This stupid topic again
But sure
I will vote for any Democrat but I would prefer it not be Kamala
I preferred not to vote for Biden but he turned out to be a good president.
He turned out to be a decent president, except for the massive, glaring failure to build any sort of meaningful bulwark against fascism. He had, like, the absolute best justification and mandate to aggressively crack down on the neofascists with Jan 6, but he pussyfooted around and dragged his feet on fucking everything so much that basically nothing has been dealt with or constructively changed since the coup attempt occurred.
I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn’t. That’s so efficient.
There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.
Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.
There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.
Go on
Well he has absolute immunity now. Could hang them all on the Whitehouse lawn. /s
/s ?
The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.
A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.
This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.
SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.
That’s why if Biden were to ever use this power, he’d have to go after SCOTUS first.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.
The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.
SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.
What should he have done against fascism?
Well, not picking an AG with no interest in prosecuting perpetrators of a literal fucking coup attempt would have been a start.
Very true. I’m wondering if Garland is still holding out hope that he somehow gets on SCOTUS, as well.
I’m not exactly excited about Harris, but putting a former prosecutor in office at least makes me think she couldn’t possibly put in a worse AG than Garland, at a time when we desperately need a firebrand in the position.
Plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong though 🙄
He’ll be remembered fondly if he doesn’t fuck up this election (i.e. not stepping aside).
But what if he doesn’t step aside and wins reelection?
Yeah that’d work too. But it won’t happen.
Pack it up bois, newnewaccount called it. We are done here.
Instead of pissing about how it won’t happen go do something else why don’t you? Your usefulness here - Now - has run its course.
For the millionth time: every time they’ve done it before, they lost in a landslide. NOT stepping aside is the marginally better play.
And as a voter more on the DNC side of the floor, after the news today I weep for the next 40 years in America.
All 2 times this happened before? If that’s the best argument you have for running a candidate that is clearly too old both for campaigning and for the presidency, I think I would take my chances for a third try.
The best play is to roll the die on a real progressive but there’s no data to back it up because there is no time to test it.
deleted by creator
If you don’t mind Genocide, i guess
I would vote for any viable candidate not Trump. I would prefer not Biden and not Harris. In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican… but there seems to be a distinct lack of them.
I’d vote for AOC though. She reminds me of the principled republicans of yore, albeit with different views
In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican…
This is a trap. Even with a “sane” Republican in office, the administration will still work to accomplish the policy goals of the GOP.
Yup, Project 2025 is not just Trump and a few MAGA extremists, it’s signed off on by all the right-wing think tanks. If people want to avoid Project 2025 they need to make sure Republicans are out of power for multiple election cycles at a minimum.
How about implementing Ranked choice voting so there is a chance Republicans would vote for a more moderate group of people ?
I’m all for ranked choice, there’s no real downside. I think though that Republicans, rather than become less extreme, would simply challenge ranked choice when it started to benefit the left. They are actually doing this now in Alaska, where there is ranked choice voting and they’re trying to make it illegal with a ballot initiative.
They’d have to have their judicial power reduced I think. With the extremist supreme court there isn’t much in the regard that would stand I don’t think. Could be wrong though.
Yes, this. No Republicans at all should be allowed into office. Ever. Don’t let them fool you, the agenda marches on regardless if they are “moderate” or “reasonable” or not.
Basically all sane republicans have been pushed off the national stage in the last 8 years.
There’s never really been such a thing. Anyone who would be an old school republican today has just become an obstructionist right-wing democratic, so arguably worse than a Republican because they sabotage from the inside.
Besides McCain, which notable sane republican existed in the Obama era?
Pre-Obama we were dealing with the Bush-era neocons.
They haven’t been sane for at least the last twenty years.
Compared to today’s Republicans, I’d argue Mitt Romney was relatively sane, though he’s still quite problematic.
Sane in a, “I’m a total Mormon and all the shit that comes with that” type way. I blame the Bible belt for mainstreaming mormonism.
Oh for sure, and he was very deep into Mormonism too, but at least he’s not an out-and-out Nazi and has been very vocally against Trump.
Which ones were sane in the Ronnie Raygun era? Most of the Bush team were retreads from those days.
I would not say they were “sane” per se, it’s just that they’ve been replaced by even more overt bare-faced extremists. The Overton window on what is extremely right wing keeps getting pushed more and more to the right. A loud mouth performative asshole they believe is beyond punishment due to his “billions” has given them a permission structure to be who they always really wanted to be. These are the people that didn’t understand that Archie Bunker was supposed to be a parody, not a hero.
In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican
I can’t think of a single one. Even the ones that pretended to be sane and were pushed out by the party were horrible.
I’d prefer a sane Republican
It’s funny to me that Biden is currently both the most liberal and the most conservative presidential candidate.
You would prefer a sane Republican but you praise AOC that is at the opposite end of the spectrum…
The thing I really admired about Republicans was that they had principles and held to them. AOC fits that bill. Plus, I believe that you have a right to your viewpoint even if I disagree with you.
The thing I really admired about Republicans was that they had principles and held to them.
🤨
In 1953 they did, yes
Some weird little holdouts like John McCain and Liz Cheney survived into the modern era, somehow, but they’re about as rare and as realistic in the modern-day GOP as Bernie Sanders and AOC are in the modern Democrats.
If you wanna be able to vote for Adam Kinzinger, say so. It sounds like a good idea to me. But don’t pretend it is because he is a Republican when his principles are exactly what got him run out of the Republican Party on a rail.
I mean, as a kid, it certainly appeared that they did to me.
And people with principles getting kicked out of the GOP for having a backbone is exactly why I am very hesitant to vote GOP at the moment.
As a conservative independent, I don’t /mind/ voting GOP but you have to give me a real candidate. I’m not going to vote for any republican who capitulates to Trump or endangers healthcare.
Like, I don’t personally believe we should be pushing LGBT or abortion. But if someone is actually LGBT or actually requires an abortion, we should treat them humanely because they are, well, humans.
What I really don’t like are the vote Republican or vote Democrat no matter what people. It’s contributing to the terrible political climate. Like I don’t like people who do things just for donors or votes. That’s where the principles come in. I want people who believe in what they are doing, or trust the people who know what they are doing.
At the risk of sounding like an asshole, everything seems simpler when you’re a child. I’d recommend going back and looking at the actual debate happening at the time with the eyes of an adult.
Not an asshole at all. In fact, you make a great point.
What principles exactly are you referring to?
Crushing union strikes with a joy in her eyes that you wish you had when you looked at your kids.
It doesn’t matter to me what principles. To me, even I disagree with them, having principles and holding to them is what I like in a politician.
And I hate everyone who tells me how to vote. Everyone voting who they actually believe in is how democracy works. You can disagree and debate, but at the end of the day everyone should be free to make their own decision and have their own opinion.
How does not caring what the principles are make any sense at all? You don’t have any principles if that how you think.
I have principles. I just don’t feel the need to broadcast them. And it’s irrelevant here because the point is I like people who have principles and stand by them - no matter what their viewpoint is. I may disagree with them, but I can respect that.
What I can’t stand are the spineless people who change their viewpoint at the drop of a hat.
principled republicans of yore
Is that before all the GoP and DNC switched sides over slavery?
I’m not that old, no
In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican… but there seems to be a distinct lack of them.
The three I can remember from the Trump years (Kinzinger, Cheney, and Romney) have pretty much been run out on a rail haven’t they? Republicans don’t want sane Republicans, and anyone who appears to be one is going to get ostracized within the party, or turn out to be just like all the rest.
They are walking around with bandages on their ears in solidarity with a man who immediately rushed to sell shitty Chinese shoes to commemorate and make a profit off of the assassination attempt which killed one of his own supporters. There are no sane Republicans. There are crazy Republicans, cowardly Republicans, and probably a few with Stockholm Syndrome. They let the inmates take over the asylum and there is no cleaning house now.
Yeah most conservatives who are republicans are getting pretty psychotic. The independents and the ones who switched to Democrat can still be okay though
Moderate Democrats like Harris are like broccoli. Nobody really wants it, it’s not the highlight of the meal, but you need your veggies to get the proper nutrients to fight fascism. (Plus, if your diet has too little fiber you end up full of shit.)
Eat your broccoli!
Instructions were unclear, Secret Service did not approve of me nibbling on Kamala Harris’s elbow.
Kamala looks like she might enjoy it
I never would have picked her. But the excitement and unity she’s inspiring in like 2 days time is undeniable. It almost feels like a bad tv show plot twist.
If they replace Kamala then they lose the black vote, so that is not happening.
This is one of the single most oversimplified political analyses I ever have seen
And it is correct as we just seen.
I’d vote for AOC, tbh
Bernie is too old, she’d be my top pick in Congress by far.
But the Party probably wants to go maximum hail corporate neoliberal, especially when there isn’t a pesky primary to deal with, because thats what they’re paid to do.
You know, someone who will come to continue to protect our beloved economy… from our society and the needs of our people. Better than fascism, but just extending the meaningless subsistence in service to the owner class.
AOC isn’t even in the conversation though. I think she’d face fierce opposition to even getting the nomination. She’s a pretty divisive figure.
She’s a pretty divisive figure.
Not for anything she does, AFAICT.
Republicans are terrified of her. She’s young, attractive, charismatic, outspoken, and intelligent to say nothing of her being a woman of color. They are giving her the full Hillary treatment. It seems like she’ll be a bit harder for them to tarnish that way, but not for lack of trying.
Yes, I agree, but we ought to draw a distinction between someone who acts divisively from someone who’s the target of the right-wing hate machine.
But we never do.
she’ll be a bit harder for them to tarnish that way
Well Hillary is only one or two of those traits you listed. I like Hillary, but she is not charismatic. I think she had good policy sense and could have been an excellent president, but policy doesn’t win elections.
I should be clear I’m talking about public perception here, not my personal opinions or any assessment of her policies.
When she voted to disallow train workers striking was pretty disheartening. Who’d expect someone so pro-worker to knock the teeth out of a union.
Probably voted that way because she was assured Biden would continue to hammer out a better deal for the rail union, which he did! Better healthcare, more PTO, and the addition of paid sick days!
Here’s the article right from the rail union thanking Biden for not giving up on their fight. https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid#:~:text=These 12 unions represent more,agreement for paid sick leave.”
The fact that she’s a conservative bogeyman is kind of besides the point. The neoliberal, corporate-friendly leadership of the DNC would NEVER let her get close to the nomination. They did the same thing to Bernie 8 and 4 years ago.
That’s exactly what I was referring to.
To be clear, the Democratic leadership is not all powerful. The people can push through a nominee leadership hates if we unite. But given the nature of this nomination process, party leaders have an exceptional amount of power this year, and the people have very little.
She’s a “radical” to centrists
“Centrists”
Hence the " "
Wha…what do you mean not in the conversation, you are literally conversing with someone about her, on a front page post about her. She is popular, and no presidential candidate has ever not been divisive. Not being trump is divisive.
The conversation among those who will decide the nominee. I’ve not heard anyone seriously discuss this outside of online forums.
not in the conversation, you are literally conversing
- big-c Conversation
- a comma is not a colon
- there are other adverbs
No its a little c
So what if she’s divisive? Trumps running mate called him hitler at one point. No one wanted Trump, he came in and won the voters hearts with his vision, grotesque as it may be for other people. People want certainty and vision in uncertain times.
Narrowly and due to lies, intimidation, and structural advantages the right has in this country. Wouldn’t work for the left.
Besides, I was just saying that we the people aren’t really making this decision, and the ones that are won’t pick AOC.
I get your point, but I was saying that the RNC was super anti-Trump to start
Oh well I actually agree that the left can push through a candidate that party leaders dislike if we got organized. But usually the left isn’t very good at that, and there’s no time to do so in this specific case.
@LibertyLizard @pearsaltchocolatebar
Lol, it’s what happens when you speak truth to power.
I’d vote for her because of a myriad of reasons though.
She is the future of the party.Maybe maybe not but there’s 0 chance she’ll be the nominee this year.
Agreed, it’s not in anyone’s interest to test the supreme court ATM.
I said it once here, a couple times before, & I’ve said it a few times in passing conversation in person. I would vote for AOC and I think she’s wonderful. 👍I like her too but I personally am not sure her popularity is broad enough to be president. But we’ll see. I hope you’re right.
She gets labeled as “divisive” because she’s a woman and she’s not a centrist. Name one woman who gets listed as a potential candidate and isn’t under this same garbage rhetoric.
To be clear, women can and should still be scrutinized, but not to the point where the only woman who would be a great presidential candidate is the most perfect candidate who ever lived.
She’s not old enough anyway, need to be 35 to be president, she’s 34
Downvoted for stating facts lmao
Hmm interesting, looks like she turns 35 in October. I’m assuming you have to be of age to run? Or is it to be elected? I’m actually not sure.
If you will be of age to serve before inauguration you are eligible, AOC is legally eligible to run for president.
Not to mention that she’d be 35 before the election.
On the day you take the oath of office. She could turn 35 on January 19th and it works.
Who knows, maybe she’ll give it a go next cycle
You also can’t be president if you participated in an insurrection after taking an oath, but here we are.
She IS old enough. She will be 35 before inauguration.
Why is he being downvoted for providing the correct answer?
Because it’s not correct, she would be 35 by the time she took office.
It is correct if you understand American politics. The candidates are officially nominated in August and she will still be 34 then.
The law says you have to be 35 to BE president, it says nothing of nomination. She would be fine by the time she was sworn in.
That’s not how it works Sonny Jim.
People don’t like facts, I guess
yeah but the democratic party would rather lose the election than nominate her.
AOC is standing with Biden, as is Bernie Sanders.
Fucking Fox and CNN are calling for Biden to step down.
That doesn’t seem strange to you?
not at all. Bernie and AOC are already hated by their party and they have no pull. openly calling for him to step down is not going to help anything, if not have an adverse effect. with biden insisting on staying all they can do is try to appeal to their progressive base who doesn’t like biden at all to vote for him because they know biden will depress the vote.
also i saw people on fox defending biden against these calls. it was basically “just let him run again dude, is he loses TFG gets to be president for 4 years then he’s gone forever… you can’t lose ONE election???” it was ridiculously desperate.
Oh so now when they’re supporting Biden they’re just liberal shills?
what? where did i say that?
You’re saying they’re only supporting biden in a cynical calculated move to try to help Democrats win. That’s what “liberal shill” usually means.
no it doesn’t. it’s not cynical to want to defeat the openly fascist candidate. why do u think Bernie told people to vote for Hillary in 2016? because he loved her policies so much?
And Katy Porter
I don’t want AOC to run yet. She’s got a long political career ahead of her and folks tend to bow out of politics after they’re president.
She would be an amazing elder statesperson after her time in office. I hope to some day see it.
Bruh, why are you getting excited about the idea of crusty old genocidal American beaurocrats who inevitably sell out? No US senator is a friend of mine.
Generalizations are neat. Sorry you hate Bernie Sanders.
We should bring back the idea of a former president running for senator. Show the world that the President isn’t any more special than Congress.
Just not anyone old enough to collect social security. We should also bring back the idea that retirement means actually not working anymore.
Is there any reason she couldn’t serve a different position after 2 terms as president?
No reason, it’s just the way things tend to be.
It’s she old enough right now? Can she be a candidate at 34 if she will be 35 before Jan?
Yes. The age requirement is for serving, not for running.
She’s 35 on October 13th. Fully qualified.
She’d be the best populist candidate, since Bernie is too close in age to Biden. I also think she could really drum up support with her charisma. The only way to fight a populist like Trump is with another populist. Remember how far Bernie got with his campaigns that refused to take corporate money?
Honestly, the only people that would get in her way are the same DINO Democrats who didn’t get behind Bernie. Funny how the progressives in the Democratic party are always the ones who are told to compromise and vote for the centrist and never the other way around.
I don’t think she could win even though I think she’s perfect. The US isn’t ready for a woman president, and a non-white one on top of that. I think that’d be pretty cool if Adam Schiff ran with her as his VP.
Why? Do you loathe organized labor and want to see them crushed to maximize corporate profits?
She’s done far more good than bad. This kind of purity testing is why the left in this country is so weak.
She’s not wrong.
Exactly. Like yeah girl spit your facts, but we will take what we can get and the age and health resilience are legitimate concerns we’ve been having. Kamala solves the age issue, that’s progress to me. I don’t want the president to be a puppet of someone who no one voted for.
Isn’t that all presidents, like, by definition? XD
If you want to make a spectrum of it sure, but the fact remains the more cognative function declines, the easier it is for bad actors to take advantage of them. Scammers target old people for the same reason, they’re more vulnerable.
I mean, like, structurally. The office of the president is not one that a person can occupy without becoming beholden to lobbyists.
Thats more a function of the economic system that creates people who have enough money to do that than the office itself. Regardless the above point still stands, it’s still easier to trick and take advantage of older people suffering mental decline.
I think lobbyists don’t pose all that much of a challenge. Americans are just used to corruption being ingrained in the political regime, but that’s due to the moral failings of so many of your elected officials.
It is, however, a lot of power in one chair - in the end of the day you need to trust your advisers and cabinet. If you lack experience in the job even more so. And if they are not competent and aligned with your interests, they might fall for lobbyism more easily.
The courts are bad now people think, wait till more seats are replaced.
People don’t understand what a big deal this is. Corrupting the trusted-by-tradition institutions like the courts is one way fascists can get the whole country in a chokehold.
Gunned down a bunch of BLM protestors? Eh, they were asking for it. Probation.
Climate change demonstration? 10 years
We’re already about 60% of the way there. It’s already happening that people are committing really major crimes and it’s okay if they’re on the right team.
VOTE
Ugh. I agree that Kamala sucks, but I think it’d be a mistake to try to go with anyone else at this point. She has a pulse, a functional brain, lots of political experience, a long life ahead of her, and yeah, she’s made some terrible decisions and gaffs in her career, just like Joe Biden.
I don’t like that she was a cop, but Joe Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary committee for like 100 years, and got us Clarence Thomas, so…nobody has the moral high ground here.
We just need to win, and frankly I think if we try to go with someone new and untested, we’ll lose. We’ve been in a “lesser of two evils” situation for some time now.
There’s weeks left to go 'til the convention, plenty of time to run an actual primary if the DNC wanted to.
Ideally, yeah, but think about the logistics of pulling something like that off. And would it be a full primary redo? Like fresh ballots sent out to all dems? Or do you mean a mini primary just with the existing delegates? Because we already voted in the Democratic primary election…
I’m just really trying to be pragmatic about this, I can’t imagine a scenario where we pull this off and come out stronger. I would love to be wrong.
Saying a month is “plenty” of time to plan and run any kind of election on a national level is so ridiculously out-of-touch I read it back like five times thinking maybe it was sarcastic. Off the top of my head there’s booking polling places, securing & training staff, voting machines, ballots that need to make their way through the entire supply chain starting all the way back at pre-production. Mail in ballots alone usually go out like a month ahead of time to compensate for issues with the mail.
At this point in time, there’s a higher probability of Superman flying around the world backwards to rewind time and correct the gunman’s aim to actually hit Trump at that rally than there is of the Democrats being able to successfully pull off a second primary in a month. And that’s not even to touch the “coming out stronger” piece of it, which again, no chance in hell that happens with the kind of chaos a second primary would cause.
People live in their fantasies, where national primary elections are just a cut and paste affair that takes two days to set up.
The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken news cycle. England can call for snap elections and install a new government just 25 days later, and that’s England.
Um OK but surely they already have policy, processes, and infrastructure in place to successfully execute it within that time frame. There’s a big difference between being already set up for it and the Dems randomly deciding that they’re going to run another primary next week.
I guess the USA just can’t handle it. We must be pretty weak.
That sounds like the party’s problem.
They should spend some of Biden’s PAC money on it.
England is also a much, much smaller country in terms of both size and population.
They have less GPD per capita too, but still manage it.
Probly just the superdelegates choosing in secret, like they threaten too if they don’t like the public vote. If their going to only be Democratic when it’s convenient, they might as well as course correct. I am for replacing Biden, but if they are even talking about it now they best get a move on. Apathy is gaining ground every second they are not at the wheel.
Probly just the superdelegates choosing in secret, like they threaten too if they don’t like the public vote.
Feeling free yet?
If we used Ranked choice voting, then we could simply switch to the next in line. That is, if the democrats would grace us with a primary.
Please sir, but a scrap of representative democracy.
If there is an actual primary, it will not be with actual voters, but amongst the named delegates (99% of whom are pledged to Biden and are obligated to vote for him of he is still in the race) and the superdelegates.
But only Harris can keep the funds accumulated for Biden’s campaign, right? Wouldn’t make much sense to go for another candidate I think…
I’m not confident how this stuff works, because it’s dumb as hell, but any PAC can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the campaign. The Biden-Harris PAC can just use their money to support whoever the Democrats choose I believe. It doesn’t have to be spent supporting either of them.
Given the source of most campaign financing in the USA, I’d actually prefer a candidate who refuses to touch PAC money.
“The only candidate I like is the one who has no chance of winning!”
Fucking leftists getting played like a fiddle by purity testing.
Yeah, “Purity testing” like asking for left candidates to actually be left and not just more center-right neoliberals.
You fuckers call everyone center-right. By your insane definition, the Democratic party is center right so you should stop demanding they put up a candidate that statistically no one in the country wants.
By your insane definition, the Democratic party is center right
That’s most of the world’s definition. America has a conservative party and a right-wing nutjob party.
If you don’t like facts, you’re going to hate it when I start pointing out policy differences between them and left-of-center parties. XD
I don’t think there time for an actual primary. I’d favor an open convention tbh.
You’re right and I wish they would, but I have near zero faith in their willingnes, ability, and coordination.
plenty of time to run an actual primary
Look at what a practical idea this is
As with other things e.g. Bernie Sanders as the nominee, there actually is a sensible option here, which is running a contested convention… it is highly notable to me that a lot of the people offering such constructive criticism on this topic are so studiously avoiding those sensible strategies when they are trying to “help”
I dunno, there are actually quite a few sensible and practical ideas in this thread, your thread, btw. Your post has elicited a good discussion, why throw shade on the people earnestly participating? If you actually want a contested convention, this thread is nothing compared to some of the wild shit that would go down in that scenario.
Because redoing the primary is an absurd idea
And I am, probably to an excessive and embittered degree, made cynical by the amount of open propaganda in and out of the media which is attempting to put out bad ideas on purpose to hurt the Democrats and help the fascists
And you’re not wrong. A contested convention would be a massive shit show which might doom the Democrats in the election irrevocably. But it might also produce a nominee with some kind of mandate, which would be nice. It would also be feasible to do, whereas holding another primary election would not.
If the party leadership goes with Kamala, we’d damned well better have a real primary in 2028.
Consider working towards passing electoral reform in your state so you can vote for something that is not evil, secure in the knowledge that your vote would still count for the lesser evil.
Yep, I really do not like Harris, but in this context she’s the most realistic option and she’s slightly better than Biden on basically everything. Otherwise it becomes a battle against right-wing establishment democrats, and we have no more time for that really. Getting Biden out is hard enough.
I think someone like Newsom would be a better sell. Fact is, it’s a dangerous election and getting Republicans that don’t like trump very much to actually jump the fence a bit is going to be easier with a white man in his 50’s who isn’t too “extreme” of a leftist Democrat.
They could also choose someone from a swing state, too.
Who?
Gavin Newsom. California’s Governor.
Nothing hurts a political campaign more than uncertainty.
I’ll bet the MAGA camp is loving this shit right now.
Does anyone like Kamala lol
deleted by creator
Liberals: “Stop saying Defund the Police! You’re making us look bad!”
Also Liberals: “You can’t run an AG for President. They’re going to be way too unpopular to win, given how much people hate the police.”
Honestly, the idea that they might be self aware enough to recognize that running a cop is a losing idea would be an amazing feat for them. I think it’s more likely we’re dealing with racism here. And yes, many of the the Dems are pretty racist, they just don’t realize it or admit it like the Republicans.
So…. Basically, democrats can’t run ANYONE that would make you happy.
They can’t run anyone who will make the oligarchy happy. Edit: if they want to win
She’s popular with her step kids, who call her Momala.
Maybe if she did something, we could have something to like about her
VPs have no job except to succeed the president and break ties in the Senate, along with presiding for a few ritualistic things. That’s really it. What do expect want her to do?
VPs have no job except to succeed the president and break ties in the Senate
sinister Cheney chortling
Give speeches? Get people excited about voting, civil rights, etc
She does those all the time. You aren’t paying attention.
The media refuses to cover Democrats, to be fair
Where?
So you want a cheerleader like Ballmer. “Developers! Developers! Developers!”
She owned a couple initiatives, chaired a couple committees, cast a few votes. Surely, something there could have turned into a success. Heck, she could campaign for the ticket, present the platform, cheerlead for her running mate.
Given her track record, no, probably best she doesn’t do anything
Just because you’re not paying attention, doesn’t mean something didn’t happen.
Besides: post-9/11, the veeps stay in the shadows or at the off-site bunker.
First Past The Post voting ensures that a good portion of the people voting for her do not want her. Same for Joe biden. Same for the Republican and democratic parties.
first past the post isn’t responsible for that. it’s a tactic called “strategic voting” and it results in the consolidation of parties under fptp. the solution is not to vote for people you don’t want to win.
Gold medal in mental gymnastics there.
it’s a clear-eyed understanding of what to do about party consolidation under fptp.
First past the post isn’t responsible for that. It’s actually because of first past the post.
- you
There’s a gaggle of coconut memes of her on tiktok, so I guess some people do.
I’m going to vote Democrat.
Straight ticket.
Just like every freaking year because i’m too scared to vote Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communist Party.
eh I’ll take Kamela. It’d be hillarious to see a racist beaten by a black woman
I’m voting for the administration that will keep democracy alive in our country.
And it’s 🔵🔵🔵
I will too, but my concern is that Harris won’t be able to excite the voting base.
My vote is secured - it’s whoever has a D next to their name… I’m worried that not enough democrats will turn out if we choose poorly.
I’m worried black voters will not turn out in the needed numbers if they interpret skipping Kamala as the presumptive nominee to be a betrayal. I’m very concerned about a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.
Biden has done a good job as President. I don’t love him as the nominee, but I’m afraid the chaos of him stepping down is going to create a no win scenario. Some folks think he is the no win scenario. If it’s truly impossible for us to put forward a candidate who can win, that’s not a problem we can pin on the other side - we did that to ourselves. And at the worst possible time for it.
The average black person cares way less about having a black president than the typical white Lemmy user assumes they do. Only the most off-the-rails liberals support allowing race to be a factor in hiring decisions. Hell - even far-left California outlawed affirmative action.
If you’re picking a president based on race, you are implicitly racist and therefore part of the problem.
Every black voter I’ve talked to (pretty limited, but enough) is asking “what did Biden do for us?” and that’s a valid question. Especially after the George Floyd priests, barely anything happened for the black community. And they’re already living under the oppression of what amounts to Project 2025.
Your concerns are valid, but the supreme court is being actively used for lawfare & some Washington backroom deal for the doner class outside of the norm for anyone else besides the republican party has double ungood chances for the switched candidate to succeed.
There is so much about donald’s project 2025 that isn’t known by average people. There will be no election for the democrats come 2028, only for MAGA if they get their way.
Just remember that during the 2016 election, the “If not Bernie, then Trump” bros turned out to be Russian interference.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s just Russia trying to split the Dem base.
AOC should run. I’d vote for her.
Harris has done so little I had to think for a second to remember what her name was. Other VP have really gotten coverage, like Pence or Gore. But Harris has really stayed mostly on the sidelines.
Kamala and AOC would be a lit ticket. I still think we’re barreling towards another Reagan era victory by doing this. But that “medical emergency” + instant COVID was almost a sign from the universe.
VPs are usually picked to shore up an electoral weakness of the candidate in question. I don’t think adding a second brown woman to the ticket would make sense, much as I would personally love this.
The weakness this election cycle, for the dems, is the apathy of the base. In that context AOC would be a pretty solid choice.
Much as people on the left like to repeat this, I’m not sure it’s evident that this is the main weakness of the Democratic ticket. Even if true, you’d be solving one weakness by creating another.
But I’d be curious about polling on this, I could be wrong certainly. If Harris becomes the nominee, we might start to see some polling on VP picks.
You got a good point there. Its just, who else is palatable? Whitmer + AOC?
I think the VP for a woman or POC probably needs to be a boring white guy unfortunately. I think there’s still a lot of racism and sexism lurking beneath the surface in the US so you don’t want it to look like some kind of feminist or minority takeover.
In terms of quality I would prefer AOC/Kamala to Kamala/AOC, but neither combination is good for electability.
Aoc can’t run for president yet.
She’ll be old enough on election day and that’s all that matters.
Yes she can. Otherwise she couldn’t be VP.
She’s 35 on October 13th. Fully qualified.
I’d prefer Buttigieg simply because he is such an effective communicator. Other than that I’d prefer someone much more leftist than him.
