The post notably included the statement:

that’s not the kind of thing that should happen without the community agreeing to it

With no voices in support in the original post and currently the only two voices in support here being the mods themselves.

If promising some more progressive policy was a clear winner, why wouldn’t they do it? The answer I generally see implied or stated is that the dem establishment doesn’t want that policy, but that isn’t really an adequate explanation, because politicians are perfectly familiar with dishonesty. If supporting some progressive policy they didn’t like would win them power, they’d just promise it and then just not do that thing upon getting elected.

Because their personal motivations are not “maximize the chances for a Democratic win”, but preserve the power of themselves and their allies with money and influence. If these policies become a centerpiece of the election and broadly popularized, it becomes dangerous to ignore it and advances the saliency regardless of the outcome, pushing it closer to someone actually doing it. A campaign that says “the rich are abusing workers to fill their pockets and the government should tax their wealth until there are no billionaires and provide benefits to the workers” is dangerous to the rich people, even if its initially proposed by someone with no intention of following through.

The people you want to blame aren’t here in a politics community. Maybe a few posters here did a protest vote, probably in a safe state where it didn’t matter, but most people here voted. The people who didn’t vote (in numbers meaningful to winning) weren’t sitting down to think about what the world would be like in each outcome and then saying “eh, it’s fine either way”, they were marginal voters who just didn’t really think it was important because politicians either don’t care about them or don’t follow through on promises. They’re just going to check out when you call them or the other politician names, because it’s a tiring endeavor that they don’t care about. You definitely have people in your life that say “they’re not political” and check out as soon as politics is brought up. You’re never going to reach those voters by expressing your disdain in a forum for politically engaged people, the only way to get to them is to actually motivate them to vote en masse with legit campaigns to inspire them that their lives will get better if they take this action.

Trump doing things to women whether they like it or not is kind of his whole deal.

A license that requires source. And since then there have been many different licenses, all with the same requirement. Giving someone a binary for free and saying they’re allowed to edit the hex codes and redistribute it doesn’t mean it’s open source. A license to use and modify is necessary but not sufficient for something to be open source. You need to provide the source.

“Open source” is not a license, it’s a description. Things can be free with no license restrictions and still not be “open source”.

A freely available and unencumbered binary (e.g., the model weights) isn’t the same thing as open-source. The source is the data. You can’t rebuild the model without the data, nor can you verify that it wasn’t intentionally biased or crippled.

It’s a fine sample size. That’s a normal national poll. A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error (from random sampling) of 3%. There are other errors than random chance that could bias a poll, but random chance is what sampling size is generally managing.

This is a story about protests and mask bans in the US and non-governmental actors can still be a threat to protesters in a “free” country.

This is obviously different in countries that are not free.

So… the US? People are regularly arrested for perfectly legal, not even a shadow of a doubt, activity at protests. And protesters are vulnerable to not just cops, but dangerous actors who support the thing they’re protesting against. Whether it’s doxing, billionaire-funded slander, your boss not liking the cause, or actual violence, there’s plenty of reason not to want your face to be easily identifiable, even while orderly protesting for a just cause. Never mind health concerns like not wanting to catch COVID (or breath tear gas).

The idea that orderly protesting is safe in the United States is incredibly naïve.

The pattern of Biden defenders saying everything is ok and this is a campaign by nefarious elites rather than a very broad concern across the whole swath of the party. The problem isn’t people saying they think Biden is going to lose, the problem is Biden is going to lose.

Or hear me out, they can just gaslight us more. That’ll turn things around for sure.

They should have been building Harris up for the last 4 years instead of giving her shit issues Biden didn’t want to deal with. They knew it was possible she’d be forced to lead the party, but they were just so singularly focused on Joe Biden like he was a regular president and his reputation was the only important thing to manage.

It’s also not just voting, but donations and volunteering. People don’t think Biden can win, so they’re directing efforts to other candidates. Exciting those that are already team players has real impacts.

Democrats need to be winning by 3-4% in the popular vote to overcome the electoral college bias. Maybe he’s squeaking by in the popular vote isn’t enough to win.

who can else beat him at this point, but the Democrat who actually beat him four years ago

50 other Democrats, like Joe Biden himself said. This isn’t a close election because people love Joe Biden, it’s because they hate Donald Trump. Trump isn’t some electoral force of nature, he’s a weak candidate who’s had the fortune to run against another weak candidate (now and in 2016). There isn’t a big focus on “double-haters” in normal elections. Most people don’t want these candidates.

She can just say Biden made the decisions, because it’s true. Forget how Fox propagandizes things. If you think they have that power to shape reality, we’ve already lost. Everyone else will take a statement of “that was something I disagreed with, but it was Joe’s choice” at face value, because we all know VPs are powerless.

Obama didn’t have a real primary challenger either, or Clinton before him. There’s nothing unusual about an incumbent president not being challenged. Where they fucked up was treating it as business as usual when the president’s age was such a big risk.

broken system that heavily favors super-delegates

This is years out of date nonsense.

The time for this was during primary elections for the Democratic nominee, not now. Doing it now undermines the rule of law

And this is incoherent. There’s no “law” involved in any of this. If Biden leaves the race it will be from him withdrawing, which is a totally by the books option in Democratic internal rules.

Just another Obama bro turning against our beautiful president.

538 has an explanation on their site about why it’s not moving. Essentially they’re so far out they heavily discount current polls and events. We’re effectively seeing their baseline result with some previous races and economic measures tweaking things a little.