2024

So if Biden is the guy come November, do folks who don't want Trump back in office vote for Biden or abstain? Serious question.

Personally I told myself I wouldn't vote for Biden no matter what but I might anyway because this is so wack, however, there is going to be lots and lots of abstaining. Biden will not get enough asses off the couch to win imo

1st, of course she hasn't appealed to the donors. She's having to do this through grass root support like Bernie because she's not corrupt, like Bernie.

Would you even know Marianne Williamson was even still running if I wasn't on here talking about her? She has been polling around 10% the entire time she's been running and when is the last time you heard an interview with her? In the mean time CNN has had town hall events for Vivek, Christie, and Haley who are all polling LOWER than her in their respective races. I would like to hear an explanation for that other than the obvious truth. As you said, she was in the debates last year and is at 10% now but cant even get an interview.

I'm less concerned about people who are disappointed that Biden will be the nominee not turning out to vote for him if only to defeat Trump and more concerned about people who have more valid/personal reasons they may be more likely to act on, such as the large Muslim community in Michigan upset about how his foreign policy and arms give aways are affecting Palestinians. If they stay home on Election Day it could cost him the state which could cost him the election.

Who is best suited to protect America during WW3?

Grass roots supporters may not be considered "donor class," but they are donors. But unlike Bernie, Williamson couldn't raise any significant amount of grass roots support/donations necessary to break through.

The reason why Vivek, Christie, Haley and all the rest of the GOP contenders polling in single digits are getting air time while Williamson and Phillips aren't can probably be boiled down to one word: Trump. As far as the media is concerned Trump sells, Biden doesn't. So CNN and whoever else bring on Vivek, Christie, and Haley so they can ask them about front-runner Trump. 'How do you feel about Trump saying...? Why aren't you attacking Trump more? How do plan on beating Trump? TrumpTrumpTrumpTrumpTrump.'

I'd guess the reason Williamson isn't getting the same time to talk about Biden has more to do with the fact that Biden is nowhere near the media sensation and profitable ratings magnet that Trump is and has less (if anything at all) to do with Williamson. Another reason could be the same reason nobody running against Bush in '04 or Obama in '12 was getting time on CNN either, because in '04/'12 the nominating horse races were on the non-incumbent's side. Viewers want to watch the horse race, not an inevitable blowout, so that's what CNN and the rest cover until the general election. Where Williamson has an advantage to those fellow single digit candidates challenging the incumbent is that there are more media outlets and social media that she can take advantage of - but she's still been stuck in the polls regardless.

Something else not in her favor is that as it's looking now, when DeSantis, Vivek, and Christie drop out, a lot of their 'Never Trump' support will go to Haley who could see her support increase 3x and would likely see an increase in donations as well - giving the networks more to talk about and how they can relate it to Trump. If Phillips drops out right now Williams picks up a point or two at best, doesn't see any increase in donations because of it, and there is zero effect on Biden being the nominee again - another non-story that won't bring in ratings and increased advertising dollars.

If Williamson can't get an interview I think it says more about her and her campaign that can't get out of the polling basement than it does about the media who primarily care about viewers and selling advertising or product. She doesn't sell. She did better in '20 so it's not like she didn't ever have exposure or the chance. After the debates in '19 the New York Times (big, MSM) said "It feels insane to say this, but Williamson out-debated virtually everyone else on the stage. She gave a compelling answer on reparations and returned again and again to the most important issue for Democratic voters, beating Trump." She just couldn't capitalize on those types of opinions to build her support for '24. Is Williamson getting airtime/talked about on more progressive media outlets like TYT, Democracy Now, independent pundits with decent sized YouTube and social media followings, etc.? If not, why? It's not because of her policy proposals which are popular with progressives and progressive media.

Maybe those accounts from former staffers of her last campaign where they described her as "toxic," "traumatic," and "terrifying" (obviously polar opposite of her message of love that she puts out) had an effect? She also lost a lot of staff this past June including her campaign manager (never a good sign). Maybe like G.W. Bush being tagged a "wimp," Hilary as "shrill," Williamson can't shake the "New Age kook" label she's been tagged with and that turns off certain voters? Who knows? Maybe if she tries in '28 when the field will be open again without an incumbent running she'll be able to get some traction and break through, but it ain't happening this election or it already would have.

Like in '20 with the GOP having an incumbent nominee running, certain state Dem parties may have decided to save the expense of holding primaries being that it's a foregone conclusion and figured it'd be a better use of funds to use the money against Trump in the general. In an election where he's not even the incumbent Trump is trying to do the same thing using that same logic and not only cancel primaries, but debates as well. FAIK, general elections are funded by the federal govt. whereas state primaries are funded by the state parties. I can see how not holding primaries could be taken as being "undemocratic." From the parties footing the bill and looking to beat their opponents perspective it's probably more of a practical and strategic decision. Could be both at the same time.

It's interesting to note that in three days it'll be exactly four years ago when Williamson dropped out of the race and pledged to support the Dem nominee. An optimistic way to look at it is to think that most of her 10% of support will go to Biden because they're more anti-Trump than 'Never Biden' (and don't have any other candidate to support), whereas the Trump challenger's supporters are at least somewhat more likely to be 'Never Trump' and a larger percentage of them will sit the election out if Trump's the nominee. Some say to wait until the election is less about an abstract referendum on Biden (reflected in current polling) and boils down to a concrete either/or choice. Who knows at this point? It's like oddsmakers trying to predict who'll win the Super Bowl in March '25.

Bernie at whatever age he's at seems sharp as a tack.

I'd take feisty for all the right reasons grandpa any day over crazy, cranky, mentally ill asshole grandpa or uninspiring grandpa who thinks we're still living in an age where bipartisanship works.

Then why do the candidates with an equally miniscule amount of support on the GOP side get airtime? It's because their competing in an open race without an incumbent and where the front runner is the media's cash cow. Williamson got airtime in the last election when the Dems had an open race, all of the candidates were running against an incumbent, and Dem voters were interested in who was running. MSM and news doesn't cover her because there's nothing new about her to cover, just like they didn't cover any of Trump's GOP challengers in the '20 election. It's like trying to get people who live in an area with the same weather every single day to spend time watching the weather forecaster. News is plural for that which is new.

Media is a business. They sell airtime and the rates they charge are solely based on ratings. Nobody wants to watch a single digit candidate running against an incumbent, esp. if that candidate isn't doing anything different from what they saw them do last time they failed break through. Even in '20 when media darling Trump was the incumbent his single digit challengers didn't get airtime. It's a business model to create and cover a horse race that gets people to tune in tomorrow to see what happens next, not a grand conspiracy.

I'm aware of Williamson and her views. Obviously you are. She has as much access to social media as any other candidate. TYT, Democracy Now, and all sorts of progressive independent pundits with thriving podcasts/YouTube channels and viewership can have her on. Media is so compartmentalized now that you don't need CNN or MSNBC to get your message out. Candidates don't have to rely on CNN to break through like bands no longer have to rely on record companies for a career.

I think it's less the media's fault and more the fact that America is a center-right nation. Anyone who watched the debates in '19 saw her and heard her views but not enough people are interested in what she's selling. I don't blame CNN if a candidate is selling something very few people are interested in buying. CNN is selling airtime and they know their audience is mainstream and centrist. They know what sells and what doesn't as far as getting eyeballs to watch their programming. CNN is not a progressive leaning network so I have no expectations of them putting progressives on when that's not what their audience is interested in watching. It's like expecting a death metal festival to book a bunch of jambands. It's not a conspiracy to keep jambands down, it's a business decision based on understanding their audience in order to have a better chance at being profitable. Candidates don't rely on CNN/MSNBC to give them free advertising. They buy time to run commercials. If you want to be on the news, do something newsworthy. Vivek gets on the news by saying crazy shit that the media can get outraged over and they talk about him becuase they know their audience gets triggered. Asa Hutchinson doesn't and he's ignored by the news. Williamson is more like Hutchinson than Vivek.

I'd also place more blame on her for not being the greatest candidate, which isn't an easy thing to be. Hilary had all the CNN/MSNBC but couldn't overcome the fact that she just wasn't a good candidate. In center-right America not enough people like what Williamson is selling. People think she's a New Age kook. Anyone who has been paying attention had to be put off at least a bit by the accounts told by former staff that describe her as being "toxic, traumatic, and terrifying" to work for which is hypocritical to the image of herself she's trying to put out and which she's selling as the solution for the country. I don't think her message is bad, I just think she's not that great of a messenger. Give the same lines to Pauley Shore and Robert DeNiro and you get different results based on their skills. Blaming the media or others for her failures to break through seems to ignore her faults and the desires of the American electorate.

Ok I read both of those posts and it's going to be too exhausting to address everything but I think this last post I made is needs to be said again.

Williamson has been polling in DOUBLE digits all over the place in a presidential race, idk why that point seems to vanish into the ether but I'm damn sure that should earn a person some acknowledgement that they exist from every major news source. The only one that ever had her on was Fox because they thought it might hurt Biden.

Also, this suggestion that America is center-right is just not correct. We're mostly on the left. Unfortunately everybody doesn't vote and right wing people end up getting elected.