this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
864 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18853 readers
5164 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VinnyDaCat 58 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I'm not complaining but I'm genuinely wondering if the dnc has been holding this woman back. I feel like I haven't seen this fire coming from her before and I'm loving it.

[–] UNY0N 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I'm starting to think this was a pre-planned bait and switch. Let MAGA and the Russian trolls waste thier energy and money going after Biden, painting him as old and senile. Then Kamala comes in and goes all scorched-earth on Trump.

Whether it was planned or not is not all that important though, the result is a thing of beauty.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago

It may be comforting to think that, but I reckon it genuinely took them by surprise just how unable he was to perform under pressure. He may be able to hold a normal conversation in a small room with a couple of people, but get the lights on him, him own voice being amplified around and a live broadcast, and the man just wasn't able to compete. He looked weak and old.

While Trump lives for that. He's a fucking gameshow host. His ideal dinner date would be himself, but louder. What he actually says is incoherent nonsense, but he's loud and aggressive and the MAGA hats lap that shit up.

[–] MataVatnik 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don't think that was pre planned. But I think waiting for Trump to officially accept the nomination as republican candidate was a deliberate move. The timing was almost too on the nose, and it seems some people already knew Biden was going to drop out before that.

Maybe this shit was all stewing in Kamalas head for years and she's just unloading off her chest lmao. But in truth I hope thus is the result of a competent team, cause I want this to keep coming. Fucking tired of being nice to Trump supporters after they acted like absolute pieces of shit for years.

[–] UNY0N 4 points 1 month ago

I agree, that's absolutely plausible. I don't pretend to know enough to talk about likelyhoods and probability.

All that really matters is that the switch happened.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

I don't think it was pre-planned until the terrible debate performance.

Having said that, I definitely think they timed his dropping out to be after the GOP convention, and even after the Sunday political shows. That timing was just too perfect to be a coincidence. The GOP spent the entire convention focusing on the wrong target. Then the Sunday politics shows happened. Then immediately after that came the announcement he was dropping out, and almost at the same time he was endorsing Kamala.

I suspect he knew he was dropping out weeks before he announced it, mainly because the way everybody endorsed Kamala has been so seamless. The democrats are famous for looking disorganized, and having their fights in public. I strongly suspect they went to many key democrats and did whatever wheeling and dealing was needed for them to endorse Kamala when Biden dropped out, while making sure to keep it quiet.

Because it's hard to keep secrets, it was probably a relatively small group of people who knew. But, I'd guess that at least 10 key democrats were informed early and brought on board.

[–] raspberriesareyummy 1 points 1 month ago

I just had that thought yesterday because it surprised me how well this played out. Glad I am not the only one :)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

My assumption is that they wanted to keep Biden's "Centralist" persona. Biden probably wants to work with MAGA.

Kamala doesn't, for good reason.

Why work with mofos who proudly wear shit like this?

[–] Machinist 6 points 1 month ago

Im wearing a straw hat. I'm a a southern man. She aint perfect, lot of cop in her.

Better than what we had . We need to pull for her.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course they were holding her back. I don't think there's any argument they weren't.

If she had been out and doing town hall events, it would have drawn attention to the fact that Biden wasn't doing those things. Normally an energetic VP is a great partner who can double the number of events a candidate can do. But, the Biden campaign was too worried about her making him look old and feeble.

[–] pyre 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

she probably has been, but it doesn't get coverage because no one ever cares about VPs.

except for Cheney probably but that's another story.

[–] Buddahriffic 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Actually, now that I think about it, Pence is the only other VP i can think of in the last few decades that got as little attention as Kamala. Biden and Cheney were both more on the radar when they were VP. With Gore, I'm not sure, since my biggest memory of him was running against W.

[–] pyre 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Biden didn't get as much attention as Cheney, but had his moments because he kept swearing and making weird remarks.

also he jumped the gun on marriage equality while Obama was dancing around civil unions so forced his hand into supporting gay marriage...

but still no one really cared about him making speeches, especially since the president was Obama, one or the best orators in our lifetime, regardless of what you may think of his policies.

which reminds me, Harris does seem to be drawing from his style a bit. not as obviously as buttigieg tries to, but she seems to be subtly using some of the rhetorical devices. her speech that "we're not going back" was pretty good. she also said (i think in another speech) that "we want to ban assault rifles; they want to ban books". she's getting good at it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Bush Senior did enough as a VP that he was elected to follow Reagan. Bush Sr. chose Quayle as his VP, but that guy was such a lightweight that he became a laughingstock and nobody really cared what he did. Clinton and Gore really did seem like a partnership. Gore was doing some pretty visible things as VP and Clinton didn't mind sharing the spotlight. Cheney was pretty infamous as a VP.

It's more the last 2 VPs that were relatively low profile. With Biden that wasn't much of a surprise, he was an older dude chosen for his connections serving under a very charismatic guy who was a great orator. With Pence... well I don't think it's any surprise that the spotlight was on Trump, and that Trump didn't want to actually give Pence anything to do.

[–] pyre 1 points 1 month ago

there's no reason to engage in conspiracy theories. she's been a VP to a walking corpse for 4 years, and she's probably been getting ready for this the entire time... they say VPs are "a heartbeat away" from presidency for good reason, and Biden at his best didn't look like he had many of those left.

she's always been personable in interviews, but her podium speech needed work. she's probably been working on it, and mind that she's been campaigning and speaking this whole time; it's just that the media never cared because she was just a VP... 4 years of practice can do a lot of good.