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
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      6 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?

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 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
            ·
            6 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
              ·
              6 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
                ·
                6 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
                    ·
                    6 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.

                • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 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.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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
          ·
          6 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
            ·
            6 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

    • spaduf@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes but she’s capable of actually campaigning. Expectations have been clear since the debate. If he got right out there and started campaigning immediately, he’d probably be doing fine. It’s becoming clear however that he can’t.