This is it. The leaks were true. He’s gone for good.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Really though? When was the last time a candidate won when they only campaigned for 3 months.

      • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        Might be weird to Americans, but other countries like Canada actually limit their campaigns to 3 months total. I find it odd that you guys’ politicians have a relatively major election every 2 years and essentially don’t take a break from campaigning that entire time.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, that’s not useful in this analysis because the opponent has been campaigning for far longer. So while 3 months is a good campaigning time, it’s not better than 12 months.

          And of course we campaign year round because of money.

          • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            What analysis? This comment chain isn’t even about the text of the article. I’m not saying one is better than another, it’s just a fact that other countries have shorter campaigns. 3 months is also not worse than 12 months so I’m not sure what your point is.

            A long campaign isn’t an inherent feature of democracy, it’s just what the current American reality is. That doesn’t matter to this particular election, but I’m pointing out that the way y’all do it isn’t the only way in case there are people who genuinely don’t know that.

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              How is 3 months of narrative development not worse than 12 months of narrative development? It’s a clearly disadvantaged position.

              • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Campaign length =/= “narrative development,” but okay. People can still do interviews and events and whatever, but no ads or official campaign duties.

                It’s so obvious you’ve never had to think about this before or how it could work, which is exactly why I made my first comment.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  My god. You cannot keep your thinking straight, can you. I said 3 months is not enough time to counter the year long campaign of Trump. You said in Canada that everyone does it in 3 months. Which means, of course, that no one is competing with a year-long campaign in 3 months. How do you not see this?

                  You think that there’s no advantage to ground game for literally 4 times longer than your opponent can possibly work? And that’s IF the Ds nominee is selected quickly and they have a solid campaign strategy. More than likely the infighting and confusion is going to delay the creation of a coherent strategy so we’re talking about less than 90 days while Trump’s team has been working for the last year and now has the upper hand in narrative pacing because the Ds are in public disarray.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Biden is a decaying corpse bombing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to death. Kamala is safer, actually.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I disagree. She literally got on international television and told imigrants “do not come”. As soon as she’s asked about the Zionist entity she’s going to alienate everyone that Joe did.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Not being a rotting corpse is likely a big selling point for many voters. Not every voter, of course, she isn’t a beacon of progressivism, but it will be enough to sway the narrative.