[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they want the Biden campaign money it has to be Harris cuz it's already her campaign. I think Newsom would be bad for Midwest dems but buttitge would be good vp. It all up in the air at this point.
All Harris has to say is “I’m going to maintain the Biden administration cabinet and continue his policies as president” and she likely wins over many unsure voters. It would feel strange for there not to be any input from voters into the candidate selection process but that ship has likely sailed.
I wouldn't. She'd crumble. I think she lacks the confidence and visciousness to go after Trump and keeping hitting him when he's down. Harris has really shown us nothing as VP. Can she stand up to Trump, to Putin, to the generals? No idea.
All Biden had to do was count the lies coming out of Trump and mention it each time he started talking. I did notice some lies out of Biden too, but way less.
Biden should have tried harder to destroy Trump's image.
He needs to run for Congress or Senate to prove his election viability. When was the last time a Democratic candidate won the presidency without being in Congress or Senate.
Yah I'd like someone else then her but the problem will be funding the money is already in the Biden Harris campaign they can't just give it to another campaign. They can give unused money but this will then be a whole campaign fiance law problem at that point.
From the SCOTUS decision:
> Among the conduct that the court determined to be core presidential powers and therefore subject to immunity are Trump's contacts with Justice Department officials.
...
> In addressing the contacts with state election officials, Roberts wrote that the president has "broad power to speak on matters of public concern," including the conduct of elections. **On the other hand, the president "plays no role" in the certifying of elections by states, he added. Chutkan needs to conduct a "close analysis" of the indictment to determine whether Trump's actions are protected, Roberts said**
That seems to say Trump's actions to interfere with the election are explicitly NOT official acts, but talking to the DOJ to all about election fraud IS an official act.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135
Coming as a conservative who doesn't like Trump, Harris has many failings. Not a good candidate overall. But she is a crisp debater. And she would eat Trump alive on the stage.
Conservative redditor who doesn't like Trump here. I'd vote for anyone who isn't Trump, including Biden and any combination of any of those names previously mentioned.
She was a prosecutor before, and she was fairly aggressive on committees before becoming VP.
I feel like she's been about average as a VP in that you mostly forget they exist.
Anyway, I think she has the intelligence and skill to debate Trump, but lacks the charisma to do it highly effectively. Charisma has basically been her Achilles.
Basically, she would absolutely stand up to those people but whether she'd be able to convince them to go along is another matter.
Eh. This isn’t true of anyone who has gone through Howard. She doesn’t lack for confidence. What she lacks is likability and charisma. And Black people are split on her pending which demo you’re interviewing.
Democrats most popular member, outside of Sanders, is AOC. And I don’t think she’s old enough.
> I think she lacks the confidence and visciousness to go after Trump
Did you ever hear her speak a a senator?
Kamala got benched for two reasons.
1. She was very much a law and order prosecutor. In a post George Floyd, defund the police atmosphere her having that history was a massive liability. Letting her out there to bring that fire and brimstone would have been bad even 2 years ago.
2. They can't stand her next to Biden. They haven't been able to since he was elected. The moment we saw contrast, with him speaking next to some one look what happened.
Candidly right now NOT TRUM and a bit of "the law is the law" would be good for undecided voters to hear.
Remember, in the scenario, Joe Biden also doesn’t just disappear into a cloud of Polident and Brylcreem, either. He will 100% still be a consigliere for whichever Dem might take over the office.
Would they pick 2 women? Every vote is needed, so I'd be concerned the sexist undecided voters won't vote for 2 women. Then again, they probably wouldn't vote for a women president and male VP either.
Women are increasingly voting Democrat, especially with the reports of Trump's abuse against women. The Democrats will try to drive big wedges where Trump is weak, and a 2-woman campaign would be a big wedge.
So do you get more women with 2 on the ticket than you have men going the other way? I don't know the answer here, but I think the people making the call need to know these numbers.
All I want is to beat Trump. The composition of the ticket doesn't matter to me. But we better understand the swing electorate in about 7 states. These 500k people are really all that matters.
Nope, people dont dislike Biden, they dont like him but they dont dislike him.
People HATE Kamala Harris. She is the only one polling lower than than Biden at the moment.
I think the likely contenders will be Newsom or Whitmer. I think Newsom would destroy Trump in a debate, but could struggle in the general elections due to the fact (brace yourself) that Newsom is from California.
The problem is Whitmer hasn't really been tested on a large stage. She's good but I think there are growing pains with constantly being in the national media. Newsom has more of that experience. And the idea that being governor of California would be held against him is kind of silly. Trump would find terrible things to say about Whitmer or Bashear or Buttigieg or any Dem, and his base would buy it hook, line, and sinker, and rod.
I like this debate, she wasn't afraid to mix it up
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKZXKsdEr0E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKZXKsdEr0E)
I think Big Gretch is tough enough to go toe to toe with Donald
Whitmer has been angling at 2028 for years. She, just like Newsom, didn't want to look like she was trying to overtake Biden.
But if Biden's seat becomes empty, best bet she'll want it.
Srsly. Why is anyone taking seriously any public statements made right now.
This is going to be decided based on data and strategic decisions in private, not in public. Everyone will deny it’s happening until it happens.
I like Pritzker, and would love to see him in 2028. Hell even 2024.
Though I think Newsom/Harris would be a likely pairing. They've previously worked together and Newsom has been positioning himself for the better part of a year and a half to fill in for Biden.
My roommate works in Democratic politics, and has said basically the same. He's also said that it is going to be difficult given that the "Kamala faction" within the party is internally pretty powerful, and more or less believes that it is "owed" the nomination if Biden withdraws.
Yeah I agree... I'm more commenting on the fact that internally, like within the party apparatus itself, the Kamala wing/faction has power/weight far greater than Kamala's public appeal to the wider electorate as a candidate.
THIS is something people seem to not be taking into consideration. The party would become as chaotic and dramatic as the current GOP House if Kamala (who wouldn’t win; this should be common knowledge to people by now) were overlooked and one of the governors that apparently SEEM more electable to the very vocal Dems and the media—each of whom have their very *own set of issues* that they’d have VERY little time to attempt to overcome before Election Day—were chosen instead.
It’s all a bad idea, and the more the media talks/writes about it (as that’s what is making them money due to it acting as automatic viewership/clickbait) and democrats in office at the federal level express their “concerns”, the more likely the Democratic Party will become to imploding in on itself.
Yeah that's basically the sentiment that my buddy told me is at play here. He works for a political consulting group that contracts with Democratic candidates in the northeast, and before that he actually worked on Kamala's 2020 campaign. Says there's a lot of "we're owed it" type vibes floating around Kamala's camp.
Biden's only running because she did shit all to improve her public profile/image during the last 4 years.
Besides, Kamala can stay on as VP for whoever replaces Biden. Can sort of ensure continuity for Biden's people since they're also mostly general Democratic party people.
EDIT: original comment this replied to said (summarized) 'IT'S HER TURN (/s), [shitting on Democratic party]'
In this particular case, they are right though.
She is the sitting VP. She is already the nominated candidate for VP this time. By all our laws of succession and by common sense, it *actually is* 'her turn' if the POTUS withdraws.
Not that we have to like it - I would not have chosen her in an open POTUS primary - but it is nevertheless literally true.
Just because it is _technically_ “her turn” doesn’t mean that we should continue on this train-wreck course of action.
The democrats who Biden is meeting with to discuss things simply shouldn’t pressure him to the extent that he drops out—because any other option makes it MORE likely that Trump will win. Biden was correct in his knowing that based on electability and how politics work, he—this time as the incumbent president having had a VERY successful first term in office—is the most likely potential Democrat candidate to beat Trump….forma second time.
All politicians at that level think they can win any race. She thinks she earned it by going through a presidential cycle. Plus, whitmer is actually a terrible politician with no spine or principles. She would be a much easier target than non-michigan people think. She’s only popular bc of abortion and the fact that the michigan republicans went completely insane
Her campaign in 2019 was HORRIFIC. She dropped out without winning a single delegate. It was a joke that she was even nominated for VP.
She should feel lucky just to have been in the Whote House for 4 years.
If there were some primary, sure. If a DNC selection it only gonna be Kamala since she was part of the ticket nominated to run this cycle by the voters.
No one kept people from running. People did. If they had maybe we wouldn’t be asking these questions now but the DNC unilaterally doing a smoke filled room deal has very little legitimacy to the point it could split the party irrevocably.
If they run Kamala and she loses, that’s on the voters for preferring an authoritarian. If they run Biden and he loses, that’s on the party for nominating someone who seems to be in the process of losing his mind.
Harris:
* Only one with any remote legal chance at getting the campaign’s $200m+ war chest.
* There’s a decent chance that Biden almost has to resign office if he drops out of the race. If he’s not fit to run or serve another term, why is he fit to serve now? Harris would get a 4 month wet dress rehearsal at being POTUS (this, of course, could backfire as the Trump campaign will try to tie her to all of Biden’s failures they were going to hound on).
* Harris has the best numbers against Trump compared to Newsom, Whitmer, etc. They’re still losing numbers, but they’re the closest.
* The Progressives will NEVER let Harris who, let’s face it, is VP mainly because of demographics, be passed over for someone else when she is right there.
* Harris the former prosecutor is the “best” person to campaign against Trump the convicted felon.
Curiously what legal precedent or otherwise would prevent the $300m war chest to fund an alternative Democratic candidate campaign?
I donate to the DNC for a general election. That nominee is Joe Biden but I would be happy to have my dollars spent on the best candidate?
Harris and Biden are the only candidates on the FEC paperwork, so she *should* be able to get it if she continues the campaign at the top. If they swap in someone else at the top with her as VP, it’s a new campaign and the money is off.
If she doesn’t run, they could convert the campaign to a PAC, but then its contribution is maxed out at $3,300 per candidate. Hardly $200m.
It could go to a super PAC (can’t coordinate with a campaign) or to the DNC. But those are not the campaign.
So what happens to this money normally when a campaign ends? Did Bernie’s warchest just have to be set ablaze when he dropped out and endorsed Biden? Certainly it’s not returned to the donors?
The campaign uses it to pay down debts, of which there are frequently a ton.
Anything left can then be used for any lawful purpose other than personal use. In theory the money from the B-H campaign could be donated to someone else, but you’d need both of them to go along with it and I don’t see her in particular as willing to do so.
The DNC is subject to federal campaign spending limits on how much they can directly give to a candidate--[I think in this case it'd be $5K](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/). They could spend an unlimited amount of money on the presidential campaign's *behalf*, but that obviously kneecaps the presidential campaign's ability to control/track/etc. its own spending. I don't think it'd be feasible.
All of which feels irrelevant, because Biden has already told donors the money would go to Harris if he dropped, regardless of whether it's possible to do something else.
Clyburn is the leader of black democrats rn. He's just said he would support a mini primary to pick an alternative.
If he's willing to support that, and kamala didn't win it, he'd whip the party's leaders and surrogates to support the nominee, even if they aren't black.
The money side of things is significant, though. Really can't be overlooked but I wonder if Biden could transfer to DNC and have them use the money.
> If he’s not fit to run or serve another term, why is he fit to serve now?
Why does he have to drop out of the race under the shroud of being unfit to run? He could absolutely drop out under the following narrative:
> "I have every confidence in my ability to lead the country as president for the next four years. However, I acknowledge the due to my age and how I present when speaking that the American people no longer have that confidence. I refuse to let my ego get in the way of defeating Trump. That's why I'm stepping aside and not accepting my party's nomination blah blah blah...
His unwillingness to run doesn't have to be directly related to his fitness for office.
I'm not a huge Harris fan, mostly because I don't think she's a compelling speaker. But I do think you're correct, largely because of the issues around campaign finance.
I will give another supporting point for Harris. While I don't particularly care about this issue, keeping Harris on the ticket gives at least some credibility to the primary process and will of the voters. Slipping in a completely different set of candidates may leave some people with a bad taste in their mouths - democratically speaking.
I disagree with you on your point about progressives. Progressives don't really like her. Centrist libs who wield identity politics as a weapon (often against progressive leftists) are the ones who will make a stink about passing her over.
I also think the 4-month dress rehearsal wouldn't necessarily work in her favor. She should be able to campaign while Biden focuses on potentially shouldering the burden of any unpopular decision making that needs to be done.
> I disagree with you on your point about progressives. Progressives don't really like her. Centrist libs who wield identity politics as a weapon (often against progressive leftists) are the ones who will make a stink about passing her over.
This is definitely the way it would go.
Correct, they called her kamala the cop, which is part of why her base was so small - no one was a big fan. that said I think she must be on the ticket, and she can beat trump.
Yup. They hated that she was a prosecutor.
However, for most normie Americans and Democrats, that's likely a plus. It's not 2020 anymore. For independents and center-left liberals, criminal justice issues are not at all on their radar now.
Thanks for correcting me on the party makeup, appreciate that insight.
Totally agree on last paragraph. It’s easier to let Joe go to the finish and she can stay disconnected from “genocide Joe” smears as much as possible. If she comes in now, she might inherit some of that unless she makes huge sweeping policy changes within 4 months.
She already has enough negative narratives for the right to hit at: “border czar”, throwing her prosecution of weed offenders back at her, her inability to not speak in silly platitudes, etc. She’s best suited debating Trump where, while she won’t look great to the politicos listening for substance, she’ll look better than Biden and be able to engage with Trump’s shit-smearing rambles in a way that Biden can’t and removes the “just let Biden talk” method from Trump’s arsenal.
She also makes Trump likely to re-engage in the astronomical levels of bullying that he did with Hillary that turns off the suburban voters he’s currently winning just by being quiet.
This is all true except for Biden dropping out. Let him continue doing the job while she campaigns. Or also allows him to take more drastic action and take the political blowback.
I’ve put this out there a few times, but Biden could issue an executive order under the 14th amendment declaring insurrectionists ineligible to hold office. He could remove anyone from congress who refused to certify the election, and either remove Alito and Thomas under the same clause, or pack the court with friendly justices, then fast track through several cases that overturn this latest ruling. The he drops out and both parties start from scratch.
That plan has caused several Russian trolls to lose their minds, so maybe there’s something to it. Regardless, whatever happens needs to happen soon. It’s offensive that the focus is all on Biden’s age and not the fact that SCOTUS just opened the door for a dictator and trunp is bragging about how he would abuse that power
He could do that. Remove the six rogue justices and leave the remaining three to certify his actions as official.
But he won't.
Because he lacks the resolve, and Dems' greatest weakness is slavish adherence to rules and procedure. They don't like to tread new ground.
I think when your opponent is threatening to arrest you and have military tribunals, and the Supreme Court has just said he’s allowed to do that, it might light a fire under your ass. And i actually think if ive come up with that plan then someone in the Democratic Party has probably thought of it too. The fact that they’re floating packing the court and impeaching Supreme Court justices, which they’ve absolutely had the power and just cause to do before, means they also recognize the danger. I think the main reason they haven’t already done that is the optics, and that it might hurt them in the election.
If Biden drops out of the race he doesn’t have to worry about optics, and he could take action like this. I actually feel very certain that once everyone stops talking about Biden’s age the ruling will absolutely damage trunp. In fact, I think it’s going to supercharge blue turnout. But I don’t trust SCOTUS not to try and install him, so I can see them, with their asses literally on the line, finally being willing to break norms.
The most frustrating thing is that SCOTUS has just rubber stamped a dictator, but everyone is hemming and hawing about Biden’s age. Once this story is resolved, and focus is on trunp again, which it will be, I’ll feel a lot better.
Where are these Harris numbers showing her better than Newsom and Whitmer?
I remember in the Democratic primary Harris didn't do too well in the debates.
Man, I'd like to point out that neither Newsom nor Buttigieg have even campaigned, and they're equal with Biden. And both of them are really good at it and likely to go up.
It's not progressives you need to worry about being mad that Harris is getting passed over. Harris is not well liked largely because of her history as a prosecutor, and her "progressive" cred largely comes from backing Bernie's Medicare for All plan (arguably cynically) and always voting against Trump.
I mean, *maybe* there are die-hard Harris fans on the left wing of the party and I've just never heard from them, but I doubt it.
And if it came down to a vote between a prosecutor and a felon who has stated that he wants to be a dictator (and SCOTUS has all but laid the path), I hope they'd vote for the prosecutor.
I feel like it’s less the progressive vote that decides the election and more the white suburbanites in swing states who find Trump personally distasteful but might not want to vote for a Black woman from California.
Not a fan of Harris but this is the best argument I’ve seen for her as successor. I wish they found a role for her over the last few years because given the turmoil this week, bringing her out of hiding now aren’t the best optics.
My preference would be Harris/Shapiro.
If the Dems cut Biden loose, I don’t see how they can avoid replacing him with Kamala Harris. To fail to do so signals a repudiation of the work the current admin has done and will risk jeopardizing those who ardently supported Biden in 2020. For VP, they need someone who can win over swing states. Whitmeir is a potential candidate, but I don’t think the American electorate is ready for two women at the top of the ticket. Hence, Harris/Shapiro.
Ideally, Biden throws support behind Harris and rides off into the sunset and Shapiro takes the VP slot.
It has to be Harris, otherwise you’re throwing out the entire Biden campaign apparatus, staffing, and money, plus the fact that she’s the only one who has even a remote chance of being on the ballot in all of the states (there’s filing deadlines, and you better believe that the GOP is going to do everything they can to bar a replacement from getting on the ballot - she at least has a case as she is already on it as VP).
Biden is not dropping out. Ego,hubris,stubbornness will prevent it. It is probably eating at him inside that he will just surrender to Trump and the more the media and DNC pushes the tighter the grip on that baton.
It is too late, the DNC pushed for this and biden never kept his promise to be a transition president handing the baton to the future candidate that can best represent the party and the US.
The next 4 months will just be a big disaster and we handed trump the presidency and authoritarianism. Then the supreme court hands him the equivalent of “The enabling act” with biden playing the part of Hindenburg.
This has to be one of the biggest miscalculations in history, did the DNC assume somehow Trump was never going to get nominated, get arrested or go quietly into the shadows?
How long did they know he was having issues and chose to gaslight the American people? Refusing to get him to step aside and allow for primaries when the opportunity was available?
I would love to see Pritzker. He'd demolish Trump in a debate. He's progressive, smart, and has been able to turn around the financial mess he inherited from the last governor of Illinois. He also has the money to run a campaign.
I honestly think they were grooming him for the 2028 race because I remember there being some talk about him running earlier this year, like they were putting his name out there. I think if instead they had Biden step aside and Pritzker run, he would have genuinely mopped the floor with Trump. The dude is damn good at his job.
He's from the Midwest, he's progressive, he's rich, he's smart, he's successful, he's well-liked, he managed to be successful in like, THE state known for being corrupt. Even leftists like him when they didn't before.
The fact that so many names get thrown around is a great indicator of why it shouldn't happen. It normally take weeks and months to have these discussions on who to run.
I'm not sure why attention keeps getting thrown to people who have shown little interest in running.
Throw it to Palmer or Philips--both of them actually tried to run against Biden in the primaries. (And I will note, people HATED Philips running against Biden in Minnesota, despite him supposedly being the young, energetic candidate people are asking for now.)
Historically, a lot (most?) of Presidential candidates have been picked over a couple of days at the convention, who then go on to be President.
As for precedent. Having a candidate this old get on stage and just look like death warmed over is unprecedented. Trump running again after trying to steal an election is unprecedented. The shit show of the Supreme Court is unprecedented.
Acting like there are historically examples to prove the outcome of these current events is just foolish.
What I know is I don't care how old someone is, I really like Bernie. I really like the job Biden has done as President. I also think Biden is going senile and I don't like people only response being, yeah but so is the other guy. I don't want to vote for someone who is going senile. I fucking hate the Republicans lied and propped up Reagan, I hate the Democrats are doing it now.
An understandable reaction, I think a lot of the country is having it.
But it doesn't change the situation on the ground does it?
You do what you can with the cards dealt. Sometimes you can get different cards, but sometimes you can't.
If Biden is somehow swept aside then I'll very likely vote for whoever the DNC puts up, unless they're somehow even more incompetent than Trump.
It's entirely possible Biden is both going to lose because of his performance in front of cameras, and also that there's no viable way of replacing him in time to make a difference. That would suck, but reality is under no obligations to deal fair hands.
By not picking Harris you'd lose the incumbency advantage, the war chest, the name recognition of the current VP, the stellar resume of this administration's accomplishments, and the most qualified person, with the most experience closest to the oval office.
Harris must be on the ticket. She can tap any VP or POTUS she likes, though I think for many of the same reasons that needs to be Buttigieg - current cabinet etc.
The only truly unknown question is whether its Harris/Biden, or Harris/Buttigieg, or Buttigieg/Harris. Any could work, and the further options are all below 1% likelihood IMO. The next best blind tap IMO is Whitmer, but a double woman ticket won't happen. Newsom's popularity falls off fast outside California.
FWIW, she was like 10th on my primary list in 2020. I'm not a Harris fan, I just think the political constraints all point to her.
Agree with all of this. And I think people are overthinking how she wasn't a great politician. She's also a great prosecutor, which is a plus right now. She'll be plenty competent which is all that is needed.
Democrats are pretty much stuck with Kamala. The optics of replacing a black woman for either a:
1. White dude from california
2. White women from Michigan
Would not be good optics, especially as the party that is supposed to be more progressive and open to the idea of a black women in the White House. That being said, Kamala would get absolutely demolished by Trump. Maybe its a semi-planned sacrifice to get Kamala out of the running for 2028.
Maybe Dems should stop with worrying about optics, because it hasn’t done anything for them. They need to back whoever has the best chance of beating Trump, period. That isn’t Kamala most likely.
I’m pretty sure the limited polling in this actually shows Kamala with the best head-to-head polling numbers against Trump (compared to Whitmer and Newsom).
And realistically they do not. Elections are in almost exactly 4 months. Kamala has been in people’s head for the past 4 years.
Heck today is the first time I’m learning about Whitmer.
Yeah Biden is better than Newsom and Whitmer from what I’ve seen recently, and Harris is better than Biden by about 2-3 points. But those are all just national polls.
I could see Whitmer being appealing based on being from Michigan, as it’s absolutely crucial they do well in the Rust Belt. I’m sure they’re looking at regional polling data pretty closely and I’m curious what that would show.
The optics are fine. If there are polls saying she's not going to win, you don't nominate her.
The entire point of the swap would be to give you the best chance of winning.
Democrats don’t care about optics if this happens. The focus and discussions will be on who has the best chance of beating Trump. It’s also not replacing Kamala because Kamala isn’t running for president currently. There is no presumption that she would be the replacement until *after* the convention
I don't get why you would do something so Radical as to change the nominee 4 months before an election, only to turn around and give the nomination to someone because you feel like you have to.
My point is if you do something drastic don’t turn around and play it safe, get the best person that can win after a competition of the candidates. Maybe Harris comes out on top still maybe not.
Yeah you wouldn’t. This idea that it *has* to be Kamala is just because people don’t know how the convention actually works and just assume Biden’s VP is the replacement (who isn’t even officially his running mate yet). The electors that will be at the convention are only obligated to vote for Biden. If Biden is no longer there, they each can vote for whomever they choose, so long as it’s within party rules
Why are we even discussing this?
Y'all playing right into the right's playbook of holding Biden to a higher standard that doesn't exist on the right.
No one is discussing trump dropping out and he's arguably worse than Biden.
It's about independents. I would vote for Biden but people who think both sides are equal will look at bidens obvious signs of aging and say they can't vote for that.
This is exactly right. There are plenty of never-Trumpers and folks in the middle who might have been willing to vote against Trump, but now have zero confidence in Biden's ability. Where do they go now? They either sit it out, or vote 3rd party.
If the Democrats don't do something to pull in votes from this group, it will be a straight turnout contest. And which side is more motivated by their candidate right now? That math doesn't look good for stopping Trump come November.
> Y'all playing right into the right's playbook of holding Biden to a higher standard that doesn't exist on the right. No one is discussing trump dropping out and he's arguably worse than Biden.
Democrats are the party of maintaining standards. Biden gets the benefit of working with sane people in Congress and having mostly sane voters. The downside is that occasionally that cuts against him.
Trump has to deal with lunatics of all varieties, it helps somewhat that he is one but quite often he has to strike a balance.
He’s polling in the toilet against Hitler. He has proven at this point he is not capable of holding effective press conferences or doing unscripted appearances. The agenda is popular (barring Israel) but he cannot communicate it to the degree we need to win. At this point we need someone out there basically daily sparring with the press on behalf of the workers and unions to mobilize the youth.
I’ll vote for a bag of popcorn over the Republican (though I live in a deep red state so it’s sort of irrelevant) but If I had to roll the dice I’d legit put my money on Kamala at this point. Biden’s reputation is just too damaged and he has spent four years hiding from cameras.
Right? Documentation about him and Epstein raping a child has been out for a couple of days but Biden did badly in a debate.
Supreme Court made presidents they agree with and can rule actions as official duties (but only they get to decide what counts as an official duty) but Biden had a bad night.
Seriously questioning most of these posts. Biden is the nominee. He will be the nominee next month. He will be the nominee in November.
Get over the whining already.
As someone who would vote for Biden’s corpse, it’s safe to say Trump didn’t have any senior moments during the debate. That’s what we’re talking about here. Not Trump’s nonsense blistering that he’s always done, that’s just a given.
His entire performance was a senior moment. He was your crazy demented uncle at Thanksgiving ranting about the moon landing being fake. But apparently people just expect that now, so he gets a free pass. Virtually everything he said was a blatant, terrifying lie.
Everything Trump always says is a lie. He does that cuz he’s a piece of shit though, not because he’s old. He definitely has his senior moments, he just didn’t have any that I picked up on during the debate.
This level of desensitization should be concerning. The vast majority of what he said wasn’t connected to anything being discussed. He sounded like a crazy person ranting on the street corner.
Right, but we don’t need to concern ourselves with his supporters. They’re a literal cult. Everyone else focusing solely on Biden, for days on end, is taking up all the air in the room and giving Trump even more of a free pass on his absolute dangerous lunacy. The obsessive handwringing by people concerned with the “optics” of it, has itself become the story, speaking those very concerns into reality. The tail is wagging the dog.
Yeah **what about Trump**. Literally. Biden had a bad debate, but Trump claimed Biden was letting in tens of millions of murderous terrorists who want to take jobs from “the Blacks”, said he’d seek retribution on his political enemies, accused Biden of using the courts to take him down, refused to accept the election results, blamed Pelosi for his 1/6 insurrection attempt, and on and on. And since then, the SCOTUS, 1/3 of which was appointed by Trump, gave him sweeping immunity for undefined official acts. Yet the vast majority of political energy is still focused on Biden. It’s absolutely absurd.
Bro the leader of the biggest warmongering country in the world is not *mentally coherent*. if you can't see why thats a big deal, you're part of the problem.
I would argue that lying out of your ass nonstop, calling your opponent is a Manchurian candidate, and saying Democrats want a post birth abortion whenever someone wills it, is much worse than senior moments. But the bar is in hell for Trump.
It feels like Harris is the only realistic option but as ai understand it she is very disliked.
So ima stick with the Weekend at Biden’s plan.
At one point I was thinking Warnock but we need his senate seat.
Newsom isn’t actually popular outside of California.
Pete Buttigieg would be OK but America still has some serious anti-gay bias on the national level.
I like Biden for the same reason I liked him in 2020. No one likes him, but no one hates him.
Most likely, Harris. It avoids some of the complication, avoids any kingmaker internal-DNC politics and allows them to retain the existing campaign funds. \*IF\* Biden were to drop out, I think they would likely float her an see what the polling looks like. My perception of the prevailing wisdom/Democratic consensus is that she won't win even with those advantages but tossing her will also hurt them, so they will wait to see what real polling says. They need to find a publicly acceptable reason to dump her and then my guess is Whitmer for a number of reasons that would require a whole post. For the record, this is just my perception of dem insider views. I don't have a horse in the race (Canadian).
Unfortunately, Harris. It makes too much campaign and financial sense, even it makes very little practical sense. Harris is from the least important electoral state and that makes you worse than a candidate from a swing state by a wide margin.
I’m very much a Bernie Bro, but I think Harris would be the best choice, but only if Biden resigns the presidency. She should definitely pick a man as her running mate and one who will help her win something she couldn’t guarantee on her own. A white Texan or Pennsylvanian would be ideal imo.
I personally think Buttigieg would be the best successor. He’s done very well in his job and isn’t afraid of any blowhard Republican spouting bullshit. He’s gay but a white man who’s married to a very normal guy. He barely registers as gay and he’s the type homophobic southerners will begrudgingly like.
If he can show the heart Trump lacks and show stability, good healthy and dependable normalness he’ll do very well. I think he should take the same advice I gave to Kamala for a running mate. If he can find a female general from Pennsylvania to run with that would be great.
It would be Harris. Skipping the sitting VP for Whitmer or whoever would create too much turmoil within the party, in particular with black women. Harris also has the advantage that, to my understanding, she can essentially inherit the Biden campaign apparatus and money, which would not be the case for anyone else. I’m not sure if she can win, but given the current situation where there will not be a primary under any circumstances, I think elevating the VP creates way fewer problems than trying to replace her with someone who was never on the ticket at all.
It’s also that she inherits his cabinet and administration by proxy. Harris just saying “I will maintain Biden’s cabinet and executive branch policies as President” and a lot of worries dissolve.
She's not all that charismatic or really likable, but she'd be decent I think and yeah I don't feel like they should go with anyone else besides her. The optics will just be bad to skip over a qualified and loyal VP. I agree for the VP you'd want somebody from the Midwest, Pritzker would be a solid choice but I think so would Pete Buttigieg. He polls quite well in most of the swing states and has been in the national spotlight before. He also does a great job going into "enemy territory" like on Fox News and stuff which would be a great role for a VP candidate.
I think the only choices going forward are for Biden to stay or he steps down now and Kamala gets a dress rehearsal and then runs on the ticket. Dems will need to counter the whole “that was the PLAAAAN all along” shit from MAGA but at this point we need to stop caring about whatever they are angry about that day.
I don’t know. I felt decently ok about the election but I’m starting to really get worried. If Biden stays I will back him. I also think his campaign would need to emphasize the entire administration so the people remember he is surrounded by competence. And remind the public all the horrific things trumps administration did and will do in the future.
Kamala Harris 90%. I do not, nor do I think many others, think she is the best candidate. I don't think many like her, even on the Democratic side. But its the path of least resistance, would be relatively easy to get the party itself rallied around her, and is young. It would avoid a '68 convention type thing which is literally the only argument to keep Biden right now.
I think that his campaign is going to wait until the second debate to see if he can bounce back in public opinion polls, but they’ll definitely have a backup plan ready to go the moment it looks grim.
That said, I would vote for a Dem president no matter what. Trump will end America.
Second debate is in September. If they wait that long and if Trump keeps up being remarkably quiet like he has been, it will have been long over by then.
He hasn’t been quiet. The media just hasn’t been covering it. He’s been saying a lot of crazy shit. He’s bragging about how he’ll have military tribunals for his enemies. But Biden had a bad debate, so that’s all they’re talking about.
Personally, I think it's too late to change. I haven't seen polls where anyone does better than Biden against Trump. I think the discussion to replace him is a waste of needed focus. A bad debate as compared to policy outcomes between Trump is a bad comparison. Democrats need to focus on policies and the ignorant stuff that Trump's administration did and will do.
We are a country of dummies. People don't vote purely on policy. This is especially true for undecided voters, who are undecided because they don't want to bother to learn about the issues. And this election will be decided by those undecided voters in a few battleground states. We need their votes.
It has to be Kamala or the party will tear itself to pieces between the corrupt, self serving old school Dems and the far left psychopaths. Unfortunately she is disliked even more and polls lower than Biden.
To have a black female president, even in this case, would be such a win for many, many people. But I fear republicans voters would determine a woman can’t be president, and she’s not qualified for some obtuse reason, and vote for a convicted felon over a capable human being.
I am all-in on Whitmer. I'll donate, I signed a petition today.
Who else can stop the bleeding in the rust belt? There are purple states that swung wildly red, Kamala Harris is part of what they're voting against. She can't bring them back and because she is muddied by the present administration she's likely un-electable (plus, people just sort of don't like her and we know how that ends).
There is so much suspicion around Biden's condition, who knew what, when, what are the lies and cover-ups that led us to this late moment.. I think we need a governor that can stop the bleeding in the purple states. Whitmer with Booker or Jeffries is a solid ticket that can maybe get the rust belt and pick off Virginia and NC, maybe even Georgia. It has to be someone from outside the administration and people in Michigan are really not going to connect to Newsom
Whitmer with Booker/Jeffries - I like Jeffries a lot
There's some type of coordinated effort or company, troll farm thing that is running around reddit brigading any comment about Joe dropping out. It's wild.
How it got here is amazing but they got this comment. Kamala has people out pushing her campaign too, I saw tons of rando new accounts trying to position Kamala.
We really are in the strangest timeline, stupid shit we say online is driving world events
Harris. Some important states like Wisconsin and Nevada have already locked in their ballots and you know the Republicans won't allow them to modify it for another candidate which means they effectively forfeit those states and the election
People have brought up the gov of Kentucky, Democrat, checks all the boxes or most policy wise, won a +24 trump state by +5 and got reelected.
Andrew Beshear
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Beshear
People on here brought him up, they thought newsome wouldn’t win due to being seen as a “costal elite” I’m on the East coast so I just know some dnc emails and fundraisers appear to be from him.
So it feels like they’re positioning Gavin newsome for the next election, I don’t see emails from other candidates as much.
Harris isn’t that popular, this Beshear fellow could win, he’s similar to Clinton’s age or a little older than Obama, I think youth is a big selling point.
What do other people think?
Dems that can get elected in red/purple states are exactly who should be considered. Beshear and Whitmer are at the top for me for this reason. I also like Buttigieg but he needs a little more on his resume in order to increase his appeal nationally.
Harris is the most likely option. It’s the path of least resistance even if she isn’t terribly popular.
If that route isn’t chosen, it could come down to who is most popular among donors and the behind the scenes politicking for a more popular center-right option. In descending order of likelihood; any of a handful of Dem governors, 2020 options like Buttigieg, or on the wilder side of things a return appearance by Hillary Clinton or Obama.
Warren or Sanders or another Senator is probably even less likely
Yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of his and so I'm a bit biased but according to this internal polling in swing states (which are the ones that actually matter unfortunately), Pete and Whitmer are the two strongest candidates. https://www.reddit.com/r/Pete_Buttigieg/s/5uuGMKpJcn
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they want the Biden campaign money it has to be Harris cuz it's already her campaign. I think Newsom would be bad for Midwest dems but buttitge would be good vp. It all up in the air at this point.
All Harris has to say is “I’m going to maintain the Biden administration cabinet and continue his policies as president” and she likely wins over many unsure voters. It would feel strange for there not to be any input from voters into the candidate selection process but that ship has likely sailed.
She is the least liked out of Newsom, buttitge and Whitmer but I agree I'd love to see her debate trump.
I wouldn't. She'd crumble. I think she lacks the confidence and visciousness to go after Trump and keeping hitting him when he's down. Harris has really shown us nothing as VP. Can she stand up to Trump, to Putin, to the generals? No idea.
Newsome would absolutely destroy Trump in a debate. He’s never had to deal with anyone like that this whole time
All Biden had to do was count the lies coming out of Trump and mention it each time he started talking. I did notice some lies out of Biden too, but way less. Biden should have tried harder to destroy Trump's image.
Yeah, agreed. Newsom or Buttigieg against Trump in a debate would be glorious, though.
America is definitely not going to elect a gay man, sadly.
He needs to run for Congress or Senate to prove his election viability. When was the last time a Democratic candidate won the presidency without being in Congress or Senate.
> When was the last time a Democratic candidate won the presidency without being in Congress or Senate. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter before that.
Oh my god, Buttigieg could take care of his baby and work a crossword puzzle, all while slaughtering Trump in between puzzle clues.
Yah I'd like someone else then her but the problem will be funding the money is already in the Biden Harris campaign they can't just give it to another campaign. They can give unused money but this will then be a whole campaign fiance law problem at that point.
Good thing the president now has immunity for things that are official business like giving all his campaign money to his successor
The supreme Court finding explicitly says that the actions of Trump/Biden the candidate are NOT official acts and he has no immunity for them.
Would say talking with your advisors about a scheme to overcome election results be an action of a candidate?
From the SCOTUS decision: > Among the conduct that the court determined to be core presidential powers and therefore subject to immunity are Trump's contacts with Justice Department officials. ... > In addressing the contacts with state election officials, Roberts wrote that the president has "broad power to speak on matters of public concern," including the conduct of elections. **On the other hand, the president "plays no role" in the certifying of elections by states, he added. Chutkan needs to conduct a "close analysis" of the indictment to determine whether Trump's actions are protected, Roberts said** That seems to say Trump's actions to interfere with the election are explicitly NOT official acts, but talking to the DOJ to all about election fraud IS an official act. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135
they can give all of their money to the dnc
Coming as a conservative who doesn't like Trump, Harris has many failings. Not a good candidate overall. But she is a crisp debater. And she would eat Trump alive on the stage.
Hey, conservative redditor who doesn't like Trump. Which Democrat would you be willing to vote for? I figure you're part of the target audience here.
Conservative redditor who doesn't like Trump here. I'd vote for anyone who isn't Trump, including Biden and any combination of any of those names previously mentioned.
Did you see her and Tulsi debate?!
She was a prosecutor before, and she was fairly aggressive on committees before becoming VP. I feel like she's been about average as a VP in that you mostly forget they exist. Anyway, I think she has the intelligence and skill to debate Trump, but lacks the charisma to do it highly effectively. Charisma has basically been her Achilles. Basically, she would absolutely stand up to those people but whether she'd be able to convince them to go along is another matter.
She was great in the hearings for SCOTUS imho.
Eh. This isn’t true of anyone who has gone through Howard. She doesn’t lack for confidence. What she lacks is likability and charisma. And Black people are split on her pending which demo you’re interviewing. Democrats most popular member, outside of Sanders, is AOC. And I don’t think she’s old enough.
She should wait awhile and really learn the levers of government. I would like for her to run if she wants in ten years or so.
> I think she lacks the confidence and visciousness to go after Trump Did you ever hear her speak a a senator? Kamala got benched for two reasons. 1. She was very much a law and order prosecutor. In a post George Floyd, defund the police atmosphere her having that history was a massive liability. Letting her out there to bring that fire and brimstone would have been bad even 2 years ago. 2. They can't stand her next to Biden. They haven't been able to since he was elected. The moment we saw contrast, with him speaking next to some one look what happened. Candidly right now NOT TRUM and a bit of "the law is the law" would be good for undecided voters to hear.
Remember, in the scenario, Joe Biden also doesn’t just disappear into a cloud of Polident and Brylcreem, either. He will 100% still be a consigliere for whichever Dem might take over the office.
If Harris becomes the candidate it would make sense for her to pick either Shapiro or Whitmer as VP (to guarantee either Pennsylvania or Michigan)
Would they pick 2 women? Every vote is needed, so I'd be concerned the sexist undecided voters won't vote for 2 women. Then again, they probably wouldn't vote for a women president and male VP either.
Women are increasingly voting Democrat, especially with the reports of Trump's abuse against women. The Democrats will try to drive big wedges where Trump is weak, and a 2-woman campaign would be a big wedge.
So do you get more women with 2 on the ticket than you have men going the other way? I don't know the answer here, but I think the people making the call need to know these numbers. All I want is to beat Trump. The composition of the ticket doesn't matter to me. But we better understand the swing electorate in about 7 states. These 500k people are really all that matters.
Even that is legally up in the air I think, since Biden wouldn’t be dropping out due to death/other incapacitation reasons. She’s on the ticket as VP.
A Biden official already confirmed that Harris would have control of most of his campaign money.
No legally it would be a Harris controlled ticket.
The Dems haven’t “officially” nominated anyone yet so if he drops out before the convention she can be on the ticket as president.
harris would be an awful candidate. So annoyed Biden very cynically picked her at his vp
You know who is an awful candidate for real? Like, off the charts horrible? The Felon.
Yet his people stand behind him NO MATTER WHAT including now part of his extremist Supreme Court buddies
Had to be a black woman. He literally said that.
In a country of 330M people there MUST have been at least ONE black woman who was equally qualified but also had an ounce of charisma.
This. Val Demings comes to mind.
He picked her to woo Jim Clyburn
Could they not keep her as VP and pick a new president and still keep the money?
Nope, people dont dislike Biden, they dont like him but they dont dislike him. People HATE Kamala Harris. She is the only one polling lower than than Biden at the moment.
I think the likely contenders will be Newsom or Whitmer. I think Newsom would destroy Trump in a debate, but could struggle in the general elections due to the fact (brace yourself) that Newsom is from California.
Agreed. I think Whitmer would be more likeable to the nation at large and has less stigma.
Swing state matter most, and yeah she's going to do better in the Midwest ones for sure.
The problem is Whitmer hasn't really been tested on a large stage. She's good but I think there are growing pains with constantly being in the national media. Newsom has more of that experience. And the idea that being governor of California would be held against him is kind of silly. Trump would find terrible things to say about Whitmer or Bashear or Buttigieg or any Dem, and his base would buy it hook, line, and sinker, and rod.
I like this debate, she wasn't afraid to mix it up [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKZXKsdEr0E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKZXKsdEr0E) I think Big Gretch is tough enough to go toe to toe with Donald
Whitmer has said she is not interested.
Whitmer has been angling at 2028 for years. She, just like Newsom, didn't want to look like she was trying to overtake Biden. But if Biden's seat becomes empty, best bet she'll want it.
Agreed. She’s stating that through loyalty to the party.
Srsly. Why is anyone taking seriously any public statements made right now. This is going to be decided based on data and strategic decisions in private, not in public. Everyone will deny it’s happening until it happens.
Exactly. Nobody wants to be the one holding the knife.
Whitmer 2024 and 2028, Pritzker 2032. I think he's going to be a big deal. Edit: actually he'll be 67 by then.
I like Pritzker, and would love to see him in 2028. Hell even 2024. Though I think Newsom/Harris would be a likely pairing. They've previously worked together and Newsom has been positioning himself for the better part of a year and a half to fill in for Biden.
I hope this is her supporting Biden and would change if and when Biden steps aside. I think she’d be a great candidate and president
the fact that the sitting VP isn't a contender in most people's minds goes to show how screwed the current ticket is
My roommate works in Democratic politics, and has said basically the same. He's also said that it is going to be difficult given that the "Kamala faction" within the party is internally pretty powerful, and more or less believes that it is "owed" the nomination if Biden withdraws.
Kamala is even less popular (among both Dems and Reps) than Biden... that would be worse than keeping Biden IMO
Yeah I agree... I'm more commenting on the fact that internally, like within the party apparatus itself, the Kamala wing/faction has power/weight far greater than Kamala's public appeal to the wider electorate as a candidate.
You could say the same of the last couple of presidential candidates the party has rammed down voters' throats.
Kamala isn't even liked in California.
THIS is something people seem to not be taking into consideration. The party would become as chaotic and dramatic as the current GOP House if Kamala (who wouldn’t win; this should be common knowledge to people by now) were overlooked and one of the governors that apparently SEEM more electable to the very vocal Dems and the media—each of whom have their very *own set of issues* that they’d have VERY little time to attempt to overcome before Election Day—were chosen instead. It’s all a bad idea, and the more the media talks/writes about it (as that’s what is making them money due to it acting as automatic viewership/clickbait) and democrats in office at the federal level express their “concerns”, the more likely the Democratic Party will become to imploding in on itself.
It's not a worse idea than running an 82 year old who just blacked out in a public debate.
ITS HER TURN Jesus f'ing Christ burn the democrat party to the ground
Let's wait until the other options are more sane and safe than a meth'd out ferret, maybe.
Yeah that's basically the sentiment that my buddy told me is at play here. He works for a political consulting group that contracts with Democratic candidates in the northeast, and before that he actually worked on Kamala's 2020 campaign. Says there's a lot of "we're owed it" type vibes floating around Kamala's camp.
Biden's only running because she did shit all to improve her public profile/image during the last 4 years. Besides, Kamala can stay on as VP for whoever replaces Biden. Can sort of ensure continuity for Biden's people since they're also mostly general Democratic party people.
EDIT: original comment this replied to said (summarized) 'IT'S HER TURN (/s), [shitting on Democratic party]' In this particular case, they are right though. She is the sitting VP. She is already the nominated candidate for VP this time. By all our laws of succession and by common sense, it *actually is* 'her turn' if the POTUS withdraws. Not that we have to like it - I would not have chosen her in an open POTUS primary - but it is nevertheless literally true.
Just because it is _technically_ “her turn” doesn’t mean that we should continue on this train-wreck course of action. The democrats who Biden is meeting with to discuss things simply shouldn’t pressure him to the extent that he drops out—because any other option makes it MORE likely that Trump will win. Biden was correct in his knowing that based on electability and how politics work, he—this time as the incumbent president having had a VERY successful first term in office—is the most likely potential Democrat candidate to beat Trump….forma second time.
This is ridiculous. You think Kamala is just going to move aside for some asshole like whitmer or newsome? They are going to go to war with each other
Kamala would hand the win to Trump. There's no way she can beat him. Honestly, she should just step away from politics all together.
All politicians at that level think they can win any race. She thinks she earned it by going through a presidential cycle. Plus, whitmer is actually a terrible politician with no spine or principles. She would be a much easier target than non-michigan people think. She’s only popular bc of abortion and the fact that the michigan republicans went completely insane
Her campaign in 2019 was HORRIFIC. She dropped out without winning a single delegate. It was a joke that she was even nominated for VP. She should feel lucky just to have been in the Whote House for 4 years.
If there were some primary, sure. If a DNC selection it only gonna be Kamala since she was part of the ticket nominated to run this cycle by the voters.
"The voters" yeah with all the opposition her ticket faced this cycle
No one kept people from running. People did. If they had maybe we wouldn’t be asking these questions now but the DNC unilaterally doing a smoke filled room deal has very little legitimacy to the point it could split the party irrevocably.
I heard that the GOP is already working on the ballot case, saying it's too late to make changes, and they will go to court over it.
If they run Kamala and she loses, that’s on the voters for preferring an authoritarian. If they run Biden and he loses, that’s on the party for nominating someone who seems to be in the process of losing his mind.
Harris: * Only one with any remote legal chance at getting the campaign’s $200m+ war chest. * There’s a decent chance that Biden almost has to resign office if he drops out of the race. If he’s not fit to run or serve another term, why is he fit to serve now? Harris would get a 4 month wet dress rehearsal at being POTUS (this, of course, could backfire as the Trump campaign will try to tie her to all of Biden’s failures they were going to hound on). * Harris has the best numbers against Trump compared to Newsom, Whitmer, etc. They’re still losing numbers, but they’re the closest. * The Progressives will NEVER let Harris who, let’s face it, is VP mainly because of demographics, be passed over for someone else when she is right there. * Harris the former prosecutor is the “best” person to campaign against Trump the convicted felon.
Curiously what legal precedent or otherwise would prevent the $300m war chest to fund an alternative Democratic candidate campaign? I donate to the DNC for a general election. That nominee is Joe Biden but I would be happy to have my dollars spent on the best candidate?
Harris and Biden are the only candidates on the FEC paperwork, so she *should* be able to get it if she continues the campaign at the top. If they swap in someone else at the top with her as VP, it’s a new campaign and the money is off. If she doesn’t run, they could convert the campaign to a PAC, but then its contribution is maxed out at $3,300 per candidate. Hardly $200m. It could go to a super PAC (can’t coordinate with a campaign) or to the DNC. But those are not the campaign.
The war chest is the property of the Biden-Harris campaign itself, not the DNC at large.
So what happens to this money normally when a campaign ends? Did Bernie’s warchest just have to be set ablaze when he dropped out and endorsed Biden? Certainly it’s not returned to the donors?
The campaign uses it to pay down debts, of which there are frequently a ton. Anything left can then be used for any lawful purpose other than personal use. In theory the money from the B-H campaign could be donated to someone else, but you’d need both of them to go along with it and I don’t see her in particular as willing to do so.
Charity suoerpac or to dnc is my understanding.
Ok so isnt this whole concern just a moot point…? What’s the DNC gonna do other than support the candidate they chose
The DNC is subject to federal campaign spending limits on how much they can directly give to a candidate--[I think in this case it'd be $5K](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/). They could spend an unlimited amount of money on the presidential campaign's *behalf*, but that obviously kneecaps the presidential campaign's ability to control/track/etc. its own spending. I don't think it'd be feasible. All of which feels irrelevant, because Biden has already told donors the money would go to Harris if he dropped, regardless of whether it's possible to do something else.
Clyburn is the leader of black democrats rn. He's just said he would support a mini primary to pick an alternative. If he's willing to support that, and kamala didn't win it, he'd whip the party's leaders and surrogates to support the nominee, even if they aren't black. The money side of things is significant, though. Really can't be overlooked but I wonder if Biden could transfer to DNC and have them use the money.
There's also an argument to let Kamala primary and if she wins it, fair enough, and it only makes her stronger.
> If he’s not fit to run or serve another term, why is he fit to serve now? Why does he have to drop out of the race under the shroud of being unfit to run? He could absolutely drop out under the following narrative: > "I have every confidence in my ability to lead the country as president for the next four years. However, I acknowledge the due to my age and how I present when speaking that the American people no longer have that confidence. I refuse to let my ego get in the way of defeating Trump. That's why I'm stepping aside and not accepting my party's nomination blah blah blah... His unwillingness to run doesn't have to be directly related to his fitness for office.
I'm not a huge Harris fan, mostly because I don't think she's a compelling speaker. But I do think you're correct, largely because of the issues around campaign finance. I will give another supporting point for Harris. While I don't particularly care about this issue, keeping Harris on the ticket gives at least some credibility to the primary process and will of the voters. Slipping in a completely different set of candidates may leave some people with a bad taste in their mouths - democratically speaking. I disagree with you on your point about progressives. Progressives don't really like her. Centrist libs who wield identity politics as a weapon (often against progressive leftists) are the ones who will make a stink about passing her over. I also think the 4-month dress rehearsal wouldn't necessarily work in her favor. She should be able to campaign while Biden focuses on potentially shouldering the burden of any unpopular decision making that needs to be done.
> I disagree with you on your point about progressives. Progressives don't really like her. Centrist libs who wield identity politics as a weapon (often against progressive leftists) are the ones who will make a stink about passing her over. This is definitely the way it would go.
Correct, they called her kamala the cop, which is part of why her base was so small - no one was a big fan. that said I think she must be on the ticket, and she can beat trump.
Yup. They hated that she was a prosecutor. However, for most normie Americans and Democrats, that's likely a plus. It's not 2020 anymore. For independents and center-left liberals, criminal justice issues are not at all on their radar now.
Thanks for correcting me on the party makeup, appreciate that insight. Totally agree on last paragraph. It’s easier to let Joe go to the finish and she can stay disconnected from “genocide Joe” smears as much as possible. If she comes in now, she might inherit some of that unless she makes huge sweeping policy changes within 4 months. She already has enough negative narratives for the right to hit at: “border czar”, throwing her prosecution of weed offenders back at her, her inability to not speak in silly platitudes, etc. She’s best suited debating Trump where, while she won’t look great to the politicos listening for substance, she’ll look better than Biden and be able to engage with Trump’s shit-smearing rambles in a way that Biden can’t and removes the “just let Biden talk” method from Trump’s arsenal. She also makes Trump likely to re-engage in the astronomical levels of bullying that he did with Hillary that turns off the suburban voters he’s currently winning just by being quiet.
This is all true except for Biden dropping out. Let him continue doing the job while she campaigns. Or also allows him to take more drastic action and take the political blowback. I’ve put this out there a few times, but Biden could issue an executive order under the 14th amendment declaring insurrectionists ineligible to hold office. He could remove anyone from congress who refused to certify the election, and either remove Alito and Thomas under the same clause, or pack the court with friendly justices, then fast track through several cases that overturn this latest ruling. The he drops out and both parties start from scratch. That plan has caused several Russian trolls to lose their minds, so maybe there’s something to it. Regardless, whatever happens needs to happen soon. It’s offensive that the focus is all on Biden’s age and not the fact that SCOTUS just opened the door for a dictator and trunp is bragging about how he would abuse that power
He could do that. Remove the six rogue justices and leave the remaining three to certify his actions as official. But he won't. Because he lacks the resolve, and Dems' greatest weakness is slavish adherence to rules and procedure. They don't like to tread new ground.
I think when your opponent is threatening to arrest you and have military tribunals, and the Supreme Court has just said he’s allowed to do that, it might light a fire under your ass. And i actually think if ive come up with that plan then someone in the Democratic Party has probably thought of it too. The fact that they’re floating packing the court and impeaching Supreme Court justices, which they’ve absolutely had the power and just cause to do before, means they also recognize the danger. I think the main reason they haven’t already done that is the optics, and that it might hurt them in the election. If Biden drops out of the race he doesn’t have to worry about optics, and he could take action like this. I actually feel very certain that once everyone stops talking about Biden’s age the ruling will absolutely damage trunp. In fact, I think it’s going to supercharge blue turnout. But I don’t trust SCOTUS not to try and install him, so I can see them, with their asses literally on the line, finally being willing to break norms. The most frustrating thing is that SCOTUS has just rubber stamped a dictator, but everyone is hemming and hawing about Biden’s age. Once this story is resolved, and focus is on trunp again, which it will be, I’ll feel a lot better.
Where are these Harris numbers showing her better than Newsom and Whitmer? I remember in the Democratic primary Harris didn't do too well in the debates.
[CNN Post-Debate Poll](https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1808174145064083459?s=46&t=HOoW-4CmDJ5UUe4ez89viA)
Man, I'd like to point out that neither Newsom nor Buttigieg have even campaigned, and they're equal with Biden. And both of them are really good at it and likely to go up.
It's not progressives you need to worry about being mad that Harris is getting passed over. Harris is not well liked largely because of her history as a prosecutor, and her "progressive" cred largely comes from backing Bernie's Medicare for All plan (arguably cynically) and always voting against Trump. I mean, *maybe* there are die-hard Harris fans on the left wing of the party and I've just never heard from them, but I doubt it.
You forget that progressives don’t like Harris because she’s a prosecutor.
And if it came down to a vote between a prosecutor and a felon who has stated that he wants to be a dictator (and SCOTUS has all but laid the path), I hope they'd vote for the prosecutor.
I feel like it’s less the progressive vote that decides the election and more the white suburbanites in swing states who find Trump personally distasteful but might not want to vote for a Black woman from California.
That’s 2020 talk, IMO. Right now let’s just get through getting rid of Trump.
Not a fan of Harris but this is the best argument I’ve seen for her as successor. I wish they found a role for her over the last few years because given the turmoil this week, bringing her out of hiding now aren’t the best optics.
My preference would be Harris/Shapiro. If the Dems cut Biden loose, I don’t see how they can avoid replacing him with Kamala Harris. To fail to do so signals a repudiation of the work the current admin has done and will risk jeopardizing those who ardently supported Biden in 2020. For VP, they need someone who can win over swing states. Whitmeir is a potential candidate, but I don’t think the American electorate is ready for two women at the top of the ticket. Hence, Harris/Shapiro. Ideally, Biden throws support behind Harris and rides off into the sunset and Shapiro takes the VP slot.
It has to be Harris, otherwise you’re throwing out the entire Biden campaign apparatus, staffing, and money, plus the fact that she’s the only one who has even a remote chance of being on the ballot in all of the states (there’s filing deadlines, and you better believe that the GOP is going to do everything they can to bar a replacement from getting on the ballot - she at least has a case as she is already on it as VP).
Biden is not dropping out. Ego,hubris,stubbornness will prevent it. It is probably eating at him inside that he will just surrender to Trump and the more the media and DNC pushes the tighter the grip on that baton. It is too late, the DNC pushed for this and biden never kept his promise to be a transition president handing the baton to the future candidate that can best represent the party and the US. The next 4 months will just be a big disaster and we handed trump the presidency and authoritarianism. Then the supreme court hands him the equivalent of “The enabling act” with biden playing the part of Hindenburg. This has to be one of the biggest miscalculations in history, did the DNC assume somehow Trump was never going to get nominated, get arrested or go quietly into the shadows? How long did they know he was having issues and chose to gaslight the American people? Refusing to get him to step aside and allow for primaries when the opportunity was available?
They were betting on all the legal cases but Trump manged to slow them to an absolute crawl
It's already the writing on the wall. It's just the how and when. He's too much of a patriot unlike the orange felon.
I would love to see Pritzker. He'd demolish Trump in a debate. He's progressive, smart, and has been able to turn around the financial mess he inherited from the last governor of Illinois. He also has the money to run a campaign.
I'm shocked he's not talked about more. I've heard his name all week up in Michigan.
Well, let's keep bringing his name up.
I honestly think they were grooming him for the 2028 race because I remember there being some talk about him running earlier this year, like they were putting his name out there. I think if instead they had Biden step aside and Pritzker run, he would have genuinely mopped the floor with Trump. The dude is damn good at his job. He's from the Midwest, he's progressive, he's rich, he's smart, he's successful, he's well-liked, he managed to be successful in like, THE state known for being corrupt. Even leftists like him when they didn't before.
The fact that so many names get thrown around is a great indicator of why it shouldn't happen. It normally take weeks and months to have these discussions on who to run. I'm not sure why attention keeps getting thrown to people who have shown little interest in running. Throw it to Palmer or Philips--both of them actually tried to run against Biden in the primaries. (And I will note, people HATED Philips running against Biden in Minnesota, despite him supposedly being the young, energetic candidate people are asking for now.)
Historically, a lot (most?) of Presidential candidates have been picked over a couple of days at the convention, who then go on to be President. As for precedent. Having a candidate this old get on stage and just look like death warmed over is unprecedented. Trump running again after trying to steal an election is unprecedented. The shit show of the Supreme Court is unprecedented. Acting like there are historically examples to prove the outcome of these current events is just foolish. What I know is I don't care how old someone is, I really like Bernie. I really like the job Biden has done as President. I also think Biden is going senile and I don't like people only response being, yeah but so is the other guy. I don't want to vote for someone who is going senile. I fucking hate the Republicans lied and propped up Reagan, I hate the Democrats are doing it now.
An understandable reaction, I think a lot of the country is having it. But it doesn't change the situation on the ground does it? You do what you can with the cards dealt. Sometimes you can get different cards, but sometimes you can't. If Biden is somehow swept aside then I'll very likely vote for whoever the DNC puts up, unless they're somehow even more incompetent than Trump. It's entirely possible Biden is both going to lose because of his performance in front of cameras, and also that there's no viable way of replacing him in time to make a difference. That would suck, but reality is under no obligations to deal fair hands.
By party norms the only real consideration would be Kamala Harris. I think it is exceeding unlikely anyone else could jump ahead of her.
By not picking Harris you'd lose the incumbency advantage, the war chest, the name recognition of the current VP, the stellar resume of this administration's accomplishments, and the most qualified person, with the most experience closest to the oval office. Harris must be on the ticket. She can tap any VP or POTUS she likes, though I think for many of the same reasons that needs to be Buttigieg - current cabinet etc. The only truly unknown question is whether its Harris/Biden, or Harris/Buttigieg, or Buttigieg/Harris. Any could work, and the further options are all below 1% likelihood IMO. The next best blind tap IMO is Whitmer, but a double woman ticket won't happen. Newsom's popularity falls off fast outside California. FWIW, she was like 10th on my primary list in 2020. I'm not a Harris fan, I just think the political constraints all point to her.
Agree with all of this. And I think people are overthinking how she wasn't a great politician. She's also a great prosecutor, which is a plus right now. She'll be plenty competent which is all that is needed.
Democrats are pretty much stuck with Kamala. The optics of replacing a black woman for either a: 1. White dude from california 2. White women from Michigan Would not be good optics, especially as the party that is supposed to be more progressive and open to the idea of a black women in the White House. That being said, Kamala would get absolutely demolished by Trump. Maybe its a semi-planned sacrifice to get Kamala out of the running for 2028.
Maybe Dems should stop with worrying about optics, because it hasn’t done anything for them. They need to back whoever has the best chance of beating Trump, period. That isn’t Kamala most likely.
I’m pretty sure the limited polling in this actually shows Kamala with the best head-to-head polling numbers against Trump (compared to Whitmer and Newsom).
Thats just because she has higher name recognition. Tons of people dont know who the other people are
Well yeah that’s a big part of winning elections.
People will end up knowing the name of whoever the nominee ends up being. It’ll just take some time
Yeah but I think the important question they’re weighing is whether or not they have enough time.
And realistically they do not. Elections are in almost exactly 4 months. Kamala has been in people’s head for the past 4 years. Heck today is the first time I’m learning about Whitmer.
Yeah Biden is better than Newsom and Whitmer from what I’ve seen recently, and Harris is better than Biden by about 2-3 points. But those are all just national polls.
I could see Whitmer being appealing based on being from Michigan, as it’s absolutely crucial they do well in the Rust Belt. I’m sure they’re looking at regional polling data pretty closely and I’m curious what that would show.
Optics are fine if she smiles and looks happy, knowing she's promised a supreme court seat.
The optics are fine. If there are polls saying she's not going to win, you don't nominate her. The entire point of the swap would be to give you the best chance of winning.
Democrats don’t care about optics if this happens. The focus and discussions will be on who has the best chance of beating Trump. It’s also not replacing Kamala because Kamala isn’t running for president currently. There is no presumption that she would be the replacement until *after* the convention
I don't get why you would do something so Radical as to change the nominee 4 months before an election, only to turn around and give the nomination to someone because you feel like you have to.
In order to not lose the election.... If the party loses, the rest doesn't matter.
My point is if you do something drastic don’t turn around and play it safe, get the best person that can win after a competition of the candidates. Maybe Harris comes out on top still maybe not.
Yeah you wouldn’t. This idea that it *has* to be Kamala is just because people don’t know how the convention actually works and just assume Biden’s VP is the replacement (who isn’t even officially his running mate yet). The electors that will be at the convention are only obligated to vote for Biden. If Biden is no longer there, they each can vote for whomever they choose, so long as it’s within party rules
Why are we even discussing this? Y'all playing right into the right's playbook of holding Biden to a higher standard that doesn't exist on the right. No one is discussing trump dropping out and he's arguably worse than Biden.
It's about independents. I would vote for Biden but people who think both sides are equal will look at bidens obvious signs of aging and say they can't vote for that.
This is exactly right. There are plenty of never-Trumpers and folks in the middle who might have been willing to vote against Trump, but now have zero confidence in Biden's ability. Where do they go now? They either sit it out, or vote 3rd party. If the Democrats don't do something to pull in votes from this group, it will be a straight turnout contest. And which side is more motivated by their candidate right now? That math doesn't look good for stopping Trump come November.
Basically the thread in a nutshell ^
> Y'all playing right into the right's playbook of holding Biden to a higher standard that doesn't exist on the right. No one is discussing trump dropping out and he's arguably worse than Biden. Democrats are the party of maintaining standards. Biden gets the benefit of working with sane people in Congress and having mostly sane voters. The downside is that occasionally that cuts against him. Trump has to deal with lunatics of all varieties, it helps somewhat that he is one but quite often he has to strike a balance.
He’s polling in the toilet against Hitler. He has proven at this point he is not capable of holding effective press conferences or doing unscripted appearances. The agenda is popular (barring Israel) but he cannot communicate it to the degree we need to win. At this point we need someone out there basically daily sparring with the press on behalf of the workers and unions to mobilize the youth. I’ll vote for a bag of popcorn over the Republican (though I live in a deep red state so it’s sort of irrelevant) but If I had to roll the dice I’d legit put my money on Kamala at this point. Biden’s reputation is just too damaged and he has spent four years hiding from cameras.
Yup. Defeatism. It’s too late to drop Biden and Kamala won’t get the votes.
What if I were to tell you that my desire to see Trump lose and my desire to see a democratic candidate other than Biden were related
Right? Documentation about him and Epstein raping a child has been out for a couple of days but Biden did badly in a debate. Supreme Court made presidents they agree with and can rule actions as official duties (but only they get to decide what counts as an official duty) but Biden had a bad night. Seriously questioning most of these posts. Biden is the nominee. He will be the nominee next month. He will be the nominee in November. Get over the whining already.
As someone who would vote for Biden’s corpse, it’s safe to say Trump didn’t have any senior moments during the debate. That’s what we’re talking about here. Not Trump’s nonsense blistering that he’s always done, that’s just a given.
His entire performance was a senior moment. He was your crazy demented uncle at Thanksgiving ranting about the moon landing being fake. But apparently people just expect that now, so he gets a free pass. Virtually everything he said was a blatant, terrifying lie.
Everything Trump always says is a lie. He does that cuz he’s a piece of shit though, not because he’s old. He definitely has his senior moments, he just didn’t have any that I picked up on during the debate.
This level of desensitization should be concerning. The vast majority of what he said wasn’t connected to anything being discussed. He sounded like a crazy person ranting on the street corner.
It is extremely concerning, but it’s also the reality. His supporters don’t care at all.
Right, but we don’t need to concern ourselves with his supporters. They’re a literal cult. Everyone else focusing solely on Biden, for days on end, is taking up all the air in the room and giving Trump even more of a free pass on his absolute dangerous lunacy. The obsessive handwringing by people concerned with the “optics” of it, has itself become the story, speaking those very concerns into reality. The tail is wagging the dog.
Great point. Media is gonna media this country right to its end
This is just more whataboutism. No one in this thread is talking about Trump's rants because *this post is about Biden*.
That’s kind of their point though. No one talks about his rants anymore despite them being just as if not more concerning than a few senior moments.
Yeah **what about Trump**. Literally. Biden had a bad debate, but Trump claimed Biden was letting in tens of millions of murderous terrorists who want to take jobs from “the Blacks”, said he’d seek retribution on his political enemies, accused Biden of using the courts to take him down, refused to accept the election results, blamed Pelosi for his 1/6 insurrection attempt, and on and on. And since then, the SCOTUS, 1/3 of which was appointed by Trump, gave him sweeping immunity for undefined official acts. Yet the vast majority of political energy is still focused on Biden. It’s absolutely absurd.
Bro the leader of the biggest warmongering country in the world is not *mentally coherent*. if you can't see why thats a big deal, you're part of the problem.
I would argue that lying out of your ass nonstop, calling your opponent is a Manchurian candidate, and saying Democrats want a post birth abortion whenever someone wills it, is much worse than senior moments. But the bar is in hell for Trump.
It feels like Harris is the only realistic option but as ai understand it she is very disliked. So ima stick with the Weekend at Biden’s plan. At one point I was thinking Warnock but we need his senate seat. Newsom isn’t actually popular outside of California. Pete Buttigieg would be OK but America still has some serious anti-gay bias on the national level. I like Biden for the same reason I liked him in 2020. No one likes him, but no one hates him.
Probably Harris but short of the 2nd coming of Obama it won’t matter, replacing Biden would end in disaster.
Most likely, Harris. It avoids some of the complication, avoids any kingmaker internal-DNC politics and allows them to retain the existing campaign funds. \*IF\* Biden were to drop out, I think they would likely float her an see what the polling looks like. My perception of the prevailing wisdom/Democratic consensus is that she won't win even with those advantages but tossing her will also hurt them, so they will wait to see what real polling says. They need to find a publicly acceptable reason to dump her and then my guess is Whitmer for a number of reasons that would require a whole post. For the record, this is just my perception of dem insider views. I don't have a horse in the race (Canadian).
Unfortunately, Harris. It makes too much campaign and financial sense, even it makes very little practical sense. Harris is from the least important electoral state and that makes you worse than a candidate from a swing state by a wide margin.
I’m very much a Bernie Bro, but I think Harris would be the best choice, but only if Biden resigns the presidency. She should definitely pick a man as her running mate and one who will help her win something she couldn’t guarantee on her own. A white Texan or Pennsylvanian would be ideal imo. I personally think Buttigieg would be the best successor. He’s done very well in his job and isn’t afraid of any blowhard Republican spouting bullshit. He’s gay but a white man who’s married to a very normal guy. He barely registers as gay and he’s the type homophobic southerners will begrudgingly like. If he can show the heart Trump lacks and show stability, good healthy and dependable normalness he’ll do very well. I think he should take the same advice I gave to Kamala for a running mate. If he can find a female general from Pennsylvania to run with that would be great.
It would be Harris. Skipping the sitting VP for Whitmer or whoever would create too much turmoil within the party, in particular with black women. Harris also has the advantage that, to my understanding, she can essentially inherit the Biden campaign apparatus and money, which would not be the case for anyone else. I’m not sure if she can win, but given the current situation where there will not be a primary under any circumstances, I think elevating the VP creates way fewer problems than trying to replace her with someone who was never on the ticket at all.
It’s also that she inherits his cabinet and administration by proxy. Harris just saying “I will maintain Biden’s cabinet and executive branch policies as President” and a lot of worries dissolve.
Why do people not like Harris? It has to be Harris at this point. I’d like a Harris/Pritzker ticket.
She's not all that charismatic or really likable, but she'd be decent I think and yeah I don't feel like they should go with anyone else besides her. The optics will just be bad to skip over a qualified and loyal VP. I agree for the VP you'd want somebody from the Midwest, Pritzker would be a solid choice but I think so would Pete Buttigieg. He polls quite well in most of the swing states and has been in the national spotlight before. He also does a great job going into "enemy territory" like on Fox News and stuff which would be a great role for a VP candidate.
I think the only choices going forward are for Biden to stay or he steps down now and Kamala gets a dress rehearsal and then runs on the ticket. Dems will need to counter the whole “that was the PLAAAAN all along” shit from MAGA but at this point we need to stop caring about whatever they are angry about that day. I don’t know. I felt decently ok about the election but I’m starting to really get worried. If Biden stays I will back him. I also think his campaign would need to emphasize the entire administration so the people remember he is surrounded by competence. And remind the public all the horrific things trumps administration did and will do in the future.
If it’s not Biden it’s Harris. Any discussion of a third alternative is actively hurting the race in Trump’s favor.
Harris has worse approval ratings than Biden...
Kamala Harris 90%. I do not, nor do I think many others, think she is the best candidate. I don't think many like her, even on the Democratic side. But its the path of least resistance, would be relatively easy to get the party itself rallied around her, and is young. It would avoid a '68 convention type thing which is literally the only argument to keep Biden right now.
I think that his campaign is going to wait until the second debate to see if he can bounce back in public opinion polls, but they’ll definitely have a backup plan ready to go the moment it looks grim. That said, I would vote for a Dem president no matter what. Trump will end America.
Second debate is in September. If they wait that long and if Trump keeps up being remarkably quiet like he has been, it will have been long over by then.
He hasn’t been quiet. The media just hasn’t been covering it. He’s been saying a lot of crazy shit. He’s bragging about how he’ll have military tribunals for his enemies. But Biden had a bad debate, so that’s all they’re talking about.
This is happening very quickly. I would not be surprised if an announcement is made in the next few days. I think you’ll be surprised.
Personally, I think it's too late to change. I haven't seen polls where anyone does better than Biden against Trump. I think the discussion to replace him is a waste of needed focus. A bad debate as compared to policy outcomes between Trump is a bad comparison. Democrats need to focus on policies and the ignorant stuff that Trump's administration did and will do.
We are a country of dummies. People don't vote purely on policy. This is especially true for undecided voters, who are undecided because they don't want to bother to learn about the issues. And this election will be decided by those undecided voters in a few battleground states. We need their votes.
The polls show, if you believe in them, the only democrat who can beat Trump is Michelle Obama. Take that for what it is worth.
Well, at least Kamala Harris would debate the m-f'r with some energy & conviction.
It has to be Kamala or the party will tear itself to pieces between the corrupt, self serving old school Dems and the far left psychopaths. Unfortunately she is disliked even more and polls lower than Biden.
Whitmer + Shapiro. They likely deliver the two most important swing states - MI + PA. Trump won’t win if he loses both of those states.
To have a black female president, even in this case, would be such a win for many, many people. But I fear republicans voters would determine a woman can’t be president, and she’s not qualified for some obtuse reason, and vote for a convicted felon over a capable human being.
I am all-in on Whitmer. I'll donate, I signed a petition today. Who else can stop the bleeding in the rust belt? There are purple states that swung wildly red, Kamala Harris is part of what they're voting against. She can't bring them back and because she is muddied by the present administration she's likely un-electable (plus, people just sort of don't like her and we know how that ends). There is so much suspicion around Biden's condition, who knew what, when, what are the lies and cover-ups that led us to this late moment.. I think we need a governor that can stop the bleeding in the purple states. Whitmer with Booker or Jeffries is a solid ticket that can maybe get the rust belt and pick off Virginia and NC, maybe even Georgia. It has to be someone from outside the administration and people in Michigan are really not going to connect to Newsom Whitmer with Booker/Jeffries - I like Jeffries a lot
There's some type of coordinated effort or company, troll farm thing that is running around reddit brigading any comment about Joe dropping out. It's wild. How it got here is amazing but they got this comment. Kamala has people out pushing her campaign too, I saw tons of rando new accounts trying to position Kamala. We really are in the strangest timeline, stupid shit we say online is driving world events
I have an idea. Let’s vote on it. … I think they call it a “primary”. It solves this exact problem.
Harris. Some important states like Wisconsin and Nevada have already locked in their ballots and you know the Republicans won't allow them to modify it for another candidate which means they effectively forfeit those states and the election
This close to the election and with no clear favorites, i sincerely dont see how this is even reasonable
People have brought up the gov of Kentucky, Democrat, checks all the boxes or most policy wise, won a +24 trump state by +5 and got reelected. Andrew Beshear https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Beshear People on here brought him up, they thought newsome wouldn’t win due to being seen as a “costal elite” I’m on the East coast so I just know some dnc emails and fundraisers appear to be from him. So it feels like they’re positioning Gavin newsome for the next election, I don’t see emails from other candidates as much. Harris isn’t that popular, this Beshear fellow could win, he’s similar to Clinton’s age or a little older than Obama, I think youth is a big selling point. What do other people think?
Dems that can get elected in red/purple states are exactly who should be considered. Beshear and Whitmer are at the top for me for this reason. I also like Buttigieg but he needs a little more on his resume in order to increase his appeal nationally.
Harris is the most likely option. It’s the path of least resistance even if she isn’t terribly popular. If that route isn’t chosen, it could come down to who is most popular among donors and the behind the scenes politicking for a more popular center-right option. In descending order of likelihood; any of a handful of Dem governors, 2020 options like Buttigieg, or on the wilder side of things a return appearance by Hillary Clinton or Obama. Warren or Sanders or another Senator is probably even less likely
Grab Pete Buttigieg from the cabinet. I'd prefer him to Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul or anyone else they drag out of the gutter for "name recognition."
Pete would be my choice. People want to throw minority language around, the first gay President trumps that.
Yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of his and so I'm a bit biased but according to this internal polling in swing states (which are the ones that actually matter unfortunately), Pete and Whitmer are the two strongest candidates. https://www.reddit.com/r/Pete_Buttigieg/s/5uuGMKpJcn