the DNC heavilly convinced all the establishment candidates other than Biden to drop out
That’s not rigging an election, that’s just politics.
It’s literally the same thing Macron is doing right now to stop Le Pen’s fascists from winning.
Nobody who was paying attention thought he would be a one term president. He said nothing of the sort because that was never his plan. He literally said so at the time:
I don’t have plans on one term
And his campaign emphasized the same thing at the time:
Lots of chatter out there on this so just want to be crystal clear: this is not a conversation our campaign is having and not something VP Biden is thinking about
This is not a conversation we are having among people who actually are running the campaign
And yet people still want to believe a bunch of anonymous “senior advisers” over what Biden actually said. Pure wishcasting.
The only polls that matter are Biden vs Trump, and those haven’t really changed post-debate.
When has any candidate ever invited challengers?
Candidates don’t “step back”, challengers step up. If nobody wants to because the candidate appears certain to win the primary, don’t blame the candidate.
People probably are looking at their performances as president.
The polls have barely budged since the debate. That tells you people aren’t really using debates to decide who to vote for.
Myopia develops in children. If you have any, you’ll know they don’t generally look out of car windows.
Democrats only need 4 more seats to retake the House. If they win the presidency, there will likely be more than that riding on the coattails.
There are significant risks to nominating Harris.
Because the most popular alternative is Kamala Harris, but there is no evidence she would do better against Trump.
We’d be trading concerns over Biden for concerns over Harris. If there is no improvement in performance, why bother?
It does what it means to do.
This system is only meant to predict the general election. It ignores any primary candidates who were not nominated.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency.
Most other factors mostly do not depend on the individual who is running. For example, recession, military victories/losses, results of midterm elections, significant third party challenger, etc. The party can run anyone and it would not affect those points.
However, I overlooked another individual characteristic: there is an extra point if the incumbent is a victorious military leader or has significant appeal to members of the opposing party. The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
The system is currently meant to predict the electoral college winner, not the popular vote winner.
His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn’t throw that advantage away.
Brand new data shows that no Democrat outperforms Biden against Trump.
Also, when asked who should replace Biden the clear favorite was Kamala Harris. So be careful what you wish for.
Not meaningless, his prediction system always gives the incumbent an advantage over anyone else in his party.
The UK uses Freedom units too, but they are called Imperial units.
Boebert is not a millionaire.
Or possibly an assistant to the manager.