontation.

        This is the same shit guys like Pierce and Buchanan did shortly before the federal system collapsed under their feet. But if you’re always trying to triangulate and get the opposition on board, its where your party and your country eventually end up when fascists at the lower levels of government realize they’ve got carte blanche and a partisan mandate to do evil.

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          7·
          2 months ago

          The SCOTUS is a distraction, as they’ve got no real power to enforce their decisions.

          This is something I’ve been thinking about more and more.

          With our three branches of government, it’s up to the executive to enforce the laws, and by extension, the rulings of the judiciary.

          What’s the failsafe mechanism for when the executive doesn’t like a ruling and has no respect of law, or for the system?

          What happens after the supreme court says, “Hey President! What you’re doing is unconstitutional and you must stop immediately.”…and the president just goes, “Actually I don’t care what you say. I’m still doing it. Have a wonderful day and go fuck all nine of yourselves.”

          • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
            6·
            2 months ago

            This almost happened with Andrew Jackson. He is quoted as saying “now let’s see them enforce it” (or something like that, I don’t feel like looking it up) and he pretty much told the SCOTUS at the time they have no power. Congress has the purse, President has the sword, judiciary has nothing.

            His cabinet ended up convincing him that the establishment of the USA depends on him following the orders of the court, and he ended up backing down.

      • Triasha@lemmy.world
        13·
        2 months ago

        I have bad news about the Senate.

        Reps are probably taking it unless Texas, Florida, or Montana comes through to glad Dems a 50/50 split.

        Now if they can abolish the filibuster at least for adding states and also take the house, they could add DC and Puerto Rico and the next cycle would be friendlier.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          11·
          2 months ago

          Last poll I saw had Tester up 6 points here in Montana.

          Even if that’s based on a small sample poll you need to be giving people hope that their vote matters. Save the doomerism, pessimism, realism, or whatever else you call what you’re doing until after the election.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            12·
            2 months ago

            Senate will be tight in any realistic scenario. Tester in Montana is the most likely of the three I listed to come through and I donated to his campaign.

            I will be voting against Ted Cruz and I am volunteering on weekends to help Collin Allred.

            If anyone reading this is wondering if it’s worth it, I think it absolutely is worth it to donate what you can, and volunteer how you can.

            Voting is the bare minimum. Please do so.

            • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              2 months ago

              How does volunteering help?

              These campaigns are raising millions of dollars from all sorts of rich people. Why should you give them your labor for free?

              • Triasha@lemmy.world
                3·
                2 months ago

                Because paid operatives are expensive and knocking on doors is the most effective way to mobilize voters.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 months ago

            Not likely, but it helps the other side far more than it helps us. It should be removed.

            • Perfide@reddthat.com
              2·
              2 months ago

              Should be doesn’t mean they’ll be able to. You need 60 votes to do so. We’ll be lucky to hold the Senate, let alone pick up 11+ seats.

              • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                2 months ago

                No, that’s the ironic thing. The Filibuster is a Senate rule, and it only takes 50 Senators a simple majority to adopt a new rule.

                Yup, you heard that right. The Filibuster can be erased with a majority vote to set a new rule. The party in power doesn’t do that, though, because they are afraid of what the other side would do if they get the majority.

    • Aermis@lemmy.world
      9·
      2 months ago

      I am not sure they want to win. The convention as a whole anyways. Having all 3 seats of power will now set the precedent to do something and they don’t want to do something, at least their donors don’t.

      • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 months ago

        Good point. If they win all, and then do nothing, it shows us all again that when they have the power they don’t use it. Not for anything good to actually benefit the public at least.

        • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 months ago

          Oh don’t worry even if they accidentally do too well and have absolute power they still won’t accomplish anything because just enough corpo Dems will turncoat to prevent any real change.

          Just as the donors intended.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      Let us actually take the Senate and not rely on a couple of DINOs who arbitrarily decide when equal rights is far too radical to vote yes for.

    • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      If we could get some semblance of additional protections against election fraud it would already be worth it

  • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    64·
    2 months ago

    I read the article to see who was gunna get knifed, but couldn’t find the source quote. I hope it’s Mike Johnson, proverbially or whatever.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      2 months ago

      "Meanwhile, Will Reinert, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the most contentious House races are likely to require “trench warfare” in order for the GOP to keep the speaker’s gavel.

      Reinert told The Hill, “Because we are well-prepared, we are well-positioned to grow our majority. But it’s going to be a knife fight until the very end.”"

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    52·
    2 months ago

    Everybody just vote. Also, vote in local elections. Rs dominate most local governments and they’re what is allowing this disease to fester.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    48·
    2 months ago

    “Okay boys, time to shit in our own pants, cry and blame someone else for the shit in our pants”

    -Transcript from emergency, closed door gop strategy session

    • cabbage@piefed.social
      55·
      2 months ago

      It’s still absurd to me that this is something one would even need to say.

      The sentence “don’t vote for Ted Cruz” has the same vibe to it as “don’t shit your pants in the supermarket”. It feels like something that shouldn’t need to be said.

      Then again, evidently it does.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        26·
        2 months ago

        I mean… there are genuinely good odds that people will be doing that after trump inevitably gets caught shitting his pants on camera/microphone.

        It is deranged that one of the stupidest and most vile people on the planet has this much of a cult around him.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          5·
          2 months ago

          That’s why it’s not a loosely-organized association of like-minded reasonable people who share the same goals. Those fuckers never win elections.

          A cult - NOW yer talking about an election stealing - i mean winning - machine.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    40·
    2 months ago

    Its still crazy to me so many people wanted to keep Biden. He wasn’t only hurting our chance at the presidency, a poor presidential candidate hurts chances for gains in House/Senate too.

    Biden had too many valid issues that was hurting Dem turnout.

    Lots of people couldn’t hold their nose for Biden, and likely weren’t going to show up to just vote down ballot.

    Kamala is far from perfect, but has practically zero baggage in comparison to Biden. So running her is going to help pick up more seats elsewhere.

    If she does the “now that I’m in office I’m going to start trying to find out if I can do anything” that Biden did tho. We’ll get nothing accomplished with those 2 years and lose one or both in midterms.

    There’s no excuse to be unprepared in January, it shows voters that the candidate wasn’t really serious about fixing shit, and it’s almost impossible for a candidate to recover.

    Considering a primary in 2028 is incredibly unlikely, we can’t afford Kamala to fuck this up.

    She needs to start doing shit to help Americans day 1.

    • 24_at_the_withers@lemmy.world
      65·
      2 months ago

      Traditionally, the incumbent has a huge advantage. I don’t believe that the party of any sitting president that was primaried ever won the election. There are only a few cases of a sitting president that was eligible for another term stepping aside, and those were a very long time ago.

      There was very little precedent for what Biden did, and I think very few could have predicted the enthusiasm for Harris - I remember her last campaign. It wasn’t inspiring.

      I think Biden felt like the safest choice to many, though obviously that’s been proven incorrect. Hopefully the Democratic party will take a lesson from this and be more willing to replace an incumbent in the future if there’s a better option.

      • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
        11·
        2 months ago

        Democratic party will take a lesson from this

        Yeahhhhhhhhhh they won’t. They never do

        And let’s be real here. The enthusiasm isn’t so much for Harris. It’s for anyone not 80 years old or Trump.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          Yeahhhhhhhhhh they won’t. They never do

          Sure they do. The lesson they invariably take is “we need to move to the right.”

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        . I don’t believe that the party of any sitting president that was primaried ever won the election.

        And I’ve never heard of a single person dying during open heart surgery who didn’t have a condition that required open heart surgery…

        Looking at just that and refusing open heart surgery wouldn’t make much logical sense if you had a condition surgery could help…

        Right?

        Because lots of people have died because they didn’t have surgery they needed. Similarly incumbents have lost elections because they were too weak of a candidate and shouldn’t have been on the ticket in the first place…

          • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
            13·
            2 months ago

            Every argument they start derails into being bad faith like this. They’re absurdly good at the initial post being somewhat plausible. Then whatever position they took falling apart upon further discussion.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 months ago

        I don’t believe that the party of any sitting president that was primaried ever won the election.

        Probably because the party was already in a really weak position in the first place, which led to both the nominee getting primaried and the party still losing the general anyway. Like, if someone has a massive coronary and ends up dying during emergency heart surgery you’re probably not going to blame the surgery for killing them.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      26·
      2 months ago

      Its still crazy to me so many people wanted to keep Biden

      I get it. Changing the engine out mid-flight comes with a lot of uncertainty. Would selecting a new candidate go smoothly, would a new candidate be able to get momentum, what happens if a new candidate is worse, etc.

      Biden wasn’t great, but people were worried about all the unknowns.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        If they were worried than they weren’t listening to the criticisms of Biden…

        Like, I understand why they were wrong, that doesn’t mean they weren’t wrong.

        In your example, not changing the engine would have likely resulted in a crash…

        So people insisting we kept trying to fly and just ignored the burning engine we needed to replace wouldn’t exactly be considered logical

        • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
          16·
          2 months ago

          What a strange place you’ve chosen to grind your axe. This article is about the House of Representatives.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            The article is about the change from Biden to Kamala is showing signs it will boost the House…

            It’s literally the first line in the article…

            Did you just read the headline and comments? That might be why you’re confused

            • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.worldEnglish
              16·
              2 months ago

              I get what he’s saying. You’re here grinding your anti-Biden ax, long after Biden’s no longer on the ballot. You might have had a valid question about why everyone was so hesitant to change horses mid-race. Jesus answered that question. We took a risk that could have resulted in a much worse outcome because frequently in history, it has. And Harris was an uninspired candidate in 2020, which many of us worried she’d be in 2024. That should be good enough to end this conversation…maybe with a ‘Gee, I’m glad Harris upped her game between 2020 and now because we needed what we got this last month,’ if you ABSOLUTELY have to.

              But you’re harping on Biden in an article about the House of Representatives. You’re getting heavily downvoted and questioned about your motive. Maybe read the room? Biden is yesterday’s news. The only reason we think you’re harping on him is to try to depress Democratic turnout and we’re telling you to knock it the fuck off.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                2 months ago

                But you’re harping on Biden in an article about the House of Representatives

                Mate…

                Read the first sentence of the article…

                Democratic strategists and organizers are hoping that if 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris performs well in the November election, there will be a down-ballot effect in gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and U.S. House races.

                But the whole article is literally about how switching from Biden is showing signs of helping the House, it’s what the article is literally about…

                How is commenting on the subject of the article not relevant to the article?

                • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  2 months ago

                  First, I’m not your mate so knock that shit off.

                  Second, the article is about the House, not about Biden. I don’t fucking care what the first sentence says because the article is no more about the first fucking sentence than it is about the headlines or comments. Again. We’re seeing your concerns and telling you to fuck off with that bullshit.

            • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 months ago

              I understand the content of the article, I just didn’t understand the necessity of your comment in relation to it. There isn’t a way we can quash this easily, let’s just move on.

        • Jesus@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 months ago

          Just saying that people knew Biden was a risky candidate, and people worried that swapping out the incumbent might increase the risk.

          People were making their best guesses with the information they had at the time. The only way to know for sure is to have a multiverse Time Machine.

          • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
            7·
            2 months ago

            Correct. A repeat of 1968 was not just possible but likely. Thankfully all resources and support were put behind Harris instead of fracturing across multiple candidates. Had the opposite happened it would have been 1968 all over again.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Or they could have listened to what was perhaps the largest outcry from voters of the Dem party, or polls, or Biden himself when he (rarely) spoke in public.

            Which is why I said:

            If they were worried than they weren’t listening to the criticisms of Biden…

            But this:

            People were making their best guesses with the information they had at the time

            Makes it sound like there was no way to tell Biden was a poor candidate, and people who spent months saying he was were just coincidentally right.

            We just disagree man, you think there was no way to tell, I think it was blatantly obvious and everyone should have been able to tell

            It’s not a big deal that we disagree, we don’t have to keep rehashing it

            • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              2 months ago

              It’s not a big deal that we disagree, we don’t have to keep rehashing it

              Coming from the person whose full-time job is apparently commenting the same 2-3 stale arguments on literally any thread that even tangentially involves Biden, Harris, or the Democrats, that’s absolutely rich.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      14·
      2 months ago

      Its still crazy to me so many people wanted to keep Biden.

      This question has been asked and answered; to death. Trends strongly indicate it’s a disaster to primary the incumbent for very obvious and often-repeated reasons.

    • Hawke@lemmy.world
      13·
      2 months ago

      If she does the “now that I’m in office I’m going to start trying to find out if I can do anything”

      Not sure what you’re trying to say with this. Are you saying she shouldn’t try to do anything? If so what is the point of electing her? As I see it, it’s the exact opposite and she should immediately try to accomplish some goals. Why wait?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        Not sure what you’re trying to say with this.

        That she shouldn’t just put her feet up after the election like Biden did

        If she wins in November, then she needs to have a plan ready in January for at least some things to get moving.

        Like, Biden said he’d de-criminalize cannabis federally to get votes. Then in January declared he’d “look into it’” and stalled till we lost the House in midterms and said he couldnt. Which still wasn’t true.

        Shit like that depresses Dem turnout.

        I thought the last line was as simple as I could make it…

        She needs to start doing shit to help Americans day 1.

        • Hawke@lemmy.world
          7·
          2 months ago

          I thought the last line was as simple as I could make it…

          Right, which is why I found the one sentence I quoted strangely at odds with the rest of what you said. Most of your comment suggests she should get started right out of the gate, and then that one seems to say she shouldn’t.

          IMO If she doesn’t already know what she can do by that time, she had darn well better start finding out ASAP so she can get it done immediately…

        • SacralPlexus@lemmy.world
          3·
          2 months ago

          Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Overall I agree heavily with what you are saying. I really was hoping for the feeling of whiplash when Biden took office because I expected him to drop like 20 executive orders on day 1 to undo the worst of the worst Trump shit. No reason not to have that shift drafted and ready to go before inauguration. But it didn’t really play out that way.

          I hope hope hope that if they manage to take back the White House and Congress that the democrats have an agenda ready to rock and roll because that otherwise it’s hard to maintain enthusiasm from the public when it seems like not much is happening.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            I just thought it was me.

            But for some reason a lot of people seem to be getting confused with what I’m saying today.

            It ain’t even just political stuff.

      • Reyali@lemm.ee
        2·
        2 months ago

        It wasn’t good phrasing, but I think their point is she needs to take action on day 1, not start researching/planning on day 1. “Trying to find out” being the operative words, versus, “now that I’m in office, I’m going to do X, Y, and Z.”

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      2 months ago

      What do you mean by this?

      If she does the “now that I’m in office I’m going to start trying to find out if I can do anything” that Biden did tho. We’ll get nothing accomplished with those 2 years and lose one or both in midterms.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        It really felt like Biden slow-walked or bailed on a TON of his campaign promises. And then he proceeded to nominate a limpdick/arguable quisling AG who took two fucking years to do literally anything in terms of prosecuting Trump for his unprecedented open insurrection - by which time, most of the public’s attention span had lapsed, so the poLiTicAL PerSecUTiOn angle pushed by the GOP gained a lot of traction.

        Biden did a bunch of good stuff, but he also did a bunch of really dumb stuff, and had an absolute SHITLOAD of missed opportunities - both in terms of making and executing policy, as well as effectively leveraging the bully pulpit. Not to mention, it became abundantly clear that he’s generationally out of touch with the majority of the country at this point.

        • Zerlyna@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          Just throwing this out there, he walked into office with a pandemic going on and a mess to clean up.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            6·
            2 months ago

            Sure, but January 6th should have kicked off a very fucking serious and rapid set of criminal prosecutions against a plethora of Trump admin officials (including the orange man himself), and Biden’s ass-tier pick of an AG has done basically nothing meaningful, and nothing meaningful will actually get done before the election. I know airtight court cases take time, but it seems to me there just wasn’t any sense of urgency around how the cases have been conducted. And the cases should very fucking much have been treated with urgency. I don’t get how they haven’t managed to nail him on anything serious after four fucking years. That looks a lot like just not doing your job to me.

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      I wanted to keep Joe Biden from 2020. Sadly, that man doesn’t exist anymore.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 months ago

        Being president is hard AF apparently, you can see how it aged each of the past one rapidly. Just imagine the state that raggedy ass trump would be in after another term, hardly fit to change his own shirt probably

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          9·
          2 months ago

          It’s the stress. In office all he did was golf and watch TV, so he didn’t age as rapidly. Donald has been aging faster out of office because he has so many high consequence cases.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 months ago

      Its still crazy to me so many people wanted to keep Biden.

      There’s tons of people in the Democratic party who loved how “ineffective” Biden was at getting anything progressive done while he kept the taxpayer money to cops and for profit businesses flowing. They were making incredibly stupid arguments, but the hardcore Biden supporters were very much not stupid people.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    18·
    2 months ago

    Dems almost won the house on an off year in 2022, there hasn’t been a significant level of gerrymandering between then and now (just standard levels).

    How could the democrats loose the house?

  • Eiri@lemmy.world
    12·
    2 months ago

    Okay off topic but I had to Google “gubernatorial”. That word looks made up.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    8·
    2 months ago

    Dems were always expected to flip the House this year. The fight is much tighter for the Senate, which the Republicans are still expected to flip given a map that is very favorable to them this year.