One House Democrat said he spoke for others in the wake of the president’s stunningly feeble debate performance on Thursday: “The movement to convince Biden to not run is real.”

The House member, an outspoken defender of the president, said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should consider “a combined effort” to nudge President Joe Biden out of the race.

Crestfallen by the president’s weak voice, pallid appearance and meandering answers, numerous Democratic officials said Biden’s bet on an early debate to rebut unceasing questions about his age had not only backfired but done damage that may prove irreversible. The president had, in the first 30 minutes of the debate, fully affirmed doubts about his fitness.

A second House Democrat said “reflection is needed” from Biden about the way ahead and indicated the private text threads among lawmakers were even more dire, with some saying outright that the president needed to drop out of the race.

  • Liz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

    It literally says the opposite, and there’s no assumption, it’s right there in the voting data. Begich beats Palin and Peltola one-on-one. I’m sorry that you’ve heard other people talk about this particular election in bad faith, but that’s not what I’m doing. We can talk about other particular RCV elections that had spoilers, if you like.

    And you haven’t mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that’s what was assumed.

    I mentioned both regular approval and SPAV in my first comment. Maybe that’s where some of this confusion is coming from.

    STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution.

    Can you quote the section that prohibits multi-winner elections? At this point some of the things you’ve said have me believing you might an inauthentic account, unfortunately. I apologize if you’re an earnest American, but I have now have my doubts.

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

      You need to learn more about American elections and how the government is composed. I’ve told you several times that there is one winner per district. If you want to change that then go off, but don’t come in here spreading GOP propaganda while proposing the least suited version of voting for how we put our government together. I’m done responding to this. You really pressed F to doubt on how we elect people.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If you’re referring to the House of Representatives, single-member districts is a federal law, not a constitutional requirement. Congress could simply pass another law changing the old one, no constitutional amendment required. The method of representation in the Senate is codified fairly narrowly into the Constitution, but the House requirements are more lax and doesn’t forbid multi-seat representation. Technically the federal law allows for it too, but only if your state is grandfathered in. I’m not sure when the bill was passed or why that specific exception was put in.

        If you’re talking about lower levels, multi-seat representation happens at the local level all the time. There’s a few states that have at-large districts in their legislatures, but single-member is way more common.

        That’s fine if you don’t want to respond, I just want to make sure people reading have an opportunity to follow these links and realize that we do have plenty of multi-winner elections in the US.