I think Harris can win this, if she avoids the Hillary trap. Clinton got lots of celebrity endorsements, and made a really big deal about the historical character of her (potential) presidency. What she forgot to do is make a case about how she'd make anyone's life better.
Harris's campaign themes, based on her one speech in DE yesterday, are freedom and justice. Freedom means being free to have a safe pregnancy without worrying about dying from a miscarriage in front of a hospital that refuses you entry. It means the freedom to use contraception and IVF. It means freedom from religious nutcases who want us to live like Catholic nuns in the year 1100.
And justice lets her talk about economic injustice, of which there are too many examples to list, but through which she can spin up the outrage necessary to steal votes back from Trump. Because Trump actually did nothing for workers, except try to block access to health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions.
So, Harris needs to recognize the Twitter fans are a distraction, and celebrity endorsements are worse than useless. She shouldn't talk about how historic her presidency would be -- no one will forget she's Black or a woman. She needs to focus on how she'll make the country better.
I agree. I wasn't thrilled to see her lock this up so quickly but I'm starting to think she could do well. Ezra Klein has an audio essay out today which emphasizes a theme from her book on crime which is safety, and I think that (along with freedom) is a great emphasis for her. The Republicans use fear and "strength" to drive their narrative, but the underlying desire that they're tapping into is a desire for safety and a feeling of being unsettled. If Harris can communicate that Trump will only make people less safe, and that as a former prosecutor, her passion is for maintaining order and safe communities, I think that could work for her. And it'd be genuine, which has been her biggest challenge IMO.
I'm astounded how fast we went right back into "if you say anything negative at all about our current plan then you're voting in TRUMPF!" mode.
I figured there would be some jockeying for a bit, showing off the various skills of the many governors that Democrats have, and still *probably* going with Harris.
And *then* the walls would go up and you'd no longer be allowed to question strategery
To extend the metaphor. I am enjoying this honeymoon period. It is how I imagine a honeymoon might feel for those in an arranged marriage. I have no doubt that Harris' faults will become obvious to me as I get to know her. Because that is always how it works when you get know someone. I suspect I will find her foreign policy and militarism as objectionable as Biden's. I suspect I will find her compromises infuriating. But I just want to enjoy a 7-10 day honeymoon period where we get to pretend like we are soulmates.
She shilled for the mental health of her boss for three years. It is going to come up and come up a lot. This isn't going to put the Biden mess behind anything, it is just going to bring it front and center by putting someone who really had to have known out front. I am not even going to get into the whole story about how she came into power. She is what you would have gotten if Monica Lewinsky had zero scruples and more creativity to use the tools at hand to boost her career.. The best advantage she h as working for her is that she is still largely a cypher. Her entire Senate career lasted all of 2 years before she was made VP I think, and before that she was the least popular Democrat in California. She has absolutely no wisdom about how to get things done in Washington, or really anywhere that isn't a single party dominated political environment. The collective rush here is truly something to behold. a lot of my Democrat friends are excitedly posting the hot new hagiography without thinking s single thought that somehow she might be to blame for any of what has happened. Were watching a cult of personality form in real time and I am here for it.
She wasn’t in charge of “the border,” she was responsible for working with Central American governments to reduce the flow of migrants, and she did a decent job given how little power a VP has.
That's incredible cope. At the time this was seen as a way to address the "root causes" leading to major migration to the US (as opposed to measures promoted by Trump and Republicans, like stronger enforcement, a wall, etc.).
1) She did so little you really can argue she wasn't in charge of all that much. Sure her boss pointed to her on national TV and said "Shes my hatchet person, and this is what she is here to do" but it isnt like anyone actually expected her to be able to channel that into some sort of a solution. The national eye roll when she was "appointed" was deep and real. A Fox probably does more to secure the Henhouse, just so he can have it for himself. Her time on this problem was a total zero.
2) This was also probably her first and only executive experience, unless y ou count her time rounding up truants and their parents and overseeing her office of fifty or so people.
Your usage of the word "decent" makes me think you applaud her for not causing a disaster, which is actually plausible. Her name hardly ever gets mentioned in this debate except for little joking hip checks about her job as figure head.
To me it doesn't look like a "mental health" problem but a physical problem. Biden still has a normal grasp of reality.
He just has problems getting it out as opposed to Trump, who lives in an alternate reality. To be clear, he's bat shit crazy. I am upset that the people who interacted with Biden on a frequent basis didn't stop and think "um, is a low energy dyslexic speech candidate going to fly with voters?" and speak up.....
Fun to read Jeff. Thanks. We are watching the takeover of national elections by Chicago-style politics, and it will bring California Dreaming to the rest of the country. And the rest of the country will have to pay for it. Literally. Doesn't really matter what Kamala believes or knows. She just needs to read what is on the 'prompter'. She is an empty vessel perfect for the party bosses to manage. All that is happening now is the horse trading behind the scenes for Cabinet positions, cushy overseas Ambassador postings and producing Hollywood campaign videos to show us how historic and remarkable Kamala is. 'This is history people! History is fun!' Kamala is a mail-order bride with no-returns. Obama, Pelosi, Shumer, Jeffries will all put on serious faces and blow past any suggestion that this denies 'the people' the right to choose. After all they know better. (aka they will lie to our face). The media is already tripping over themselves to catch the bouquet, and the bride hasn't even stepped off the train yet. What a mess.
This sudden turnabout on Kamala does seem manufactured and phony. Other than being the incumbent VP (which she got for identity reasons), she's an incredibly weak candidate. The claim that she was "vetted" during the 2020 primary was specious. She ran, convinced no one, and dropped out before any states voted polling near last place. Her accomplishments over the last 3.5 years have been fixing the border crisis (mission accomplished!) and delivering so many incomprehensible word salads that the Biden admin decided it was best to keep her hidden. She can't hide any longer. I've got my popcorn ready.
She was a good AG and before that a good prosecutor. No VP will have accomplishments since that’s not part of the job. I agree that her 2020 campaign wasn’t so great but her law enforcement background was a liability for Dem primary voters. She’s embraced her prosecutorial experience now which will probably lead to a more genuine persona. We’ll see soon enough whether she can go the distance.
She was vetted during the primary in the sense that people had an incentive to attack her and nothing really stuck. The optimist in me would say that her failure in 2020 had more to do with the crowded primary (and downstream effects of that, like finding staff) and less to do with some sort of permanent defect.
Yeah, her time as VP wasn't impressive, but VPs are just window dressing. And inasmuch as she got the VP nod from identity characteristics, I'd say that the same holds true about Vance, Pence, Kaine, Biden, and Palin - really everyone from the past 20 years save, maybe, Paul Ryan.
I would argue that most of those you mentioned were picked because of region, experience, personal characteristics, and ideology (either to align with the top of the ticket like Vance, or balance it (Pence, Palin)). Not explicitly because of their race or gender.
This is the worst choice we've had for president in my voting lifetime. (I first voted in 1988). Kamala is awful and Trump is, well, Trump. I feel like the Democrats are fucking with me. I've been trying to decide if Kamala is the dumbest presidential candidate ever. She can't be dumber than George W, right? It's close though. The good news is that I won't have to drive the 1/2 mile out of my way on the way to work to vote this year. So, I'm saving a good 15 minutes on my commute on that day in November.
I agree that it would have been better to date around a little and test the waters before jumping right into a serious relationship (marriage? Maybe/maybe not) with Kamala. The problem is that all of those other fish in the sea have said they don’t want to date us. From Whitmer, Shapiro, Pritzger, even Newsome (who is no Harris fanboy) have all said that we should stick with Harris. They all have seen the writing on the wall and realized that our eventual marriage to Harris was destined to occur. Since none of the other fish are interested in casual dating when they don’t see a long-term prospect, what else are we to do other than come to the realization that we can’t always get what we want, but if we try sometime, we just might find that we get what we need?
I have been a paying member after reading one article. I usually agree and laugh out loud at the jokes. In this case I disagree. We are three months away from Armageddon. There is simply no time left to see if Josh Shapiro sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. I assume if he does he won’t be VP. Bring the shotgun. Make the marriage.”
If you were really a lifelong Dem then you wouldn’t need to be told by anyone that Trump will be a catastrophe. He was and he will be an even bigger catastrophe without guardrails in a second term.
I would also have preferred an open primary but there really isn’t the time for one now and it’s not as if Harris is a questionable democrat. I’d get your point if it was Joe Manchin “they” were shoving down our throats but Harris is a genuine democrat. The “defund the police” left doesn’t like her but no candidate they like could win.
Project 2025, even if it was implemented in toto, doesn't remove any guardrails of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has shown a willingness to limit presidential power by decree and seems to be interested in maintaining the balance of the separation of powers.
And by no fear of reelection, I'm assuming you mean that he's a lame duck out of the gate, not that he will declare himself president for life.
Thank you. I agree with you 100%. I think Jeff is off on this one. If it was February, it would be a different story, but it's not. There isn't enough time for Whitmer, Shapiro et al to suddenly ramp up campaigns.
Whitmer and the other top contenders want no part of this debacle. They have been smartly
And competently moving themselves to a national stage, and things will be in place for 2028. Biden’s hubris has fucked us all and left us with bad options all around. What the Dems should be focusing on is damage control with its voters. They left us out of this whole equation.
Something tells me that if Trump wins and we actually have elections in 2028 then you’ll find a reason to reject the Dem nominee then as well. Biden should never have run for a second term but why would you take that out on Harris? She’s been thrust into an unimaginably high pressure position with the future of American democracy at stake so I’m willing to give her the benefit of doubt and support her.
I say that if Fucking France can do an election in a few months, a candidate can run a campaign. The public would probably give them a pass on some things not being there.
But if this whole thing screams "DO NOT TOUCH" to them, I don't blame them for staying away.
Reporting from a swing state here—right down the way from where Trump was almost assassinated—and I don’t understand why most democrats don’t seem to be thinking about which candidate is likely to win over swing voters.
Of course most Democrats will accept Kamala, but I’m not hearing anyone who’s not a hardcore democrat swallow the “just vote not Trump” bait again.
People are mad that Trump was almost killed and they are mad that they tried to hide the extent of Biden’s mental decline.
Hilary didn’t even campaign here and that’s part of why Trump took PA in 2020. I think people here see Kamala in a similar light.
I appreciate the friendly counsel, but I'd push back in two ways.
First, let us have our moment of happiness. So it's a little over the top. Infatuation always is.
Second, I strongly disagree with trying to have someone other than Kamala Harris be the nominee. I don't see anyone who can just jump in at this point and save the day, and pretty much anyone whose name has been mentioned has been making it clear since the Not Great Debate that they have no interest.
Much more importantly, though, even if Harris wouldn't be the first choice, in an ideal world, here in reality, there really isn't a choice. Kicking her to the curb would alienate huge constituencies, like women and people of color. And not a few straight white male liberals, like me. If she gets shoved aside, this election will be a disaster for the Dems, and so will the next three, at least.
Women and people of color do not all think alike. We are individuals capable of complex, independent thinking. Broad generalizations that lump millions of people into one reductive category is one of the reasons we are in this political mess.
I did not mean ALL. I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I meant was LOTS.
I fully appreciate that there are women and/or POC and/or straight white male liberals who would prefer a different nominee. Perhaps you are one of them. But I'd bet tall dollars that a significant fraction of people in one or more of these groups would be really pissed off if Harris was brushed aside. It wouldn't take more than 10-20% to bring on the disaster. That's all I'm saying.
There's something weird about complaining about Kamala. I get it - I'm not, like, pumped to have her as nominee, but I think that she's clearly superior to Biden in the sense that she can have campaign events at 8pm while Biden is in the residence watching Matlock.
There's 3 months to the election. Any "open" process is going to necessarily be divisive and for all we know could wind up nominating someone considerably worse. Kamala is the default choice. She may 'only' be at "replacement candidate" level, but at least she's not below it like Biden.
I’m not so sure it would alienate constituencies if Harris were passed over for another candidate, after all, in 2020 it was black voters in SC who decisively shifted momentum to Biden and he ultimately won with the support of the black community. The problem is one of time, if we hold a quick mini primary then that leaves the nominee a short campaign window. Maybe it could work but it does hold a new set of risks.
My personal preference would be Josh Shapiro but I can settle for Harris. At least she can put complete sentences together fluently and prosecute the case against Trump.
One difference between now and 2020 is that the latter was at the beginning of the primary season. Also, by that time, KH had suspended her campaign. Main point: no one was being pushed aside at the last minute.
Had Biden withdrawn before the 2024 primaries, and KH (assuming she'd run) has to contend with other candidates, that would not have been the problem that I was talking about above.
I think Harris can win this, if she avoids the Hillary trap. Clinton got lots of celebrity endorsements, and made a really big deal about the historical character of her (potential) presidency. What she forgot to do is make a case about how she'd make anyone's life better.
Harris's campaign themes, based on her one speech in DE yesterday, are freedom and justice. Freedom means being free to have a safe pregnancy without worrying about dying from a miscarriage in front of a hospital that refuses you entry. It means the freedom to use contraception and IVF. It means freedom from religious nutcases who want us to live like Catholic nuns in the year 1100.
And justice lets her talk about economic injustice, of which there are too many examples to list, but through which she can spin up the outrage necessary to steal votes back from Trump. Because Trump actually did nothing for workers, except try to block access to health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions.
So, Harris needs to recognize the Twitter fans are a distraction, and celebrity endorsements are worse than useless. She shouldn't talk about how historic her presidency would be -- no one will forget she's Black or a woman. She needs to focus on how she'll make the country better.
The left doesn't believe in freedom, like at all.
It likes abortion, and that is about it.
Hey, that’s unfair.
They also like puberty blockers and teenage mastectomies.
Sterilizing kids means that you’re a kind person.
I agree. I wasn't thrilled to see her lock this up so quickly but I'm starting to think she could do well. Ezra Klein has an audio essay out today which emphasizes a theme from her book on crime which is safety, and I think that (along with freedom) is a great emphasis for her. The Republicans use fear and "strength" to drive their narrative, but the underlying desire that they're tapping into is a desire for safety and a feeling of being unsettled. If Harris can communicate that Trump will only make people less safe, and that as a former prosecutor, her passion is for maintaining order and safe communities, I think that could work for her. And it'd be genuine, which has been her biggest challenge IMO.
I'm astounded how fast we went right back into "if you say anything negative at all about our current plan then you're voting in TRUMPF!" mode.
I figured there would be some jockeying for a bit, showing off the various skills of the many governors that Democrats have, and still *probably* going with Harris.
And *then* the walls would go up and you'd no longer be allowed to question strategery
To extend the metaphor. I am enjoying this honeymoon period. It is how I imagine a honeymoon might feel for those in an arranged marriage. I have no doubt that Harris' faults will become obvious to me as I get to know her. Because that is always how it works when you get know someone. I suspect I will find her foreign policy and militarism as objectionable as Biden's. I suspect I will find her compromises infuriating. But I just want to enjoy a 7-10 day honeymoon period where we get to pretend like we are soulmates.
She shilled for the mental health of her boss for three years. It is going to come up and come up a lot. This isn't going to put the Biden mess behind anything, it is just going to bring it front and center by putting someone who really had to have known out front. I am not even going to get into the whole story about how she came into power. She is what you would have gotten if Monica Lewinsky had zero scruples and more creativity to use the tools at hand to boost her career.. The best advantage she h as working for her is that she is still largely a cypher. Her entire Senate career lasted all of 2 years before she was made VP I think, and before that she was the least popular Democrat in California. She has absolutely no wisdom about how to get things done in Washington, or really anywhere that isn't a single party dominated political environment. The collective rush here is truly something to behold. a lot of my Democrat friends are excitedly posting the hot new hagiography without thinking s single thought that somehow she might be to blame for any of what has happened. Were watching a cult of personality form in real time and I am here for it.
The only thing I remember her concretely being put in charge of as VP was the border. That went well, right?
It went according to plan. Your individual use of the adjective good will vary
She wasn’t in charge of “the border,” she was responsible for working with Central American governments to reduce the flow of migrants, and she did a decent job given how little power a VP has.
That's incredible cope. At the time this was seen as a way to address the "root causes" leading to major migration to the US (as opposed to measures promoted by Trump and Republicans, like stronger enforcement, a wall, etc.).
https://apnews.com/general-news-3400f56255e000547d1ca3ce1aa6b8e9
I think the larger issues at play here are that
1) She did so little you really can argue she wasn't in charge of all that much. Sure her boss pointed to her on national TV and said "Shes my hatchet person, and this is what she is here to do" but it isnt like anyone actually expected her to be able to channel that into some sort of a solution. The national eye roll when she was "appointed" was deep and real. A Fox probably does more to secure the Henhouse, just so he can have it for himself. Her time on this problem was a total zero.
2) This was also probably her first and only executive experience, unless y ou count her time rounding up truants and their parents and overseeing her office of fifty or so people.
Your usage of the word "decent" makes me think you applaud her for not causing a disaster, which is actually plausible. Her name hardly ever gets mentioned in this debate except for little joking hip checks about her job as figure head.
> She shilled for the mental health of her boss for three years. It is going to come up and come up a lot.
This is somewhat balanced by her main opponent also not being on good terms with truth and honesty.
The argument vote for my candidate. They're just as dishonest as the other one is not a widely persuasive argument
Yeah, but that works both ways.
To me it doesn't look like a "mental health" problem but a physical problem. Biden still has a normal grasp of reality.
He just has problems getting it out as opposed to Trump, who lives in an alternate reality. To be clear, he's bat shit crazy. I am upset that the people who interacted with Biden on a frequent basis didn't stop and think "um, is a low energy dyslexic speech candidate going to fly with voters?" and speak up.....
"Well, here’s another hard truth: Twitter is a breeding ground for conformist dimwits."
"The reality is that Twitter is a nuclear reactor that turns regular idiots into Godzilla-sized Mega Idiots..."
Words to live by.
Fun to read Jeff. Thanks. We are watching the takeover of national elections by Chicago-style politics, and it will bring California Dreaming to the rest of the country. And the rest of the country will have to pay for it. Literally. Doesn't really matter what Kamala believes or knows. She just needs to read what is on the 'prompter'. She is an empty vessel perfect for the party bosses to manage. All that is happening now is the horse trading behind the scenes for Cabinet positions, cushy overseas Ambassador postings and producing Hollywood campaign videos to show us how historic and remarkable Kamala is. 'This is history people! History is fun!' Kamala is a mail-order bride with no-returns. Obama, Pelosi, Shumer, Jeffries will all put on serious faces and blow past any suggestion that this denies 'the people' the right to choose. After all they know better. (aka they will lie to our face). The media is already tripping over themselves to catch the bouquet, and the bride hasn't even stepped off the train yet. What a mess.
You’ve forgotten that only Kamala comes with a dowry of super PAC campaign funding
This sudden turnabout on Kamala does seem manufactured and phony. Other than being the incumbent VP (which she got for identity reasons), she's an incredibly weak candidate. The claim that she was "vetted" during the 2020 primary was specious. She ran, convinced no one, and dropped out before any states voted polling near last place. Her accomplishments over the last 3.5 years have been fixing the border crisis (mission accomplished!) and delivering so many incomprehensible word salads that the Biden admin decided it was best to keep her hidden. She can't hide any longer. I've got my popcorn ready.
She was a good AG and before that a good prosecutor. No VP will have accomplishments since that’s not part of the job. I agree that her 2020 campaign wasn’t so great but her law enforcement background was a liability for Dem primary voters. She’s embraced her prosecutorial experience now which will probably lead to a more genuine persona. We’ll see soon enough whether she can go the distance.
She was vetted during the primary in the sense that people had an incentive to attack her and nothing really stuck. The optimist in me would say that her failure in 2020 had more to do with the crowded primary (and downstream effects of that, like finding staff) and less to do with some sort of permanent defect.
Yeah, her time as VP wasn't impressive, but VPs are just window dressing. And inasmuch as she got the VP nod from identity characteristics, I'd say that the same holds true about Vance, Pence, Kaine, Biden, and Palin - really everyone from the past 20 years save, maybe, Paul Ryan.
I would argue that most of those you mentioned were picked because of region, experience, personal characteristics, and ideology (either to align with the top of the ticket like Vance, or balance it (Pence, Palin)). Not explicitly because of their race or gender.
What that really means is "bring in a few votes."
This is the worst choice we've had for president in my voting lifetime. (I first voted in 1988). Kamala is awful and Trump is, well, Trump. I feel like the Democrats are fucking with me. I've been trying to decide if Kamala is the dumbest presidential candidate ever. She can't be dumber than George W, right? It's close though. The good news is that I won't have to drive the 1/2 mile out of my way on the way to work to vote this year. So, I'm saving a good 15 minutes on my commute on that day in November.
I agree that it would have been better to date around a little and test the waters before jumping right into a serious relationship (marriage? Maybe/maybe not) with Kamala. The problem is that all of those other fish in the sea have said they don’t want to date us. From Whitmer, Shapiro, Pritzger, even Newsome (who is no Harris fanboy) have all said that we should stick with Harris. They all have seen the writing on the wall and realized that our eventual marriage to Harris was destined to occur. Since none of the other fish are interested in casual dating when they don’t see a long-term prospect, what else are we to do other than come to the realization that we can’t always get what we want, but if we try sometime, we just might find that we get what we need?
I have been a paying member after reading one article. I usually agree and laugh out loud at the jokes. In this case I disagree. We are three months away from Armageddon. There is simply no time left to see if Josh Shapiro sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. I assume if he does he won’t be VP. Bring the shotgun. Make the marriage.”
I am a lifelong Dem, and I’m getting a little bit tired of the Dems telling us to shut up and eat our shit sandwich because Armageddon.
I’m not getting on the ride anymore. When Trump wins, it won’t be great. But it’s not going to be a catastrophe.
If you were really a lifelong Dem then you wouldn’t need to be told by anyone that Trump will be a catastrophe. He was and he will be an even bigger catastrophe without guardrails in a second term.
I would also have preferred an open primary but there really isn’t the time for one now and it’s not as if Harris is a questionable democrat. I’d get your point if it was Joe Manchin “they” were shoving down our throats but Harris is a genuine democrat. The “defund the police” left doesn’t like her but no candidate they like could win.
How, exactly, will a second Trump term be a catastrophe?
What guardrails are being removed from his second term?
Project 2025. Corrupt supreme court rubber stamping everything.
No fear of reelection.....
Sorry Jorge, that's wrong on many levels.
Project 2025, even if it was implemented in toto, doesn't remove any guardrails of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has shown a willingness to limit presidential power by decree and seems to be interested in maintaining the balance of the separation of powers.
And by no fear of reelection, I'm assuming you mean that he's a lame duck out of the gate, not that he will declare himself president for life.
I respectfully disagree and will be happy if you are right. We will see.....
I “really am” a lifelong Dem, sorry. As were my parents and grandparents before me.
Project 2025. Catastrophe.....
Thank you. I agree with you 100%. I think Jeff is off on this one. If it was February, it would be a different story, but it's not. There isn't enough time for Whitmer, Shapiro et al to suddenly ramp up campaigns.
Whitmer and the other top contenders want no part of this debacle. They have been smartly
And competently moving themselves to a national stage, and things will be in place for 2028. Biden’s hubris has fucked us all and left us with bad options all around. What the Dems should be focusing on is damage control with its voters. They left us out of this whole equation.
Something tells me that if Trump wins and we actually have elections in 2028 then you’ll find a reason to reject the Dem nominee then as well. Biden should never have run for a second term but why would you take that out on Harris? She’s been thrust into an unimaginably high pressure position with the future of American democracy at stake so I’m willing to give her the benefit of doubt and support her.
I have to see and hear something from her. If it’s the same old identity politics + Trump is the devil than I will be unimpressed.
If she can articulate a good immigration policy and not pander to the progressives then I am very receptive.
I say that if Fucking France can do an election in a few months, a candidate can run a campaign. The public would probably give them a pass on some things not being there.
But if this whole thing screams "DO NOT TOUCH" to them, I don't blame them for staying away.
Too late Jeff. Kamala is pregnant-with possibility! Only a cad dumps someone while they're pregnant-with possibility.....
I don't understand a lot of this Harris meme stuff I keep hearing about. Maybe Jacob Fussetti could do an explainer of Brat Style for us?
I like this idea.
The Paula Fox endorsement of Kamala is going to be EPIC
(Brakes....)
Yes, fixed. I finally got "sow" vs. "sew" a few columns back, and it looks like "brakes" vs. "breaks" is my new mental block.
thank you for saying it so I didn’t have to
Reporting from a swing state here—right down the way from where Trump was almost assassinated—and I don’t understand why most democrats don’t seem to be thinking about which candidate is likely to win over swing voters.
Of course most Democrats will accept Kamala, but I’m not hearing anyone who’s not a hardcore democrat swallow the “just vote not Trump” bait again.
People are mad that Trump was almost killed and they are mad that they tried to hide the extent of Biden’s mental decline.
Hilary didn’t even campaign here and that’s part of why Trump took PA in 2020. I think people here see Kamala in a similar light.
no one cares that trump was "almost killed"
I appreciate the friendly counsel, but I'd push back in two ways.
First, let us have our moment of happiness. So it's a little over the top. Infatuation always is.
Second, I strongly disagree with trying to have someone other than Kamala Harris be the nominee. I don't see anyone who can just jump in at this point and save the day, and pretty much anyone whose name has been mentioned has been making it clear since the Not Great Debate that they have no interest.
Much more importantly, though, even if Harris wouldn't be the first choice, in an ideal world, here in reality, there really isn't a choice. Kicking her to the curb would alienate huge constituencies, like women and people of color. And not a few straight white male liberals, like me. If she gets shoved aside, this election will be a disaster for the Dems, and so will the next three, at least.
Women and people of color do not all think alike. We are individuals capable of complex, independent thinking. Broad generalizations that lump millions of people into one reductive category is one of the reasons we are in this political mess.
I did not mean ALL. I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I meant was LOTS.
I fully appreciate that there are women and/or POC and/or straight white male liberals who would prefer a different nominee. Perhaps you are one of them. But I'd bet tall dollars that a significant fraction of people in one or more of these groups would be really pissed off if Harris was brushed aside. It wouldn't take more than 10-20% to bring on the disaster. That's all I'm saying.
There's something weird about complaining about Kamala. I get it - I'm not, like, pumped to have her as nominee, but I think that she's clearly superior to Biden in the sense that she can have campaign events at 8pm while Biden is in the residence watching Matlock.
There's 3 months to the election. Any "open" process is going to necessarily be divisive and for all we know could wind up nominating someone considerably worse. Kamala is the default choice. She may 'only' be at "replacement candidate" level, but at least she's not below it like Biden.
I’m not so sure it would alienate constituencies if Harris were passed over for another candidate, after all, in 2020 it was black voters in SC who decisively shifted momentum to Biden and he ultimately won with the support of the black community. The problem is one of time, if we hold a quick mini primary then that leaves the nominee a short campaign window. Maybe it could work but it does hold a new set of risks.
My personal preference would be Josh Shapiro but I can settle for Harris. At least she can put complete sentences together fluently and prosecute the case against Trump.
One difference between now and 2020 is that the latter was at the beginning of the primary season. Also, by that time, KH had suspended her campaign. Main point: no one was being pushed aside at the last minute.
Had Biden withdrawn before the 2024 primaries, and KH (assuming she'd run) has to contend with other candidates, that would not have been the problem that I was talking about above.