The poll, which was conducted from July 7 to July 9, found that 73 percent of Democratic voters “somewhat” or “strongly” approve of Harris as Biden’s replacement. In an earlier iteration of the same survey, conducted from July 3 to July 6, a 66 percent majority of Democrats approved of Harris as a replacement.
It would be amazing if Harris, a black woman, beat the shit out of Trump. But how probable is this? I thought Kamala Harris was universally disliked across the board?
It’s less that she’s universally disliked and more that she’s not particularly liked. In her most prominent appearances in the past 4 years, she’s lacked charisma and not taken stances notable enough to distinguish her from the administration. She’s heavily disliked on the left-wing of the Democratic Party for being a DA who laughed about jailing people for drug crimes she herself had committed in the past (possession), and not particularly popular on the right-wing of the Democratic Party because they’re still racist, just LESS racist than Republicans.
She may be the best choice to go with at this junction, but she wouldn’t be my first pick if the field was open. But the field isn’t open, so we make do with what we have.
I do very much like one thing about her. In a race where we need to be hitting Trump very hard on the campaign trail, a former prosecutor should be extremely well-practiced and good at that.
But otherwise I agree.
former prosecutor should be extremely well-practiced and good at that.
Prosecutor vs. convicted felon. Who wins? Watch our brand new reality show!
And to that end, I think Newsom would be the safest choice for a pivot by far.
- white
- male
- heterosexual
- somewhat corporate friendly
- a bit religious, but not too much
- charismatic + GREAT public speaker
Reasoning:
- the first three are simply attributes that make it easier to min/max voter responsiveness in a country that still has a lot of prejudices
- the fourth is so the mega donors don’t just dig in their heels
- the fifth is so the religiouses don’t just dig in their heels
- the sixth is generally a good attribute to have in a serious political contender
We’re trying to stop the fascists from winning. Anything else is (unfortunately, but necessarily) secondary at this point. Pragmatic triage of the situation MUST be the mindset with which the party is evaluating their choices.
Of course, the DNC is neither triaging the situation, nor being pragmatic about the candidate who can actually fucking win and stop the fascists, because from where I’m standing, it looks like Biden hasn’t done a great job at any point in his term of slapping down the Nationalist Christians + MAGA crowd (and friends).
nor being pragmatic about the candidate who can actually fucking win
It’s been a long time, and I don’t remember the exact quote and the entire context, but I remember Trae Crowder (the “liberal redneck”) on Real Time just after donnie was selected by the EC and people were trying to do some kind of post mortem on just how the hell we ended up with donnie.
And Trae Crowder says something like, “…or do you want to fucking WIN?” I remember Ana Marie Cox looking kind of put out by the comment, but IIRC, it was about pragmatism. I’m pretty sure exchanges like that went on, in various forms, all around the country during 2015-2016 and they are playing out again…
If anyone has a link to that full exchange, or to a transcript of it, I sure would appreciate it, by the way.
If you think about the Democratic parties base, two groups stand out. Lefties (like most people on Lemmy) and people of color, particularly black women. If you select Newsom over Harris you i.) deal an enormous insult to people of color, and ii.) don’t go nearly far enough left to satisfy Lefties. What part of the base would be enthusiastic about such a milquetoast replacement?
Yeah, as an anarchist I’m particularly unenthused by “Top Cop” Kamala. I’m also concerned that people haven’t learned the lesson that Americans are extremely fucking racist and misogynistic. I’ll sadly be “voting blue, no matter who” but when the DNC runs these deeply uninspiring candidates, they can’t be surprised at how the low turnout costs them.
Biden can only use his quarter billion in campaign funds for his running mate Kamala. So the only choice is a Biden*/Harris ticket in November. And realistically no matter who anyone would prefer, you’re not going to sell a new candidate before November.
We’ve all in this mess, so now it’s time to grab the Go Joe, and clean it up.
This is simply untrue. He cannot give more than the maximum to another campaign, but he can give the balance to the DNC or a Super PAC to elect a new nominee.
I think the funds that the primary campaign got do actually go to Harris first. The DNC, PACs, and SPACs should be able to transfer like you said though.
Disclaimer: I’m not sure any of this shit is actually figured out. I doubt they thought about this situation when they wrote the FEC bill.
It’s the right sentiment phrased incorrectly. Harris can take over the campaign funds entirely, because it’s the same campaign. Nobody else can do that, so anyone else would have to start campaign fundraising from scratch as the DNC or a PAC they can’t coordinate with has all the money.
Campaigns get a discount on ad spend and there’s a lot of perks with being able to send exactly the message you want to spend. It’s a notable advantage.
I understand what you’re saying, but at the end of the day the campaign is going to put out press releases for what they’re focusing on at that time. While they can’t coordinate, they can just read the press releases that are released to the public and do ad spends based on them.
Polls also say she would do no better than Joe.
So it won’t matter if she replaces him, right? I mean, if it doesn’t matter who the candidate is with polling, then changing the candidate shouldn’t matter, right? Like, why are we keeping Biden if it doesn’t matter who the candidate is? Theoretically, if it doesn’t make a difference who the nominee is, and it won’t change anything, then changing the nominee shouldn’t be a problem, right?
It more has to with polls. If the electorate is more or less set, then the numbers game turns into a get out the vote campaign. There is no reason to think that the candidate will have an affect on that, unless of course if you’ve already voted for them once
If polling is static for all potential candidates, then what harm can come from changing them? Why fight so hard for a candidate that you know is going to lose, unless you want that candidate to lose? 🤨
We aren’t “keeping” Biden, the primary process was when other people could run against him and we got to pick. Now that he has secured the nomination, only one person on Earth decides if Biden continues to run or not–Biden himself.
Unless he gets impeached and removed from office or something, which is not very likely.
Hell, he even gets immunity for all sorts of possible crimes now, thanks to the Supreme Court.
Democratic donors warn of campaign funds ‘drying up’ as Joe Biden holds on
Donors decide.
Some wealthy backers are increasingly unwilling to pour cash into ‘losing’ effort
I seriously don’t give a fuck who it is, just give me someone who’s likely to get to 270. Will vote for any D, dead or alive, over any R, always.
