• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Those are not necessarily the same people.

    But there is no good option here. The good option would have been to run a good candidate over a year ago. That time has obviously long since passed.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The US “election cycle” is insane. You don’t need to be running a candidate over a year before the election. 3 months is more than enough time to tell people who your candidate is and what they are running on, and you have more than 3 months.

      Yes, it would have been better to announce earlier, but jesus christ he is too fucking old for this shit. Stepping back now is still better than pushing through.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Especially with how calcified the voting population is. Each candidate has something like a 44% floor of people who already know they’re going to vote for “the Democratic candidate” and the only question is how many of them actually go to the polls and what the remaining randos decide. And only in a handful of swing states. Most of the system is already predetermined.

      • localme@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I agree the timeframe isn’t the main issue. It’s more concerning that the nominee isn’t getting selected through the primaries/caucuses where actual voters are involved in choosing the nominee.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You can’t just launder $2B of campaign contributions overnight. You need a year or two to filter it credibly through pundits, consultants, pollsters, and advertisers.