...it's not part of the poll.

That quote comes directly from the poll you linked.

...that means their floor is where Biden is.

That's a specious conclusion you're jumping to because it supports your biases. With out more information it's more likely that once the respondents know who the candidates are the overall responses will fall in line with the population averages and the candidates polling results will be the same as they are now.

All we can confidently conclude for now is "39%-71% of people polled don't know who the candidates in the polls were".

You kind of buried the lede there:

Overall, these results show that voters continue to be concerned about Biden’s age — but there is not yet clear evidence that an alternative nominee would significantly outperform him against Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

That's evidence that some candidates poll similarly to Biden.

That's not evidence the best thing Biden can do to stop Trump from becoming president is drop out.

Please provide some evidence to support your claim that the best thing Biden can do to prevent Trump getting elected is to step aside.

That is what should happen when a starting capacitor fails, but it doesn't always happen as it's supposed to.

Another possibility is the starting capacitor for the compressor motor is bad.

If the capacitor is bad then the compressor motor won't actually start, but the fan will still turn on. This will make it seem like the AC unit is running, but there won't actually be any cooling going on. The fans will still blow air, and it'll feel slightly cooler because it's moving air, but it won't actually be cooler.

Replacing capacitors is pretty easy and not too expensive. However, it can be extremely dangerous so I recommend you leave it to the professionals unless you have some experience working with electricity.

What a weird and nonsensical leap to make.

Good luck folks, I think each server having it's own identity and it's own place is something that makes the fediverse great.

You just said a lot of things that are wrong in a very short amount of time, try to fact check yourself instead of spreading FUD and misinformation.

This is the only thing I'm going to correct, you can fix yourself on the rest:

So voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't work. We've done that for the past 50 years...

No we haven't. We vote for the lesser of two evils every other election or so, then get butt hurt and stop voting because Clinton's emails, or because Gore is boring, or some other dumbass reason like that.

To clarify, that case was thrown out becuase plaintiffs lacked standing. I guess that counts as the DNC winning?

In Wilding v DNC:

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries the DNC and its chairwoman improperly tipped the scales in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was challenging Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

This website reports a similar quote about replacing candidates though with more context:

[I]f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva

That isn't the entire quote and it seems to be missing some important context. The link to the transcript is dead unfortunately.

Even if that is the complete context:

• I don't know if what Spiva is saying is legally true. As the Trump trial has shown us just because a lawyer argues something in court does not mean it's true or legal.
• Assuming what Spiva is saying was true then and is still true now, he also says "And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions." I'm not 100% sure what this means because of the missing context, but it seems to imply simply picking the candidate in a cigar filled room would have brought legal trouble to the DNC.

It's still not clear the DNC can unilaterally replace Biden as the candidate without his consent. If they did it would open a whole host of new problems, the least of which is how do the pick the new nominee now that nearly all states have already held their primaries.

Saying "it's a simple thing that has to happen, just do it DNC" is just blatant misinformation.

Also, Spiva appears to no longer work for the DNC. It isn't clear if their current counsel holds the same opinion.

But one DNC lawyer’s argument actually tries to justify the party’s right to be biased on behalf of one primary candidate over another, according to an article from The Young Turks. In other words, they could have chosen their nominee over cigars in a backroom. That’s what the attorney reportedly said in a Florida federal court:

Do you have a more reliable source than "a laywer said"? Do you know which lawyer is alleged to have said it? Do you know if that lawyer is still working for the DNC? Have the DNC bylaws changed sine 2017 when this quote is alleged to be from?

You're making a lot of assumptions based on a poorly sourced anonymous quote from 7 years ago.

They're the mascot for confidently incorrect.

Fuck you, yes we can

K

K

Are you voting for time travel so you can travel back to the 1940s, become supreme leader of Israel, and change the 70 years of Israeli domestic policy that has led us to this point?

Honestly I think they're just to pretend like that doesn't exist. I would be interested to hear their stance on it though.

There isn't a lot of self consistency with the conservative logic around abortion. Abortion is murder to them, but they drive by abortion clinics every day and do nothing. You'd think a building dedicated to murdering children would demand a stronger response.

Abortion is murder, but it's okay to murder the child if it wasn't conceived under the right conditions.

Abortion is murder, but we can leave it up to the states to decide when it's murder and when it's okay.

Just a lot of mental gymnastics.

They've backed themselves into an ideological corner.

For years the right has campaigned against abortion on the premise that "life begins at conception". Because of this stance IVF puts them into a tricky situation: continue to maintain their extreme view that life begins at conception and oppose IVF, or accept IVF and concede that life doesn't begin at conception.

If they accept IVF then that undermines their entire argument against abortion, which is obviously not a choice you make if your goal is to make all abortions illegal. So conservstives take the ridiculous stance that IVF embryos are babies, and since some embryos are lost during the IVF process, IVF must be murder.

That's very true, I should of said "from a civility standpoint it's an improvement".

Pretty much every Trump debate has been like this. This one was actually an improvement from 2020 and 2016 because his microphone was turned off so he wasn't able to just yell over the other person and constantly interrupt.

Newsome would have to resign as Governor and I'm not sure he wants to do that for a long shot presidential campaign.

Newsome polls very poorly against Trump and he also isn't very popular in his home state as Governor.