Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.

The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.

“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The next debate should be hilarious. Someone with facts and speaking ability vs a windbag lie machine

        • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh I quite think that he’d love to debate her! However his handlers will absolutely go bonkers trying to get him to shut up about it to keep that from happening.

        • kronisk @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          So she should go on Twitter every fucking day and make jokes about how he’s too much of a coward to debate her. A narcissist can’t handle a bruised ego.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wonder if she convicted anyone of falsification of business records? It would be interesting if she mentioned that as one of her past accomplishments while on the stage with someone found guilty of 34 counts of that crime.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      She has less than 4 months and was completely invisible before. She is going to lose hard and this time we can really blame the Dems for betraying Biden this late in the race.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        and was completely invisible before.

        Only if you haven’t been paying attention.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Biden was going to lose. Do you really think they’d go through all this if that wasn’t the reality of the situation?

      • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        About 30 seconds ago I felt a little smarter not knowing you exist, yet in so few words you’ve made yourself pretty thoroughly known.

        Four months is plenty of time. Biden will be backing her. The DNC has voting wolves ready to kick their asses. Bernie and AOC both supported Biden and are wise enough to support Harris, and others will follow their example. Back to point #2, and to reaaaally highlight something obscenely important:

        They listened.

        Take that in for a meager second. Now ask yourself if we could get those prideful fucks to back down, and also get an old lifetime politician to step aside in a historical move, do you understand what we could potentially do if we complained half as hard as you do when so much shit isn’t on the line?

        Oh, and give us an alternative that matches three things:

        1. Not invisible
        2. Likely to have larger support
        3. Not old asf

        I think you’ll find 3 to be rather important for a LOT of people right now.

        • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol yeah what are Bernie and AOC supposed to do? Not support anyone and take on the backstabbers on their own? It is too late for any alternative. It was go with Biden who has a chance to win and beat Trump before or just giving Trump the win on the silver platter. Now I just hope Trump is so incompetent that there will be a next election or at least that he doesnt care about the rest of the world and only focusses on the US so at least we are safe. I hope the betraying Dems will realize their mistake and be deeply sorry for it.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I prolly agree with you, and you seem to have a good handle on the current political climate (thus an intelligent head on your shoulders), which is why I think it’s worth my time to suggest some introspection w/r/t your first sentence. Thanks for your consideration.

            • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              If only they had actual arguments instead of cute naivety. But hey, some americans just deserve project 2025.

              • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I notice you never answer my question. You sure responded to others, which is your right. Go on, give us an alternative that match the necessary criteria I listed. Here, I’ll make it easy:

                1. Not invisible
                2. Likely to have larger support
                3. Not old asf
          • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Before the Pandemic I would have agreed. However, because of people’s stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to facts, proof, and the science itself, people died. Many of them died through no fault of their own, or the fault of others, which is bad enough. However, many died because of those we gave too much leeway and understanding to. If being hopelessly polite and stretching my own patience to unimaginable lengths cause ANYONE to die, I may as well be a part of the cause of their death. Tolerance is no longer an option. Like it or not, there are lives at stake this time as well.

            I stood against the anti-vaccine and anti-mask fools. I am sure as hell going to stand against the people who in bad faith claim to be Democrats or left-leaning. Who claim to want what’s best. Who shout their claims that their way is the only way when it clearly leads us down a dark path. I will stand against them.

            Because it has to be done.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              The pandemic blew my mind as well.

              Is it more of our gut feel or is it an evidence-based position that kicking off a response with 10% ad hominem before getting into the meat begets better results than skipping the ad hom?

              • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Depends on what you’re replying to, really. Though honestly, some people are so hard and radically set in certain beliefs that I use it to spark conversation. Because you know the types I’m targeting rarely respond to reason. The goal then is to get them to respond at all.

                I know the playbook, you menial mentally mangled badly reconstructed sentient regressive bipedal sticks in the mud. I shall use it against you all! >:(

        • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m saving this to use later, because it’s amazing, thank you, “About 30 seconds ago I felt a little smarter not knowing you exist”

        • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sure they’ll find their footing eventually, but so far it’s been pretty piss poor. Aimless. I think it legit never occurred to them this could happen.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            They were always piss poor about Obama, because there wasn’t any ammunition to work with

            The biggest grievance about her has been that she was overly hard on criminals, and that would backfire on them if they echoed that sentiment to the right wing base. It can piss off leftists though, so astroturfing leftist Internet folks while trying to not say it too loud so people on the right won’t hear it seems to be the game.

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It does seem like the concern trolls have very quickly moved on from repeating that Biden is too old ad nauseum to Harris convicted too many criminals.

              I think the best thing anyone can do in this day and age is educate themselves on trolling/astroturfing tactics. Once you do they stand out and it makes their goal of dividing and astroturfing significantly more difficult. It also makes them waste their time if no one takes their bait, which is good for everyone.

          • elbucho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Which is hilarious, since Biden is old as fuck, and has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. You’d think they’d already have a contingency plan in place in case he kicked the bucket while in office with all of the hate talking points for Harris.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I wonder if the ‘Black’ part means less to the republican party than her being a pretty competent woman. I can see Harris pulling a LOT of single issue woman voters over the abortion rights issue. And that scares the republican party. It would kill the down ticket vote as well.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      ooooh never thought about that. people dislike that she’s a prosecutor so i don’t know if she should use this at all but it’s still kinda awesome

      • joenforcer@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “soft on crime” line is completely broken, though. They can’t use it against her because the response is how she built a career around holding felons like Donald Trump accountable, and nothing else. There is zero comeback.

        • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          she built a career around holding felons like Donald Trump accountable

          I hope she gets a chance to say something like that to his face in a debate

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          good point. funny how the “tough on crime” people are supporting a convicted felon. of course as with all of their issues it’s just code for bigotry.

          they don’t care about crime, they want to oppress black people.

          they don’t care about the sanctity of marriage or family, they want to oppress gay people.

          they don’t care about the welfare of babies, they want to oppress women.

          and as an obvious part of that of course they never cared about women’s safety in public places or women’s sports, they just want to oppress trans people.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        She already has, talked about she was a prosecutor who took down sex predators and scam colleges, both of which are Trump.

  • rhacer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t think she stands a chance running as a VP. However, if President Biden were to invoke Article 25, and abdicate in favor of his VP. I honestly think she’d be a lock to win.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol, im sure its just a coicidence that you are parroting the GOP by calling on Biden to resign the presidency right now.

      No, it would not strengthen her campaign if her running mate made the entirely unprecedented move of resigning in office for no stated reason. The procedural shitshow a GOP house would make the process would become the whole news cycle until the election.

      She is a much, much stronger canidate in her current role, being able to brag about every Biden/Harris accomplishment and not have any baggage of an active presidency, especially one that would be assumed in a ginned up shit show by her politcal opponents.

      • rhacer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        You might want to actually go read Article 25 if you believe there would be a Republican controlled shit-show.

        Republicans have no say under section 1. President Biden says “I’m out” and Vice President Harris becomes President. Congress has no say, the Senate had no say, nobody has any say but the President and the Vice President.

        The President could give a reason, or he could choose not to do so.

        The only time Congress is involved is under Section 4.

        Section 1 covers everything from “Take this job and shove it” to “I’m tired and want to spend more time with my family”

        I repeat Congress has no say. There is no political debate. There is simply “I’m out, you’re in.”

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          First off, this congress will gin up a hearing on anything, then sue when it doesnt go their way. Second off, in this situation the house and senate has to approve the new VP. They 100% will make that an absolute clown show.

          Those circumstances are provided for in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 1967. Section 2 states:

          “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        She can also campaign full time, unlike Biden who was also doing the job of president while he was campaigning

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, it would not strengthen her campaign if her running mate made the entirely unprecedented move of resigning in office for no stated reason

        “Health reasons”. Maybe he checks into a hospital announces it from there.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay, so now you have an excuse. So this kicks off a living shitshow in the Republican controlled house as article 25 is invoked. You have a circus that lets Republicans go on and on and on, stalling as best they can, starting hearing, etc. The GOP gets endless media attention when they would otherwise be on the backfoot to all the energizing postive press the dems are about to get. The GOP gets to grandstand, they get to sue, maybe the supreme court weighs in, making it look like Democrats can’t handle the presidency.

          In what way is that a positive for the Harris campaign?

      • rhacer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think she gets a huge bounce if she’s the President thrust into a role she did not ask for or seek. It’s a pretty typical human reaction to cheer for people forced by circumstance into an unexpected role. I think she also gets four months to show that she’s Presidential material.

        So that’s the pragmatic part. I also believe that President Biden has shown he’s incapable of governing, and that we have rules regarding that situation. In fact that’s why we have the position of VP.

        • zabadoh@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand your idea with your first paragraph, but it also ties Harris down to the White House instead of freeing her to campaign, and get her own name out there. If there are any events beyond her control, while she’s President, she would also be on the hook for those.

          Biden’s actually pretty good and he is, or at least his staff is, getting a lot of positive things done, as long as he’s off camera. That’s been true throughout his career.

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          a role she did not ask for or seek.

          She sought it in 2019 (ran for the office) but dropped out early in the primaries.

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now we just need to get Trump to step down. Then we can have a less insane election.

    He really should. He has no business running.

      • ForensicFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m giggling at this and I don’t know why but I’m going to start making this statement as straight faced as possible when I’m told that he should be reelected

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if the assassin had finished the job, his cult would prop his corpse up and wait for him to come back to life.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Now we just need to get Trump to step down. Then we can have a less insane election.

      If that hands the GOP nomination to Vance, then Vance would completely destroy any of the Democrats who the Dem establishment could possibly let run. This was obvious on watching about a minute of Vance’s VP acceptance speech on the news. Dems should be careful what they ask for.

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        then Vance would completely destroy any of the Democrats who the Dem establishment could possibly let run.

        Well…

        In February, during an episode of Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Vance said that he cared more about the security of the US southern border than the Russian troop build-up near Ukraine. “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” Vance said.

        ““Indigenous Peoples’ Day” is a fake holiday created to sow division. Of course Joe Biden is the first president to pay it any attention.”

        “I am as pro life as anyone, and I want to save as many babies as possible. This is not about moral legitimacy but political reality.”

        “There are dozens of people who protested on J6 who haven’t even been charged with a crime yet are being mistreated in DC prisons. A friend suggested the below link if you’re able to support them.”

        Vance said that Trump should “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat” in the US government and “replace them with our people.” If the courts attempt to stop this, Vance says, Trump should simply ignore the law. “You stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it,” he declares. The President Jackson quote is likely apocryphal, but the history is real. Vance is referring to an 1832 case, Worcester v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US government needed to respect Native legal rights to land ownership. Jackson ignored the ruling, and continued a policy of allowing whites to take what belonged to Natives. The end result was the ethnic cleansing of about 60,000 Natives — an event we now call the Trail of Tears.

        Yeah, Democrats will sure have a tough time with him…

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, maybe you’re right, I had basically never heard of Vance until Trump picked him. But his acceptance speech was written to eat the Democrats’ lunch, since they weren’t willing to eat it themselves. And that stuff you quoted will delight Trump supporters, and maybe not bother too many Democrats.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler” - JD Vance

            He’s no different from Ted Cruz. Was against Trump, then later supported him. Both of these guys grew a beard after flipping to be huge Trump supporters too.

      • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        As an ohioian, I can assure you no one gives a shit about vance and he stands for nothing. He’s a Muppet who says what he’s told to say

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh I thought he was a huge liability being absolutely full of baggage. Insane things he’s said, including that trump is America’s Hitler (mind you that’s only insane to cultists)

  • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    AOC rationalizes selling out her principles to unite the big tent and become part of the dynastic club.

    Newsom ensures neoliberal outcomes with appeal to neoliberals and fence Republicans.

    The big tent unites. Democrats win.

  • qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We don’t stand a chance with her as the pick. Whitmer would’ve been a much better president pick

      • qooqie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For me it’s always polls, I don’t care about Bidens ages I want someone who can for sure beat this shit stain (trump) and keep him out for good

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree Whitmer would be the best chance at beating Trump in general.

      But I do think that Harris can still do that job and that there’s logistical reasons why it’s going to be that.

      I wish we’d have Whitmer, but I’m not terrified of it being Harris the way I was if Biden stayed in the race.

      And if she picks a good VP that helps round out the ticket with the middle of the country, I could see the new ticket getting momentum.

    • Wiz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      She hasn’t even started campaigning yet, and she was even to Joe or even better.

      • qooqie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        She literally has been campaigning? She is the VP she campaigns with Joe. She’s in the public eye, people know her and she still trails trump

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          She’s barely in the public eye. When Jimmy Kimmel had her on his show, he did one of his ‘ask the people on Hollywood boulevard’ segments where he asked them who the VP was and people just kept getting it wrong or didn’t even know.

        • finestnothing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          She has been campaigning… For Biden. That’s the difference between being the backup singer and the lead singer at a concert. Sure the backup singer is still on stage and singing, but it’s just to support the lead singer, not to show off their own talent

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No change this late would have been the best pick. Now the Dems just hand Trump the presidency. Maybe because they are scared of what Trump will do to them so they try to ally with him?

  • Kroxx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t like Harris, mainly because of her time as a prosecutor. I’m also not going to lie, I was having a really really hard time grappling with voting for Biden, I was begrudgingly willing to before the debate but when I watched it I was so outraged. I genuinely feel like his administration has been deceitful with his condition for a while. I’m not saying I wasn’t going to vote for Biden, I understand the stakes, but I kept watching his interviews trying to get any genuine motivation for Biden. All I saw was a stubborn old man who refused to even acknowledge reality.

    I’ve been following Biden news and this week I was convinced that he would drop out and so I wondered who would replace him. Harris immediately came to mind. Now as I said I don’t care for Harris but before Biden announced this today I personally decided I would be willing to support Harris.

    She isn’t ancient, I believe she’s more progressive, and I think she will be good in the debates. She isn’t my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th pick, but I have far fewer hangups voting for Harris compared to Biden, and of course over Trump.

    She isn’t the best candidate in terms of absolute popularity, but when you factor in funding logistics and the fact that I think many good Dems picks would want to run in '28 when the timing isn’t fucked, I think Harris is the most realistic pick. I’ll happily take her compared to Biden.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I believe she’s more progressive

      Convince me brother. I think we just sentenced ourselves to 8 years of “we’ll still move to the right, just more slowly than Trump.” Yes I’m going to vote for her, but would have loved for someone actually progressive to have a chance prior to 2032. If you run the calculus differently, tell me how.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        She’s Pro-Weed legalization, Pro-Medicare for All, and Pro-PRO Act. By all measures, she’s significantly more left wing than Obama, so I don’t exactly know how she could be “moving us to the right” at all.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Because sometimes people change their views because of personal growth and other times they say they have changed them for political expediency, which is the viewpoint considered by the article I linked. You are aware she was a prosecutor who made a career out of locking people up, right?

          Edit: Not in the branch of discussion I thought we were, I had not linked the article here. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/kamala-cop-record/596758/

          Edit 2: The most relevant bit:

          I can forgive a politician a vote on a crime bill that looks ill-conceived two decades later, or a too-slow evolution toward marijuana legalization, or even a principled belief in the death penalty, something I adamantly oppose. I find it far harder to forgive fighting to keep a man in jail in the face of strong evidence of innocence, running a team of prosecutors that withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys, and utterly failing as the state’s top prosecutor to rein in glaringly corrupt district attorneys and law enforcement.

          At best, Harris displayed a pattern of striking ignorance about scandalous misconduct in hierarchies that she oversaw. And she is now asking the public to place her atop a bigger, more complicated, more powerful hierarchy, where abuses and unaccountable officials would do even more to subvert liberty and justice for all.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s attitudes exactly like this why American Democrats are center right, and why we have had almost zero meaningful legislation to help the normal people for 40 years.

      If your family survives this coming shitshow of a fasist coup, I hope you beg their forgiveness and tell them your small part in helping start it.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        why we have had almost zero meaningful legislation to help the normal people for 40 years.

        The Affordable Care Act is why I was able to take a year off work to focus on my mental health after the pandemic crushed it. The Inflation Reduction Act is helping keep the renewable energy company I work for afloat and offering an optimistic future.

        No one expects to end up on government assistance or using FMLA to take a few months off for an illness. We support it on the left because we know it’s the fucking right thing to do.

        It’s all good and fine to criticize programs as useless theoretically when you don’t rely on them. But when you’ve actually experienced them and needed them, your perspective changes heavily.

        Democrats have gotten good shit done for the average person, and I’ve personally benefited from it when I really needed it.

      • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a normal person, I’ve been helped by legislation both by Biden and Obama. Just because it’s not perfect doesn’t mean it’s not good.

        • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          SCOTUS, Congress, and POTUS have all, regardless of party have catered to corporate interest over the citizenry an OVERWHELMING amount my entire life, and I remember life before the internet.

          Sure we get a few crumbs, cars for clunkers, a crippled ACA, a constant ‘will they, won’t they’ over college loans.

          Meanwhile Citizens United gave corporations near unlimited influence, the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the housing collapse in 2008 and the banks were bailed out. Even recently in COVID those most benefitted were the corporations and ultra wealthy who netted a 1.3 FUCKINGTRILLION dollar payday with almost no oversight or pressure to pay back, and we are STILL seeing fraud cases from that show up.

          So was your little 3k ‘gift’ that was meant for relief during A FUCKING PANDEMIC in any way commesurate with the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS the owner class (who was at no financial risk at any time) got to keep?

          Do you feel all these little crumbs of social support they have doled out in meager and begrudging ways makes up for the fact that no matter what their party, NEARLY EVERY MEMBER of our top seats in government are more concerned about the interests of the wealthy than they are in normal people?

      • Kroxx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the DNC gets to make this decision not me. This is a last minute situation that hasn’t happened since the 60s, every ounce of divisiveness will only embolden the “facist coup”. The time is up, whoever they pick we’ve got to unite behind and hopefully rally voters to the booths. Honestly the presidency needs to be D so it can’t veto/ can veto, the VP can tie break, and executive orders. She will hopefully be a beacon to encourage voters to get more D in the senate and house. The house/senate flips and your meaningful legislation point becomes moot. Lastly I have no clue what you are saying in the 2nd paragraph, somehow voting for Harris makes a facist coup? No clue what middle steps are included to achieve that outcome but you must know something I don’t. Regardless I have no worries about my family but I appreciate the concern!

        • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are a fascist propaganda account.

          You will deny it.

          Your sockpuppets will come mock and downvote me, flooding my inbox with harassment until I respond back then you will report that reply, getting me banned and giving you the opportunity to play the aggrieved victim for a while, then you will just go back to posting slightly disconcerting concern trolling to erode morale.

          And the mods, of course, will support you. Because you have ‘the right to play’, and I am of course ‘a bad actor’ for ‘stirring up trouble’ and everyone will breathe a sigh of relief as I am banned and this place becomes more and more enshittified all in the name of ‘People can have their opinion, yo’.

          I’m so fucking tired of this game, but it will never end, because fascists like you have been emboldened by the rising hard right tide and there will never be a normal election for the remainder of my life. If we have elections AT ALL after the next one.

          • machinin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude, take a breath. You’re coming off as unhinged. You’ll probably call me a shill or something, then continue to ignore people it. It isn’t all a grand conspiracy against you.

              • Freefall@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                TBF, if you called any decenting opinion one “made by the sock puppet” you predicted…that would make prophecy super easy! A very trumpian tactic, I might add, preemptive excuses and all. Not that it adds or removes validity from whatever you are arguing about (I just caught your rand while quick scrolling and don’t care enough to read the topic) but you definitely sound like the lunatic and it sounds like you know you lost whatever debate spawned this hilarious post and are spiraling.

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      She has also gotten close to $100M in funding just in the last 24 hours. From small donators.

      That’s a record of some sort

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      As to that 2028 topic…If Harris wins, it pushes all of them all the way back to 2032. Many of those hopefulf may like their odds right now, as opposed to 8 years later, unless those same people are confident Harris will lose against Trump.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      when you factor in funding logistics

      This is an incredibly important point. Unless rich donors said they’d fully make up the current campaign war chest for the new candidate, there would be a significant funding issue. Being able to use the existing funds is extremely important.

    • elbucho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know what? I felt the same way before today. But I’ve been thinking about it a lot since the announcement, and the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Harris is the best possible presidential candidate.

      Like you, I don’t think she’d make the best president. Hell, she wasn’t even in my top 10. I’d have vastly preferred someone like Hakeem Jeffries. But here’s the thing: the person best suited for the office of president isn’t necessarily the best person to run for president.

      Harris has all of the advantages Biden had: she can run on this administration’s record, since it was her administration too. Every positive talking point about the stuff that Biden’s done for the country can equally apply to Harris. Additionally, she gets his entire war chest, and with the president’s blessing today, she’s likely going to have 100% party support as well. To make matters even better, she doesn’t have any of the flaws he sported: she’s young, she’s sharp, she’s great in debates, and because she’s the antithesis of Biden in all of these respects, all of the criticisms pointed at Biden (which could also 100% be applied to Trump) will now all be applied to Trump and Trump alone.

      Lastly, I think that now is the most favorable moment in our country’s history for a non-white, non-male person to become president. She’s got the built-in support of everybody who dreads another Trump presidency. A significant number of people who would vote for Biden but not Harris due to sexism or racism will be rethinking that position when the opposition is Donald Trump. Also, something like 40% of people in the US just simply don’t vote. Biden would never appeal to those people, but a black / asian woman who has succeeded in a mostly male dominated field could be very inspirational to a large number of otherwise apathetic non-voters.

      I honestly think that Harris being endorsed for President is just an unalloyed good. I don’t see any realistic downsides, and an incredible number of upsides. It actually has me excited, which is a feeling I haven’t felt since 2008.

      • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m personally a little nervous about Harris–I remember the 2020 primary where her only notable accomplishments were accusing Biden of being racist over opposition to federal busing policies, and then flaming out shortly after and shuttering her campaign two months before the first caucus and polling single digits in California. Admittedly, she doesn’t have the same headwinds now that she had in 2020–she doesn’t have to differentiate herself from over a dozen other candidates and she won’t struggle to raise money–but she also made some unforced errors (e.g. coming out for total elimination of private insurance before revealing a plan that included private plans, or admitting her own policy on busing was essentially identical to Biden’s).

        Hopefully, she’ll run a much tighter campaign now since she’ll inherit Biden’s staff and can focus solely on attacking Trump, but I do have some concerns.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Polling single digits in California might actually be indicative of her having a better chance. The same reasons why she want the top choice in a deeply blue state may make her a stronger choice in more “on the fence” voters.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed with all that! But I have one caveat.

        the most favorable moment in our country’s history for a non-white, non-male person to become president

        Look, I cried tears of joy when Obama won. I mean that literally. But guess when the conservative hate machine got dialed to 11?

        Some will say it started earlier, but I disagree. Back then I occasionally listened to Limbaugh and Hannity on the radio while running errands at work. They actually had some sane takes now and again. Wasn’t very political, but I had my ear to the ground. The entire machine, especially Fox News, went so far off the rails in response to a black President, I simply couldn’t listen to any of them, not for a second.

        Conservative brains take time to assimilate new social conditions, gotta chip away at 'em. I’m already hearing the, “Fuck them!” replies, but that doesn’t change the fact that these people exist and vote. And they’re going to get more and more violent.

        Look at LGBT rights. We got them to begrudgingly accept gay marriage. Fresh off that victory, liberals asked for more and more acceptance. Too much, too fast, they went full-on berserk. Now I feel gay rights are perhaps worse than before.

        Scared to see what a double-whammy of a black woman does to their brains. I used to laugh about conservatives choking on their outrage, same with Christians. “Ha! Losing ain’t ya!” But now it isn’t so funny. They’re in a corner and lashing out. What next?

        • elbucho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          All, or at least the vast majority, of those people you’re talking about are already Trump voters. They’re going to continue backing Trump no matter who the Democratic party picks. They saw a black guy get elected president, and that radicalized them. They aren’t coming back. Pandering to the imaginary demographic of racists who will surely see the light if we elect the right candidate is simply a losing proposition.

          Will there be right wing violence in response to a Harris presidency? Of course there will be. Is there right wing violence now? Of course there is. I understand that you’re tired of hearing the “fuck them” replies, but seriously: fuck them. They are a cancer on this nation. Holding back on doing something good just because you’re afraid that the fucking awful people you share a country with will do something awful just means that you never make any progress.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Too much, too fast, they went full-on berserk.

          Raises a conundrum I struggle with:

          No one should have to wait for rights, true.

          yet

          Idiots vote, true.

          How should we act if we know fighting for certain rights means fascists have an easier time in elections?

          Should we…:

          A. Be publicly on the right side of history at risk of losing an election to the detriment of all.

          B. Be publicly on the right side of a human rights issue in order to win, then try to privately backchannel to make up for the sin.

          (Perhaps a false binary here, so ready to be corrected.)

          Idealist in me says fight at all costs, maybe it’ll work out. Pragmatist in me says “win the damn election & backchannel the heck out of your term.” Feel guilty either way.

      • HiddenLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know where all this “I don’t like Harris” stuff comes from. Considering the presidents we’ve had lately, hahaha… if she won, it would be amazing. I’m sure there are better people in the world, but they don’t even get close to the White House. We have to be realistic. She’s a great pick considering current political realities.

        • elbucho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh for sure. Don’t get me wrong; she’s not my ideal president, but she’d still probably be in the top 5 presidents we’ve ever had. That’s not necessarily making a judgment about her without seeing her performance first, it’s more of a statement about how bad most US presidents are. Still, I have high hopes for a Harris presidency. I think she’ll do a great job. She’s just not my #1 draft pick.

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget that the fascists will push away moderates everywhere because they have no idea how racist and sexist they are, nor how to hide it, because it’s their entire platform.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only way you’ll get a candidate that aligns with 100% of your personal beliefs, is if you run for office yourself

        That being said, I’d love a real leftwing candidate

        • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          And sometimes you have to run on or embrace the ideals of someone else just to get elected. Unfortunate.

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, that’s what rational people do, pick the less damaging choice.

        What the FUCK is wrong with you people who actively choose the more damaging choice for lulz?

        • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that’s how we get pulled further to the right. When did I say I had chosen anyone for the lulz. What the fuck is wrong with you jumping to conclusions?

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have yet to meet a forum poster who unironically used the phrase ‘and that’s how we get pulled further to the right’ in response to a reply about not voting for a fucking convicted felon pedophile fascist that wasn’t a fucking fascist themselves.

            • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              No shit I’m going to vote, when did I say I wasn’t? Everyone here so quick to forget we had two shit choices, now we still have two shit choices.

              • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                One is rusty shitbox.

                The other is radioactive rusty shitbox that is also on fire.

                If you have a problem choosing, the problem isn’t with the candidates. Even hesitating a moment is a form of mental illness.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Both candidates are right wing so it’s not really “BOtH sIdEs.” People on the left would like some representation for once.

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What policies have the right and left regularly agreed upon? What bills put forth have unanimous votes?

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Fighting universal healthcare. Refusing to revoke Citizens United. Refusing the Right to Repair.

                The Patriot Act. The Iraq War. Enabling The Genocide of Palestine. The continuous decline into corporatocracy.

                All bipartisan efforts.

                You shitlibs genuinely do not understand the conversation happening in front of you. We know you don’t, or you wouldn’t be a shitlib, you’d be a social democrat at worst.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Using the term sHiTliB renders you exempt from discourse. It’s like screaming that you’re unreachable and a huge waste of time

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think your conflating Right and Left with Republican and Democrat.
              They aren’t the same thing.

              Both parties have been pro-corporate oligopoly. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have been catering to the same class of big corporate donors. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have been pro-military-industrial-complex. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have been pro-Israli genocide. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have shown a little movement toward economic populism. The Democrats, just more so.

              They might not vote together on many bills. Because it would look bad to their respective bases if they did.
              But they’ve both been pushing in similar directions on a number of topics for decades.

    • callouscomic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      She wasn’t anyone’s top 4 even in 2020. Netween what they did before Super Tuesday then, and now this, this isn’t democracy. This is DNC controlling what happens to prevent something like Bernie. People aren’t getting choice and primaries are pointless.

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        People could have voted for someone other than Biden in the primaries. That was always an option. Just because the incumbent was running again didn’t mean the voters HAD to vote for him.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Quick poll

          Please up vote if you had a chance (I did, that’s 1)

          Please down vote if you didn’t get a chance to vote for someone else in the primary

          • limelight79@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            I didn’t, but I’m registered independent, so I don’t vote in the party primaries in my state.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            I will never understand why we don’t just force Super Tuesday on all 50 states. My dipshit of a state is the week after and I hate it

            • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              From my understanding, the reason for this is to give candidates with less funds and less name recognition an opportunity to bubble up. Imagine that if the primary consisted of all states at the same time, candidates would need to campaign nationally, or only in the most populous states, either of which would cost tons of money. This would make it so that only candidates already starting off with massive campaign funds would have any chance.

              One possible alternative approach would be to start with the smallest states (either by population or by area), one at a time, and ramp up to multiple largest states at the end of the primary cycle. This would give candidates a viable way to ramp up their campaign funds and name recognition. The only problem with this approach would be that the smallest states tend to be very white, so perhaps some adjustments would need to be made to make it more representative of the demographics of the country as a whole from the beginning.

            • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              I really think it’s there’s a few lobbies that keeps our election cycles so goddamn long. They need the horserace and the controversy for as long as possible to get ratings. News organizations, election consultants, advertisers, etc.

              France had two elections within weeks of each other. Britain called a snap election and got it done in under two months. These things can be done quickly and efficiently, but nobody wants to run afoul of two groups required to get re-elected, so they keep us slogging through the mudslinging.

          • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Voted for Marianne Williamson who had already withdrawn because A) she was the only other choice on the ballot and B) She is actually great in interviews. Dont agree with some of her conclusions but you can tell she is studied on political theory…

            Dont think that really counts. The primary was yet another illusion of choice by the DNC who has proven they will make backdoor moves to nominate whoever they want since the days of Debbie Wasserman shultz and hillary

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nope, gotta have a contrasting VP to spread the draw. Running AOC as VP would be like trump running Vance…just stupid. AOC is far more effective where she is anyway.

    • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read in another thread, and haven’t looked it up yet mind you, but apparently AOC is 1 year too young.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

        People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Huh, didn’t know her birthday offhand. So she’ll be 35 by Jan 20, 2025? And she of course is a natural born US citizen who has lived in the US for the requisite number of years.

          Normally POTUS candidates pick VPs that in their minds shore up their perceived weak spots among voters to make them overall more electable. So who do you think Harris would do worst with and why would AOC draw that demographic in?

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            AOC is an actual progressive. I don’t know very much about Harris, and I’m going to vote for her regardless, but I’m not a big fan of law enforcement in general. I’m reading through her Wikipedia page, which seems to be the only non biased source I can find that goes over her LEO career.

            AOC is outspoken about issues that I care about, she seems to actually want something better for the working class. It’s hard to feel that a former state prosecutor has the best interest of the working class in mind.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I could see two strategies.

            Some leftist people who are hard core ACAB, for those AOC may be so appealing that they don’t mind voting for a prosecutor.

            However if they want to moderate concerns of sexists and racists, they would want to run some milquetoast white guy. While the full on sexist/racist is a lost cause, there are people who are more unconsciously racist/sexist they might think to get the vote of.

            I’m guessing they see the latter as the biggest risk to mitigate.

            • yrmp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              A former prosecutor selecting AOC also suggests a semblance of growth on the part of the prosecutor.

              Yes, she put away a lot of people on drug crimes and I’m sure other BS. The conservatives are already circulating memes with a collage of black faces she put in prison. As if they give a fuck about black people in any capacity outside of when it’s politically expedient. They’ll be in the camps with the rest of us if Trump wins.

              Someone like AOC diffuses some of the Israel and ACAB criticism. Or it could be turned to say AOC is a sellout, which I think is a hard argument to make. No one saying that should really be taken seriously given her record.

              In this political climate of violence, it’s basically also a giant “fuck you” to the right. You’ll get this centrist woman, or you’ll get this left leaning woman. It hints where a Kamala Harris admin is wanting to take the country in the future and could also serve to finally motivate the youth vote.

              AOC seems to understand realpolitik better than the many on the left, and I think she’ll eventually save us all. I know she probably won’t be on the ticket, but manifestation is a thing right?

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                I will keep my overall prediction, that they don’t think they are at risk of losing the further left voter base, that they are more concerned about the more “up for grabs” voters that might vote either way. I think milquetoast straight white guy is the order of the day when they have a woman person of color running as the other half of the ticket.

                It’s not necessarily how it should be, but the strategy they will presumably use to address the reality of the electorate.

                • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I mean, that is essentially how Biden ended up as VP.

                  And aside from the racial angle how Pence ended up as VP - a milquetoast, boring standard politician type to counterbalance Trump’s lunacy, someone hypothetically to be the adult in the room.

            • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah but I doubt subconsciously sexist/racist people would be willing to vote for Trump… They’re stuck with whomever the DNC runs

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Besides the obvious magas and Republicans, who would never vote blue anyway, Kamala will be weakest with progressive young people. And I know people like to say there’s no use going after those people (now half the voting population!) because they don’t vote, but they actually DO vote when you give them someone worth voting for. Their numbers are also growing, while the centrist boomer population is declining.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          My problem is not that it is misinformation, my problem is that Republicans could use it to gum up the elections in the courts.

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

            It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

            Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Until this year, there was nothing remotely questionable about whether or not it was legal for a president to commit crimes. And people like you told me similar things about how the court would rule there too.

              • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

                I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

                If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

                Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled.

                  What world is this? Because it’s not Earth in the year 2024.

                  Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kamala Harris is probably the second-worst candidate behind Hillary Clinton that the Democrats could field against Trump. She’s disliked, she’s a hypocrite (look at her current ‘stance’ on legalizing marijuana compared to her previous record as a prosecutor where she ruined thousands of lives with criminal convictions for smoking wacky tobaccy), and a vote for Biden was going to be a de-facto vote for her regardless, because we know that if Biden was going to fall seriously ill or die during his second term, she’d take over the presidency.

    The Democrats have many better candidates to run. I hope they don’t make the mistake of backing Biden’s running mate.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who exactly do they have who’s “better”, who ALSO would agree to run, who ALSO doesn’t have a mountain of baggage saddled with them? I’ve seen Whitmer thrown around, but she’s had a serious smear campaign and a credible assassination attempt against her already. Beshear’s another, he said he isn’t going to accept even if the DNC nominates him. Sanders also gets tarred with the “but he’s old” brush, plus the GOP can run thousands of hours of “he’s a literall socialist”. AOC is also similarly divisive, and I don’t think she’d accept anyway.

      • Clbull@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, plenty of good candidates.

        Sanders would be a bad choice because he’s too old and while he’s certainly more compos mentis than Biden, he cannot escape that criticism. Michael Bloomberg would also be a similarly bad candidate for the same reason, plus also for running an incredibly expensive and half-assed campaign last time around.

        Ladbrokes currently have Michelle Obama as the second-favourite to win the Democrat nomination. She would actually be a great choice because it means Barack gets another four to eight years in the White House, albeit as the First Man. She also seems like a very sensible candidate in her own right.

        Alternatively, they could go the Reagan/Trump route and usher in a celebrity as their candidate. Someone like Oprah Winfrey, Taylor Swift, Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Fallon would be huge.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yang? Already flamed out once, and had very few specific policy goals beyond UBI.

          AOC? If she accepts, which I doubt, she’ll face challenges of “she’s too young” despite her being of-age by the inauguration, and would certainly see a federal or SCOTUS case trying to disqualify her. I could see BOEs in multiple states trying to boot her off the ballot because of it.

          Warren and Buttigieg both are saddled with lots of baggage - Warren’s already been tarred as a nut by mainstream media, and Buttigieg’s performance as Secretary of Transportation is…lackluster.

          Michelle Obama would be foolish - it would see the same challenges as Hilary in the “we’re building another dynasty” angle.

          Oprah is a poor choice, Taylor Swift, same. Colbert and Fallon would seriously be BAD choices.

        • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Taylor swift?! You’re proposing a literal billionaire as a more radical candidate than Harris?

          • Clbull@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            A literal billionaire with a sheepish following of mainly fangirls that could easily rival Trump’s supporter base.

    • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t have anyone better right now.

      At least now we don’t have to deal with Republicans attacking Biden for his age and we can turn that around on Trump.

      I could run a full list of pros and cons on the woman but at the end of the day we got an upgrade if this decision should have been made much earlier. Gotta always vote blue no matter who. Can’t let Republicans get in.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      enforcing laws that you don’t personally agree with and then advocating to change that law: hypocrisy, apparently

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, so the DNC might actually be interesting to watch this year if another candidate gets any traction.

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Didn’t like her in the primaries, still don’t like her now but honestly she’s the best shot Democrats have now. I’m just so pissed off that Democrats and Biden waited this long and now have to scramble like this.

    It’s absolutely infuriating at this level of incompetence.

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You win it for Trump. I swear it feels like Dems want Trump to win by backstabbing Biden this late in the game.