Even having had time to prepare for this, and knowing it was essentially inevitable, this feels heavy in a way that I'm not sure how to express yet.
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
345 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19223 readers
3085 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He needs to spend every free minute between now and his last day seating judges. Fuck blue slips. Appoint until there’s not a vacancy to be found.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Yeah, the Dems better not fuck up this hard pivot!
It doesn’t have to be hard. Harris should go to the top of the ticket, and the campaign apparatus stays the same.
Have her, a former prosecutor, debate Trump and treat that shit like a cross examination.
And make Sanders the VP to make me excited.
Sanders is too old. God love him, but it would not inspire confidence. If we're going for a prominent progressive on the ticket, we'd have to go AOC.
More likely though, Harris will pick someone who is an old white moderate male, though, unfortunately.
There's a difference between old and senile and ordinary old. Bernie is just old
Yeah but the uncommitted voter is a moron.
When you're in your 80s, decline can come about VERY quickly and without warning. It, unfortunately, is much more of a concern than it was in 2016.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
It is, and always has been, in the hands of the voters. It's the non-voters who fuck it up.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(31 replies)
So, now we get to see how many “blue no matter who”’s actually meant it.
Remember folks, it applies to anyone who might be the candidate.
That over…. Harris/AOC or Harris Whitmer !!
If the blue pick is a broken toaster oven, I'm still voting for it rather than tump
I'd vote for a battered cardboad cutout of Reagan over Trump. Hell. I'd vote for a cardboard cut out of trump over trump.
(cardboard cut outs can't talk.)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Kamala all the way! It won't be AOC or Whitmer though. Most likely Kelly or Newsom. AOC is the future, though.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(26 replies)
I'm sure this was a really hard decision, but it shows courage and strength that Biden put his own ego aside for the good of the country...
...is what I would have said if he'd done this two weeks ago. Now, I'm just glad he was able to take off his narcissism glasses long enough to see how badly he was going to lose, and I hope his prolonged tantrum hasn't damaged Harris' chances too badly.
I wouldn't say this is bad timing in hindsight.
- The news media moves on from Trump's pity party, the debate, the President Putin and Vice President Trump gaffes.
- Facing COVID, Biden has a legitimate reason to drop out without saying that he is weak to pressure
- Trump is now the old and doddering candidate, turning much of the past brainwashing of Republican media on its head.
- Trump will get bigly mad since the attention's going to be off of him. Potential for a stupid outburst.
- The media will be hyperfocused on what's to come from the Dem campaign, an excellent opportunity to highlight Biden's achievements and articulate a bright future for the party and country.
- The pre-emptive smears from Republicans are on their way, but the Dems are a moving target until they officially announce the ticket.
It relies on Democrats getting the message right though they'd faltered before. They get one more chance to fix it in this soft reset.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
If Kamala does become the new nominee, I wonder how hard Trump will fight to avoid debating her.
Shit would be funny as hell to watch. Trump would be balling by the end.
Why do you refer to the female candidate with her first name and the male candidate with his last name? The same thing regularly happens with Clinton. I assume the casual disrespect is not intentional but I'm very curious as to why this happens.
I think people tend to choose the more unique/recognizable name to call candidates by. For example, we also call Bernie Sanders by his first name more often than his last. “Harris” is a more common name than “Kamala”. “Clinton” could be confused for Bill, but “Hillary” isn’t going to be mistaken. I don’t think it has anything to do with the candidate’s gender.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Harris" is a more common name than "Kamala", and "Donald" is a more common name than "Trump". This is just my opinion, but I think Kamala is a more powerful sounding name than Harris, and that helps with her image as a stern prosecutor who wants to crush injustice towards women.
"Clinton" refers (in most people's minds) to Hillary's husband Bill moreso than Hillary herself. In her campaign, she leveraged her first initial for her slogan "I'm with Her" with the stylized right-pointing arrow in the H. For her, it seems to be her choice and more clear. For Harris, it just seems to be because "Kamala" sticks out in people's minds more than her last name.
They want to signal that they’re close to them, like Springsteen fans calling him “Bruce”.
Give me a Jon Stewart / Katie Porter ticket!
Make it Harris / Stewart.
Harris up top because she’s already on the ballot, has Biden / Harris war chest, and won’t get as fucked with by republicans who try to block a new name.
Jon Stewart has said he'd never run and I believe him, unfortunately
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'd forgotten what hope felt like.
Assuming the new candidate(probably Harris) avoid any major disasters as does Trump, we’ll be returning to the May 2024 status quo of things. Harris is more popular than post-debate Biden, was slightly behind pre-debate Biden, and will probably need a month to get back there(winning the nomination and undoing all the damage from 4 weeks of infighting.)
On the plus side, that’ll drop the hemorrhaging, New Mexico and New Jersey safe, Virginia and Minnesota probably safe. On the downside at this point Georgia and North Carolina are lost, there just isn’t time and the Republicans spent 4 years pouring resources into them.
This is back to the main 5. Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The important factor is that if they lose Pennsylvania, they lose. They can win the other 4 here, but it’s 268-270. Unless they snag something extra like Georgia(unlikely in this scenario), that’s it.
If they win Pennsylvania, they need at least two others in ideal circumstances(Michigan needs to be one of the two and Nevada can’t be one of the two, second one would have to be Wisconsin or Arizona), 3 others in unideal circumstances if Michigan isn’t there and they get Nevada. I should also note several of these scenarios are razor thin (270-268 with Pensylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and 271-267 with Arizona instead) and thus vulnerable to faithless electors. Or worse, if Maine’s statewide went red(which is more likely than Georgia going blue or Virginia going red at this point) the former would be a win and the latter would be a tie. In the tie scenario the House picks the president(so Trump) and the Senate picks the Vice President(so Vance would be ousted) which would be an absolute nightmare and gambling on Trump dying in that situation isn’t worth it.
I note this because even in the base line May scenario Pennsylvania was one of the worse polling one for democrats(Arizona and Wisconsin were the blue edging ones), and Pennsylvania is not a state where the stars are aligning. It was Biden’s home state, Scranton boy, him being off the ticket hurts things there probably more than they help. AND, while it’s true nationwide the post-shooting bump for Trump was relatively minor, Pennsylvania is where the shooting happened and has gotten the largest bump in the polls since, 3 or 4 points. Biden leaving demotivates the base there harder than anywhere else in the county and the Trump shooting re-motivated the base there harder than most.
My call? If they don’t pick Shapiro or Whitmer, it’s over 100%, and even with it’s iffy. Pennsylvania is perhaps the one state where any replacement is going to do worse than Biden even post-debate, and the one state the Trump shooting caused a notable bump. What are the odds it’s also the single most crucial state in this election?
I disagree. Harris is basically polling within the margin of error of Biden, that's true, but she's also been the incredible invisible woman basically forever. It's to the point that really the best the republicans can do against her atm is ads that amount to "LOOK AT HER LAUGHING >:{". There's good and bad there, but the positives outweigh the negatives in that she's something of a known quantity at the national level, she's got experience in the executive branch, and she really doesn't have much baggage to speak of while still being able to claim Biden's wins. If the democrats lean in behind Harris, get her polished up and just re-tool the Biden campaign for her, and she goes swinging out of the gate, I think she'll make for a strong contender.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›