106
Comments (43)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Dr_Fakakta [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

I see it a different way. They're gonna ride Biden ragged and use him as a target to divert attention away from their final, actual candidate. They don't give a fuck about him, they just want the power. They would feed him to wild dogs a thousand times over if it meant keeping power. They're gonna keep their cards close and let sleepy Joe draw attention with his gaffes, this will make our side complacent since he'll appear to be a minimal threat, and it will dishearten the left to the point that when they reveal the actual candidate there will be a massive rally behind them. Particularly with brand recognition like the name "Obama"

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
3
Dr_Fakakta [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

I disagree, I think they were laying low while the deepstate reeled from the 2016 election and reformulated their plan. They had to wait and see what the Trump team's plan was and the extent of their power and will, and whether or not he was going to go after Obama legally or at least in popular opinion for all the illegal shit he did. They had to analyze how to combat their new situation, and, going forwards how they would approach the 2020 election. I don't think Obama's legacy will play a large part in the sentiment for her as a candidate, just as Bill's performance didnt overshadow Hillary in 2016, I know us here were aware, but the normies just don't fuckin care, NOBODY that isn't a devout conservative or independent has consumed the information to yet know how fucked up 44 or even 42 was. And I certainly don't think they're keeping her in reserve for 2024 because if Trump does win a second term I expect/hope there will be enough revelations of the nature of the Obama era to effectively poison the well for them, but who knows! My guess for 2024 is they're gonna drum up a new obscure Obama like figure (Joe Kennedy?) or an anti-Trumpesque celebrity. As for why they wouldn't outright run her from the start, why would you? Seriously why? Idk if she could take on Bernie in numbers, or could stand against Warren or Buttigieg in a debate (not that Biden did either), but why invite months and months of scrutiny? Why give your opponent time to formulate a riposte? It behooves them entirely to run her (or someone else) last minute. The longer the left feels like their candidate is a retard the more likely they'll unify behind a seemingly competent figure. They control the media, they can adulate and prop her up as much as possible, the longer that goes on, the longer info and sentiment from places like here can creep in and sow discord. Let her avoid all the confrontation and waltz right in last minute. I get what you're saying about running weak candidates against an incumbent, but that was when the uniparty controlled both candidates. This election is an existential threat for them that they really need to win. Platforms and policies don't matter anymore. It's gonna be Trump's popularity vs Michelle's popularity+ the entire weight of the media.

2
lixa 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think you give them far too much credit for having a plan. It’s obvious they don’t have a better plan. This is like watching a hockey team stand there on the ice for 2.75 periods and go down by 15 goals to 0 and say they’re plotting a surprise comeback in the last 5 min of the game. But we must never get complacent. We still have to take the threat seriously though, nothing should be taken for granted here. But I really think they are utterly lost and have nothing to gain by remaining this incompetent so late in the game.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1