[Mega thread] - Biden ends bid for presidency
Biden announced he's ending his bid for the presidency via X (formerly twitter).
Sources:
Biden announced he's ending his bid for the presidency via X (formerly twitter).
Sources:
Any moment now, the 'don't vote for Biden' group will be in here telling us not to vote for Harris. And if it isn't Harris, they'll tell us not to vote for whoever it is.
Anything but stop the dictator and his plan to commit genocide against Latinos and queer people.
Even if Trump wasn't going to do awful things, I can't stand his stupid face or his stupid voice or his stupid stupidity. That's enough to vote for someone who'll beat him.
I didn't want to believe it but they're already in the comments. We need to be vocal. Kamala is a great candidate.
'Beating the Republican Fascist agenda' is a great candidate. I don't really care how that is spelled on the ballot.
Most of the biden haters i know on the left are upset about his support for israel. Harris has been much more critical of the genocide. We'll just have to see.
I didnt want to vote for biden, but was still going to vote blue no matter who. Im glad i dont have to vote for genocide anymore.
Until Harris fucks up terribly in public and jeopardizes her campaign, I won't be advocating for her replacement. I never said "don't vote Biden." I said "run somebody better." Keeping Trump out of office is more important to me than living in this country and I love where I live. I'm hopeful that Harris can win the trust of the people and prevent my having to relocate (and a bunch of other bad shit).
I may be a weirdo, but I was on the "I'd consider not voting for Biden." but I'm currently more interested in Harris. Nowhere near as bad of a track record as Biden had. From being racist, to supporting rapists getting into the Supreme Court, to backing massive removal of constitutional rights.
Harris' record isn't perfect, and while I'm in California, I don't recall any bills she pushed/voted for as Senator that was anything as bad as the USA PATRIOT Act. I don't like her record as our AG at all, but Senator is a different story.
If she picks a good VP pick, I'd be down. I'm wanting maybe Newsom, but that's just he biggest Democrat I know, as he's my Governor.
Edit: I don't know how to make it clear: I live in California. If I voted for a ham sandwich for oresident it would have the same impact as voting for Biden. My state's EC is clear and chosen, and popular vote doesn't decide the president otherwise we'd never have Trump. I was considering going Greens, but I'm looking forward to Harris. Get mad at undecideds in Swing States and Trump supporters, not a registered Democrat in California.
I'm really hoping if Harris still has to be on the ticket that she'll stay VP. It would be nice to have a decent prez option.
But I'll be voting anti trump either way.
It would be nice to have a decent prez option.
It would also be nice not to live on a burning planet controlled by decrepit rich psychopaths but I don't think either of us will be getting what we want.
I'll still vote for whatever the democrats decide to run, of course, since minimizing or maximizing fascists' access to government is the only question on the ballot this election.
since minimizing or maximizing fascists’ access to government is the only question on the ballot this election
Why?
Nah, I said I would support her if that’s what it came down to.
She needs a good VP though with her record.
That debate and the putin -Zelensky trump-Harris mixups so short together.
Pull in Buttigieg and you have a white male as a backup to calm people down and maybe pull in the gay vote.
I understand how the last sentence could be seen the wrong way, but it’s the cynical reality.
Harris isn't ideal, but she's an improvement. She's less on board with genocide than Bidenyahu, and she can fog a mirror.
Vote for Harris. Don't make the party regret listening.
Hi, I think you've seen me in enough places saying not to vote for Biden.
Go vote for Harris.
Absolutely they will. When the gEnOciDe stopped working/got boring, they switched to- oLd!
Give it a day, they’ll have their reasons not to vote for her too.
The reason we haven't seen it happen yet is that they weren't prepared for this. They need to make some memes and talking points, make sure everyone is on the same page. Give it a day or so, and we'll start seeing a strangely concerted effort against Harris.
You wanna know how to shut those people up? Replace First Past The Post voting with something like Ranked Choice voting. Then they would have to make their own party and show us how it's done. (No spoiler effect to)
Cool strawman you're beating up. I think the majority of us that didn't want Biden is because he didn't have a good path to victory. We didn't want to just stand by and watch the train wreck happen. Harris isn't much better, but at least she is better, and I will be on board with that of that's who is chosen. I would rather see Whitmer be on the top of the ticket though.
The criterion is very simple: Don't vote for genocide committers, enablers or planners. That excludes Biden and Trump.
If the Dems manage to produce a non genocide loving candidate, then vote vote vote and drag everyone who will vote for the non genocide candidate to the polling station.
An aside, I hate that this was posted to twitter before it was posted to Biden's own website or the White House's website first.
WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITH ALL MY BIDEN HATS, FLAGS, T-SHIRTS, AND STICKERS?!
/Just kidding - not in a cult 😅
So all of the Biden doom-posters are going to support the new candidate to save us from the fascist, right?
This is a call out, r2o
As a very vocal Biden hater I'll stomach Kamela far better and would be thrilled for someone else
Stomach isn't enough. If you're not actively campaigning and donating for her--or whomever the candidate is--then you may as well have been a Republican.
EDIT: Nevermind. Clearly the hivemind wants to stay in our armchairs. Who can blame us, right? We'll continue this conversation in November. I hope it's not I-told-you-so.
Any moment now, the 'don't vote for Biden' group will be in here telling us not to vote for Harris. And if it isn't Harris, they'll tell us not to vote for whoever it is.
Anything but stop the dictator and his plan to commit genocide against Latinos and queer people.
Then why are you insulting people here by making up a strawman argument and insinuating that the people who don't support unpopular candidates are somehow rooting for Trump? This is like the DNC's 2016 arrogance all over again and look how that turned out for the country.
It's still not a strawman argument that people who were posting all over Lemmy that no one should vote for Biden are now posting in this very thread that people shouldn't vote for Harris either.
Also, I'm not trying to get people who aren't planning on voting for Harris to campaign for Harris. That would be silly. So I have no problem with anything that I said.
Squid, I appreciate your contributions to putting content on the platform, honestly, but I couldn't be any less interested in that take. My history speaks for itself, and anybody can read it who cares to. Everybody must vote. I don't think I could be any clearer about that. I was a staunch advocate for Biden, and I'll be a staunch advocate for Harris, Newsom, Whitmer, or anyone else who carries the Democratic party forward.
But every single one of them polls down from Biden. To the extent any of the whining on social media since the debate hasn't been astroturfed, advocacy for Biden to drop out resulted in this news, and it means that the party has now voluntarily given up the single biggest proven advantage a candidate historically has in a presidential election: being the sitting president.
I'm encouraging people to vote, but you know as well as I do that people who were going to vote anything-blue were going to vote for Biden no matter what anybody said on almost-reddit. Harris has to move the needle further than that, and that means that all the armchair it'll-be-better-if-he-drops-out analysts now need to step the fuck up if they want this news to mean anything other than "The DNC just handed Trump 2024."
Everybody knows that the kids screaming "oh if the candidate were just younger, the Dems would have it in a landslide" were full of shit, and now we're about to see just how big a deficit we're actually running. I'd love to be wrong! I'd be delighted, ecstatic, beside myself to discover that next weeks polls put all these convention front-runners up 10 points on Trump. But I've studied this stuff, and it doesn't take a veteran pollster to realize it doesn't work that way. Actual campaigning has to happen.
If you cared enough to want Biden out, but not quite enough to want Harris to win, then you were going to hold your nose in the ballot box either way and it doesn't fucking matter: Trump would still win. That's not discouraging. That's statistics.
Telling people that if they don't go out and campaign, they might as well be a Republican is just counterproductive. Insulting people is just never a way to get them to do what you think they should do.
I don't know why so many people think that's the right tack. Have you ever been insulted into doing something?
The few words of hyperbole is what you took away? I expected better, but I guess that's on me.
We win if we get enough votes, and every vote counts.
Anything beyond voting is just gravy.
The "hive mind" probably just can't figure out what the fuck you're even trying to say. So, what, everybody who doesn't actively campaign for their preferred candidate just supports fascism by default? I'm guessing your stance isn't anywhere near that stupid, because that is an extraordinarily stupid stance. So maybe you'd have a better reception if you clarified your point.
I guess the poor and disabled and people who are too busy with struggling to survive are secretly republicans now.
"Hey I have a weak immune system, so I have to work from home and that limits my income and my free time."
"I smell a Republican!"
With people like you it shows why Trump won culturally even if he doesn't win the election. He turned a substantial part of the vocal Democrats into Blue-MAGA-hats. It is the same attitude that attacked people who pointed out the mere fact, that Biden is not mentally fit for office anymore. If the Blue-MAGA wasn't so big, Biden could have left the field to a younger and better candidate half a year ago.
So you think calling everyone that does not campaign and donate to the Democrats a secret Republican is somehow normal?
To me it is the same cultish bullshit like the blatant denial of Bidens old age and mental decline. It is the same "follow your leader no matter what" insanity that is apologetic for Trump on the other side. So yes, this kind of behaviour is MAGA behaviour and if it is done for the Dems instead of the Reps it is blue MAGA
Absolutely not. I will spend my time and energy and money supporting my local Democrats. The national level isn’t as important to me because Republicans in my state have veto-proof majorities in both houses and they hold the governorship. Regardless of what happens at the national level, implementation of Project 2025 began in my state about 3 years ago.
You couldn't browbeat us into voting for Biden and you've started it right up with Harris? And now it's not just voting it's working the phones and door to door campaign? Am I expected to get airfare to PA too? What do I tell them when they ask where I live?
People should support her campaign to the utmost they can, and for some people that's right here, with their internet connection.
I was vocally saying biden would never drop out and we just had to swallow the poison pill. I was dead wrong. I will be voting for [insert DNC candidate] and will be excited to do it!
Harris ain’t perfect, but she’s not on the same mental state as Biden is.
He did a lot of good, but he just wasn’t there anymore, he’s getting pretty old and just had the most stressful job in the world for 4 years.
Plus he just backed Israel through every thing.
She’ll probably do the same, but I KNOW that he’ll do it.
Tbf I changed my mind to voting for him after he finally managed to get Ukraine more aid, so idk how everyone else will go.
Hopefully she grabs a good VP to calm people down
While I don't think Kamala is the best the Democratic party has to offer (I would have much preferred Biden endorsing Hakeem Jeffries, for example), I'm over the moon that he's finally decided to step aside. And you know what? Harris is better than Biden in pretty much every metric that matters. I was going to vote for the Dem nominee either way, but him stepping aside in favor of a better candidate has me feeling all kinds of relieved.
Senator Mark Kelly, he can do this
He flipped AZ to blue
He is an astronaut, all American, former servicemen
He can get red votes and blue alike
Hmm...not bad. Not amazing name recognition, but that could be remedied.
Having Gabby campaign for/with him, especially after the DJT assassination attempt, could be beneficial, too. (Or could look like a disgusting political plot, but that's really all our politics.)
Damn that would be a great pick. I'd like to see AOC but Kelly probably has more broad appeal with all the things you mentioned.
Kelly or Mayor Pete seem like the best options.
Buttigieg and AOC ticket? That would be the youth candidacy. Kelly and Buttigieg or vice versa would be more centrist but probably be the most robust candidacy.
I hate to say it, but in this political climate and with the threat of Trump, the best shot is probably two young-ish white guys.
I highly doubt Kamala will want to pull a sitting Democratic senator away from the 50/50 Senate given the elections coming up.
I think there is a greater chance that she picks one of the governors. My pick is J.B. Pritzker.
That is true, I really was just spitballing, I’ll have to look into JB Pritzker, I’m regrettably unfamiliar with him
If Harris is in, she can use the money already donated. Otherwise they have to start from scratch.
So it's almost guaranteed Harris will be in. Who they pick for VP is the question.
I find this so insane. People talk about who gets to keep the money, who has which rich asshole routing for them, which strategy has been successfull in the past, like always setting up the current president for reelection...
We need to focus on who has actually inspiring policies and ideas. We need to focus on these, because that is what the Reps lack. All they offer is "not the Dems" while the policies they propose are actually unpopular with many of their base. And the whole "Not Trump" strategy of Biden just fell apart.
Is there noone in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?
Is there no one in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?
This is why I think Pete Buttigieg should throw his hat in if they do have a primary. He just had a Bill Maher interview that just went viral because he knows how to talk to the common people. I think his visions are inspiring, he’s done a lot of work for his department, and he isn’t afraid to walk across party lines and go on Republican shows to talk about the real problems. He’s smart enough to smash Trump in a debate, calling out all his lies, and even if Trump is too scared to debate him, he has no problem laying out Trump’s lies elsewhere coherently and cognitively.
On the one hand: "you can't have her she's ours!". On the other, she's out in 26 regardless, and she's pretty good so maybe we can share with the rest of the country.
No, they don't. The Democratic Party can give the donated money to whoever is the candidate. Not sure where people are getting that.
Edit: After reading up, I am mistaken kind of. If Harris is still the VP candidate, the money could be used. Otherwise a PAC would have to be setup to funnel money to the candidate...maybe. Bloomberg was simply able to transfer his campaign funds directly to the DNC since it was part of his campaign money...even though the vast majority of it was his own money.
The money Biden has raised directly however can only go to the people that were on his ticket at the time the donation was made
That's correct, but nearly none of the money is the direct donation stuff - it's almost in PACs which are (due to a legal fiction) entirely independent of the candidate.
There are still more restrictions however on spending on other candidates and they would have to act like any other PAC, only helping via donating/running ads in support of (but importantly not directly by) any other candidate.
The $100 million warchest belongs to the Biden/Harris campaign, not the Democratic Party. They are separate organizations, and Biden/Harris only answers to Biden and Harris.
The DNC has its own funds of course, but nowhere near as much. And DNC funds are supposed to be shared with multiple Democrats, not just the one running for president.
And notably even if Biden/Harris were supporting the alternative, they're an outside group. They can spend like a super PAC, but can't pay bills or do direct advertising.
I just don't think she can beat big orange. I'm not saying she shouldn't .... but I don't know ... doubtful
He was a prosecutor for years, so she has plently of oratory chops, and shes 20 years younger than trump to boot.
Her only liability is the she is a she and there are plently of sexist fucks out there. Thats it.
You forgot that she's a POC and there are also tons of racists fucks out there.
Even before getting to her actual credentials (some great, others really not), people will be assholes. I still have hope that she, as a former prosecutor, could mop the floor with the fascists.
Americans divide 46-47% between Biden and Trump if the election were today, almost identical to a 44-46% ABC/Ipsos poll result in April. Among registered voters (though there’s plenty of time to register) it’s an absolute tie, 46-46%.
Were Vice President Kamala Harris to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee, vote choices are 49-46%, Harris-Trump, among all adults (and 49-47% among registered voters). Harris’ 49% is slightly better than Biden’s 46%, although she doesn’t have a statistically significant lead over Trump.
Also possibly key:
Both candidates [Biden and Trump] face a high degree of scorn. About 4 in 10 Americans say neither has the mental sharpness or the physical health to serve effectively, and as many say neither is honest and trustworthy. Sixty percent say Trump is too old for a second term, also a new high, up from 44% in spring 2023. And in a sign of the nation's political polarization, 50% say that given his debate performance, Trump should step aside in favor of another nominee -- although, in contrast with Biden, very few of Trump's own supporters say so.
You can expect Harris's numbers to drop given she's vulnerable to almost every criticism Biden was except age and the fact that the Trump campaign has already been preparing to attack her.
And they’ve already made anti-Harris ads, which I heard on live CNN rn that they are already running them.
I don't particularly like her, then again I detest nearly all politicians. That being said, I'm more motivated to vote, that's for certain. I didn't mind Biden, but it felt like elder abuse lol. He's been better than anyone in my lifetime. Good God, I'd rather have her than Hilary as the first woman in the spot. Biden was just hard to watch and that position needs someone that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions in office. Will be curious to see who else puts their name in. 4 years ago he said he wouldn't run again and he seems to be keeping that promise too. If they were clever, they'd put Biden as VP or as an advisor.
She'll have to be. Anybody else would be starting from square one, and that's a luxury we don't have right now.
Half of America lost it's mind when Obama was elected, and we're still dealing with the fallout from that lovely dose of racism. There's no way Kamala could win in this country.
Obama won. And then won again. Stop pumping up the reactionaries as some unstoppable force. They're a minority and have been on a long term losing streak.
like all that aside, a lot of folks aren't appreciative of her background as a cop... but yeah that's a cherry to what you already mentioned
And a lot of swing voters will probably like that she was a prosecutor, a "law and order" type.
I think most of the "law and order" types might have a bigger problem with her being a black woman.
She aint "black" as much as "brown." Its an incredibly stupid hair to split, but indians are generally considered a "model minority" by racists, so it will likely hurt her but not as much as you may think.
This late in the game, it's almost certainly Harris. Probably picks a swing state governor like Whitmer or Shapiro.
Or Mark Kelly. Regardless, it's probably going to be a white male from a swing state to appeal to as broad of an electorate as possible.
Gavin is probably the least popular option of any names floated. I don't know who likes him, apparently some people do, but it's not anywhere near a majority of the country.
On top of that, you can add that there is no advantage to getting a candidate from California. This is why I never understood Harris as the VP pick. Ideally, you get someone from a swing state like Whitmer.
Literally any straight white man center-right democrat born after 1968 would wipe the floor with trump.
And before anyone jumps down my throat, that’s not what I want. I want president Cortez. But presidents are chosen by money and by about 10,000 generically stupid swing voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Im not american but i wholly support AOC4POTUS2028.
Or for a more catchy media bite: "A-O-C for the Presidency"
Honestly the biggest problem Biden had was that all his funding dried up after the debate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/18/us/politics/biden-fundraising.html
Regardless of who you think would win in a vacuum you gotta acknowledge this.
Bernie 2024, even if he dies of a heart attack first day his appointments would change the country for good and I don’t trust any party politicians on Palestine.
Biden just endorsed Kamala, so that much is likely. The VP will probably be one from a shortlist of 5 or so governors/senators from swing states.
Maybe, but then the swing state could end up with a GOP governor. That's one reason why VPs are often from safe seats, eg Harris, Pence, Biden, Palin, Quayle...
The shortlist I've seen thrown around a lot so far is pretty much Whitmer, Shapiro, Cooper, and Kelly. Maybe someone like Beshear, but I'd call that slightly lower odds than the others. I think they will probably lean away from a 2 woman ticket too
This is why I'm really hoping they don't pick Shapiro. Having three democratic governors in a row is a fluke in PA and I don't think we'd avoid getting a Republican next.
That would be cool but I suspect it will be a white, straight man to balance out the ticket for the racists and sexists. Maybe someone from a swing state.
Yes more pandering from the DNC to the far right individuals who would never vote for a Democrat to begin with.
Pandering to the right, yes - but this is just how coalitions work. Obama's ability to appeal to rank and file white workers in places like Michigan is part of how he won. A lot of Obama voters in those states voted for Trump.
Not everyone on the right is an ideological zealot (even if those are the most visible and make up the base). Being able to pick up some votes among "center-right" voters is a long-standing electoral strategy for the Democrats.
As an outside observer I find it hard to believe that a place as right-wing as the US would elect a woman of colour as president. Isn't that double red rag to the nutjob bulls?
We elected Obama already, and the people who are so racist/sexist that they wouldn't vote for Harris are mostly voting Trump. Plus, her being a woman means she can go way harder on Abortion, which is a winning strategy atm since support for abortion rights is insanely high and Republicans are actively trying to ban it completely.
Hot damn I had forgotten about a new vp pick in the middle of all this. AOC won't be it but needs to be.
that would be great, but there's no way they double down on minorities and women in the same ticket. get ready for a biden jr as the VP.
Seeing AOC oddly shill for Biden before he dropped out.. which I'd expect from Pelosi, Schumer & Schiff, but not from her. She may actually be trying to get the VP spot.
She just did the calculus that Biden was our best shot, due to a whole shitton of different factors from Biden's support among elderly voters, union support, money raised, polls being pretty crap for a few cycles now, shit like that.
Now there will be logistical challenges, we have a lot of uncertainty ahead. She wanted to avoid that until we got some better answers.
Biden bros: No one has a plan if Biden drops out. Everyone else: Here is our plan. Biden bros still: No one has a plan if Biden drops out.
Plan was open convention where delegates decide.
Or you could read her arguments, which were direct and pragmatic. She was talking about how difficult this would be logistically, and that it would have been better to do 6 months ago, you know, when the progressive wing of the party raised the issue.
AOC was "shilling" for some consistency, backbone and party unity out of a pragmatic need to beat back fascism. Now that this choice has been made, I'm betting she will continue with the same intent.
Further, Bernie and AOC are rather well aware that the progressive wing of the party would likely be blamed for "party disunity" if Biden stayed in and lost. They will not do anything to let the DNC scapegoat their caucus.
Biden was going to lose and he was making other Democrats lose. What did you expect the party to do, unite behind losing to Trump?
AOC was prob smart, saw Biden didn't believe he was going to lose and saw an opportunity before it played out.
Which is hilarious because Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff were all against Biden continuing in the race...
AOC understands politics and thinks things through, that's it.
AOC has always been considered an outsider to Democrat leadership. She prob was thinking things through, but I don't think it is because she thought Biden was going to win.
Imo she's trying to shield progressives from being the scapegoat, like how we got the blame for dem dysfunction in '16.
Politics is about getting the things you want, not dunking on people that disagree with you on a couple of things. You gotta compromise with people to get what you want. People feel like being uncompromising is somehow admirable, but in politics it means you get nothing. MAGAs are uncompromising, and they get a lot of likes on social media for it, but they've accomplish exactly nothing after winning the House in 2022.
Biden has been good for the progressive wing of the party, and they may not get as good of a deal with Harris as they did with Biden. They will have to negotiate compromises with someone new and may not get as much.
So do you rather politicians compromising and getting something to benefit you, or grandstanding and accomplishing nothing except providing a small amount of entertainment for you?
Biden has seriously hurt the party. If they enthrone Kamala without doing some balanced process to have her debate or compete against anyone else, and she somehow beats Trump then... I fully expect Republicans to take the House & Senate because of the damage Biden did to the party.
Politics is about compromise. I fully agree with you on that. To get things passed, you actually have to call up Republicans and ask them if they'll try to work with you and what their vision is, and what they'd like to do... and try to come to an agreement.
AOC has likely done the same here. She saw an opportunity to get something or to help progressives in some way, which required taking a backseat for a little while, but ultimately she'll get something in return. I get it and understand that. It was just surprising.
The DNC & Clinton seriously damaged the Democrat party in 2016, and Biden has restored some consistency, but it shifted significantly the right after that. Lest not forget Biden gleefully supporting a genocidal maniac and sending weapons to kill thousands of children. Its pretty sad when Democrats argue that more children would have died under Trump, so that somehow makes it okay.
I think bernie could wipe the floor with any sitting senator of any age he comes up against but with bidens age and recent performance there is no way you will convince everyone with bernies age factor.
Update: He endorsed Harris: https://nitter.poast.org/JoeBiden/status/1815087772216303933#m
Biden wasn't viable because he has cognitive decline. Kamala will mop the floor with Trump in debates.
I think I remember reading an earlier analysis that says that Trump has no reason to accept debates with any potential new candidate, as it just gives them more visibility.
Absolutely. They had no reason to debate Biden again. They sure as shit won't put him on stage against her, or ANY other candidate.
This would be awesome. Give Harris a two hour uninterrupted prime time spot to let the former prosecutor make a case against electing a convicted felon and follow it with 2 hours of the oldest candidate in US history rambling. 😆
I'd love to see it. Prosecutor going after a convicted felon and rapist sounds like a great time.
Trump will visibly age on stage like Palpatine from the absolute roasting Harris would do to him
Both candidates are experiencing decline, and if Biden were elected and incapable of doing the job it would have resulted in a Harris Presidency anyway. It's such an odd thing to object over. We've had presidents in decline before and the country kept running just fine, (FDR, Reagan.)
Biden did a fine job in office, I'm especially proud of his union support, and his policies were spot on in my opinion. To throw him under the bus like this seems really shitty.
Do you think debates are really going to sway voters at this point? Like the people considering Trump don't already know what a blowhard he is?
Debates can energize the voter base which is what we need right now. And who knows, the debates might even convince some people.
People don't know much about Kamala yet. That will now change very dramatically. Biden had hit his ceiling, a known quantity that everyone already knew very well. Harris has room to climb.
That's something I think some people just missed when Biden dropping out was debated. Of course, the other potential picks were polling behind him at that point. But he was showing clear signs that he had peaked, and would only be able to fight not to drop further. His most powerful argument had been not being Trump - which any candidate can wield. And any candidate with charisma and the ability to speak, debate and campaign has a lot of room to move up, whereas Biden was fighting not to move down.
To be fair, most people really don't know much about her yet. She's mostly stayed in the shadows as a VP. That could change, for better or worse, when they know her better.
This is a hilarious misreading of polling data. Kamala may not win, but her percentage chance to win might be double or more of what Bidens was.
People I follow were estimating Biden at 10-15% by the time the election rolled around. All the models assume that a candidate would run a normal campaign. Something that he is not capable of doing.
The argument that I've seen made is that her approval rating will rise if she becomes the candidate.
I'm not sure how realistic that is, but it's the one that was made.
As much as I think that he was too old for the position… JFC. If the Dems don’t nominate Kamala Harris as his replacement, the entire Democratic nomination will be filled with so much infighting that they will lose the faith of their electorate and the next election.
If only more Dems were left-of-centre such that Bernie was a viable option. Unfortunately almost all of them are right-lite.
Welp they must have looked at the data and saw Kamala or someone else would do significantly better. Hope they're right.
It's basically 50/50 with either Biden or Harris at the top of the ticket. Everything is in the margin of error, and polling has been notoriously inaccurate with Trump on the ballot.
So you have to basically ignore the simple Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Harris or (Trump vs. anyone else you can think of) numbers because it's pretty much unknown. But the data says a majority (even an majority of Democrats) want someone other than Biden on the ballot at election. BTW a majority of voters also want someone other than Trump on the ballot too.
There's also some data to suggest Trump is making some inroads with young male Black and Hispanic voters. Harris will negate a significant amount of that immediately and potentially even more when the GOP can't resist blowing their racist dog whistles and show voters who they really are.
So it's kinda about looking at the data, but I think a large part of it is simple campaign facts. In times past a Presidential candidate would do two (sometimes three) rallies in two different states per day. And do interviews while traveling between campaign events. Trump isn't capable of that pace. Biden most certainly isn't capable of that pace. Harris can do that. We really haven't seen a 100% balls to the wall presidential campaign in a while because it's been two old guys in the last election and in this one... until now.
Remember Biden also had to do the job of being President of the country while also campaigning. That's a lot of work for even someone young, and Biden is so very old. Sure Harris is VP, but that's mostly just getting some briefings (too keep up on events in case she might need to take over as Prez) and breaking ties in the Senate (which probably won't be needed between now and election day). She can devote almost all of her time to campaigning while Biden couldn't.
I hope so and if true we have to trust the data. My vote is solid blue based on virtues and most policies. There's probably a lot of others like me.
In 2016 it was a "Vote Against Trump Regardless Of Who It Is". It's shaping up to be that again, but this gives me hope that maybe we'll have someone we can vote for that we like... Even if just a little. Harris is no Obama in charm, but it's a step in the right direction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/21/open-convention-democrats-biden-drop-out/
"How Democrats would pick a new candidate if Biden drops out, step by step"
One [possibility] is a virtual vote that would lock in a new nominee in early August, and the other is an “open” convention, a scenario the party hasn’t experienced since 1968.
A convention is open when no candidate arrives with a clear majority of delegates, so the event turns into a mini-primary in which contenders scramble to persuade delegates to vote for them...
Some states have August deadlines to get on the ballot for the general election, and early voting begins in some places in September. So party leaders probably would try to settle the nomination before the Democratic National Convention begins Aug. 19.
There are two types of Democratic delegates. Pledged delegates commit to supporting the candidate state voters chose, although a “good conscience” clause in the party’s rules gives them a bit of wiggle room.
Automatic delegates, often called superdelegates, are the party’s highest-profile leaders. They have the role because of the offices they hold (or held), and the group includes former presidents and vice presidents, Democratic governors, members of Congress and party officials. They are not pledged to any candidate and are not allowed to vote on the first ballot at the convention.
a scenario the party hasn’t experienced since 1968
because the 1968 Democratic Convention went swimmingly – oh, they’re also holding this year’s convention in Chicago again you say? with increased police presence as well?
Well, at least there isn't anything controversial going on overseas that's got the college kids riled up this time /s
Not really. It'll be Harris. Biden endorsed her and already other potential Dem front-runners are endorsing her. Within in a few days it'll be like she's the incumbent and no one will want to run against her for the same reasons they didn't run against Biden. Plus the additional reason that they don't want to screw up their chances of being her VP pick.
Dumb question. Why didn't they just schedule the convention prior to all deadlines regardless who runs for office? Is there any benefit to meeting so late?
It is before the deadlines but just barely. Typically the candidate is known before the convention, so you already have enough signatures to get on the ballot in every state
It wasn't when they scheduled it. It was after Ohio's deadline. And major parties don't need signatures to put forward candidates.
So president will be decided by the Sperm Court. Autocorrect definitely not worth fixing
If the DNC of the past is any indication, they'll ignore voters and put up the most boring, uncompelling candidate they can.
I wanted AOC but her last few posts have been cringe. She's divisive, but that could have worked in her favor. Prob. will be Kamala. I think they should have an open convention & let delegates decide though.
Correct.
And Kamala is the most logical choice, because there will be the least amount of legal hurdles, since she was already on the ticket.
And the Republicans already said they are going to mount legal challenges, which can easily lead to SCOTUS deciding the election. So I expect Sanders, AOC and progressives to strongly push for Kamala.
But I fully expect the DNC to push forward some corporate candidate like Bloomberg.
It's going to be interesting.
There are no legal hurdles. The private organization can nominate whomever they want regardless of their votes and their rules.
Nice insight. Democratic Secretaries of State will find a way. But, Republican Secretaries of State will definitely resist.
I want to be of a mind that they made the bed to exclude third parties and now should lie in it. But, perhaps this is an opportunity to change the rules of ballot access for the better.
The legal hurdles aren’t in the nomination, they’re in monies donated directly to the Biden/Harris campaign
You think the DNC is going to try to push out the centrist, sitting vice president of their party during a presidential election? The vice presidential that aligns with the majority of their constituents, has a huge war chest of money, and is a well know and generally liked member of the party?
The DNC are idiots, but that makes no sense at all.
How is it that states can decide (or whatever the correctt word is) who's on the ballot when the party hasn't even officially nominated a candidate? I know that political parties are separate from election institutions, but it seems very strange. And it seems very early for states to have it set in stone.
I am not a lawyer, but what is clear is that each State sets its own laws. By the constitution, States are in charge of elections.
What I have heard is that Biden has to release his delegates, who are already bound to him. Many states have already had their primaries completed with the Biden/Harris ticket winning.
Sending those electors to the Convention and letting them choose someone else is going to be a grey area.
If they choose Harris, it's pretty sound. When a president steps down, the VP becomes president, so there is definitely precedent and a legal basis.
But if Biden releases his delegates and lets them vote for anyone? That will be challenged and it will go to the supreme court. And SCOTUS is corrupt enough to find some flimsy legal excuse that helps Republicans.
So yeah, that's what I've heard. But I am not an expert.
They can't. The nominee is chosen by the party and then communicated to the states. The states do have deadlines for being on it and this year some organizational genius scheduled the convention after the earliest deadline in Ohio. Ohio has since moved that deadline back, but the structure of the law leaves room for shenanigans so the DNC is moving forward with a virtual vote before the convention.
Yes, with a big asterisk on the "should". The law that pushes the deadline back may theoretically not go into effect until after the deadline is passed, and they paired it with some other campaign finance rules that are probably unconstitutional, so there's an outside chance the whole thing gets struck down.
All that said, the Democrats won't win Ohio for the presidential race. They want to be on the ballot to help turnout for the Democratic senator who's running at the same time. So if they took a risk and lost, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
The problem is my state, Ohio. By law, the Democrats must nominate someone by August 7 or be left off the ballot. We have 17 days to decide who's taking Biden's place. This is certainly going to face legal challenges in red states, too.
The new candidate will be picked before then, they were already planning an early roll call vote because the DNC convention is too late for some state deadlines.
August 7 is the deadline. The problem is my state, Ohio. By law, the Democrats must nominate someone in 17 days or be left off the ballot. It's way too fast for a special primary election.
This is certainly going to face legal challenges in red states, too. The orange one will probably run unopposed in states like Florida.
Serious? I haven't even had time to see that. That is the best decision they could have made.
Anything could happen. Most likely is the elected delegates will decide at the convention (edit: when you vote for "Biden," you are basically voting for who the delegates that will elect him will vote for, so you still elected those delegates). Redoing a primary before then would be next to impossible. Takes weeks or months to get signatures to get on the ballot, then you need time to recruit staff to work the polls, etc.
Yup. I would be literally stunned if any state primary has no legal path forward for what to do if a primary candidate drops out before the convention. It could get messy, but this idea that the dems will not have a candidate in some states come November is FUD.
Broadly, when Americans vote in primaries, they are not voting directly for a candidate but kicking off a process that will ultimately send delegates to the party’s national convention. Those delegates are the ones who officially pick the nominee — and the Democrats’ convention hasn’t happened yet.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/what-next-biden-00170001
Yeah it's the convention where it's made official that a person is the nominee. If he dropped out after the convention... now that would be a mess. But as it is now, the guy that was the presumptive nominee yesterday is not longer the presumptive nominee.
So the back the blue party of law and order will vote for the cop instead of the convicted felon now.
Just like the religious moral right will vote for the actual church attending catholic rather than the guy who doesn't go to church and doesn't know how to hold a bible upright.