103
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10162 readers
223 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Exactly
Everyone can agree on something being an issue but there needs to be consensus on solutions
Personally I think Kamala Harris is a viable plan. She's already VP, she's instantly recognizable, and she's also polling well against trump.
And honestly I'm starting to think the plan might be something along the lines of "Keep Biden in until after the election then scoot Harris in under the 25th amendment"
I don't know if she can. There's still a lot of latent racism and misogyny in American culture, and she'd have to overcome both. Bidens old, but he's a he and the color of skin that's important, for some reason. I wish it weren't so, but it is. I think she could beat a Jeb Bush hands down, but Trump has a knack for flaming those racist and misogynistic feelings in people that aren't usually that way.
Also, she is the VP of the incumbent administration. Any complaints people have about Biden, other than his personal age, also can be applied to her. Economy? Immigration? Isreal/Gaza? All Harris' administration. Doesn't matter that she has little input or control of any of those, she is the VP, Trump and Conservatives will blame her all the way until election day, and Fox/Conservative media will be there to parrot and distribute the word.
Without the advantages of being the actual incumbent.
She can just say Biden made the decisions, because it's true. Forget how Fox propagandizes things. If you think they have that power to shape reality, we've already lost. Everyone else will take a statement of "that was something I disagreed with, but it was Joe's choice" at face value, because we all know VPs are powerless.
It's amusing to see people ponder whether a black person could become president, or use that as essentially an argument against running a black candidate.
You're about 16 years late to the party.
Are there LOTS of racists and misogynists out there? Yeah, absolutely. But if you discount candidates based on what you think the bigots will do, you're just preemptively doing their discrimination for them.
Saying, "I don't think we should run a black female candidate because of the racists", and saying, "I don't think we should run a black female candidate because I'm racist" has the same net effect.
There is a precedent of a black president, but there is still no precedent of a woman president... and the reaction to a female candidate after Obama, was Trump.
Running a black woman candidate, is both unprecedented for the misogynism AND for the combination. The barely 8 year old precedent of voters picking an obvious con artist over a white woman, points to misogynism being still a serious issue in the US.
IMHO, the best that could happen would be having Biden re-elected, then him deciding he's no longer capacitated, and the job defaulting onto Harris. But if Biden can't make it to the polls... well, SOL.
The reaction to Hillary Clinton was Trump. A wicker chair painted red would have beaten Hillary. Holding her up as indicative of the general sentiment towards women as leaders is about as far from accurate interpretation of 2016 as you can get. Notice how many people are suggesting Whitmer or even Michele Obama to run (nevermind Harris, obviously), but no one is suggesting Clinton?
Heh, not sure about a wicker chair (LOL)... she's 76 now, so definitely not an option. Maybe I didn't follow US politics too closely in 2016, were there other women running in the primaries back then?
Not in 2016.
In 2019, Elizabeth Warren was leading in the primaries (and both she and Sanders were ahead of Biden), until Super Tuesday when a bunch of the centrist candidates dropped out together and jointly endorsed Biden, in order for them not to go to a contested convention.
That's the worst possible plan, IMO. Biden can lead, I would be fine with him being president for another 4 years. The issue is he can't win against Donald Trump. He was behind in all swing states, and that was before the debate, multiple gaffes and speech mistakes, moments of confusion and freezing, etc...
Democrats need to be winning by 3-4% in the popular vote to overcome the electoral college bias. Maybe he's squeaking by in the popular vote isn't enough to win.
50 other Democrats, like Joe Biden himself said. This isn't a close election because people love Joe Biden, it's because they hate Donald Trump. Trump isn't some electoral force of nature, he's a weak candidate who's had the fortune to run against another weak candidate (now and in 2016). There isn't a big focus on "double-haters" in normal elections. Most people don't want these candidates.
Do you have links to her polling well against Trump? That's my one (very large) concern.
She is polling the same as Biden was, as of today.
Given the remaining months until the election, she has plenty of time to raise her status, assuming she doesn't footgun herself.
My biggest concern is her running mate. Being strategic, I'd say Buttigieg is the way to go, since he's also already part of the current admin, and is an excellent orator and debater.