politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Democratic party would crush it if only they replaced Biden with a younger candidate. I'm telling you, even republicans might switch over and vote democrat if this happens.
Lol, have you seen a Republican recently?
Yes, have you?? I actually happen to live amongst them, which may sound exotic to some Lemmings.
"I hate Trump, but Joe is a walking corpse" is not an uncommon sentiment.
Are they aware that even an almost-corpse could follow their advisors and therefore end up having an effective presidency? As long as Biden doesn't start doing random senile shit (and be realistic, he's far from that)
To a lot of these voters it's not about having a logical cabinet nor even policy. It's the individual as a character representing our nation, and to them Trump is better spoken than Biden even if what most of he says has little basis in reality.
This is why Obama had such a good time with swing voters, it's not really about the policies from what I see. I'm shocked no party since 2008 has tried running a younger candidate. I'd love to see someone younger debate Trump. Like Pete Buttigieg for example. Like ya he's still a career politician, but I suspect he'd do much better at making the insane stuff Trump says sound insane.
If they haven't changed their minds yet, then they aren't going to. It's time to try someone different.
Besides, you're not even needing Republican votes. You just need undecided votes and to energize democratic voters who hate both candidates with age being a big factor.
The presidency needs to be reframed. It's not some position of ultimate power. Presidents have far less control than the general public thinks, or the media would have you believe.
To get anything lasting done you need all three branches working together and with this court, and congress....
I do too, which is why I know that you are wrong.
If Biden decided to step down, his delegates are pledged to support Kamala Harris. So it's either him or her.
Still certain Democrats would crush it without Biden?
I've tried to verify that this is the case and can't find evidence anywhere. Can you point me to a source? I was under the impression that they'd be expected to turn to her, but that they're not required to.
Edit: After lengthy back and forth, it finally became clear that this is simply an opinion. User has absolutely no proof.
They aren't required. But Biden/Harris delegates aren't chosen randomly, they are Democrats who have demonstrated loyalty towards Biden and Harris and have personally pledged to support them.
But they're not "Biden/Harris delegates". They're Biden delegates, as he was the only name on the ballot. Are you just saying they'll go with her out of deference?
Fair point. I think they would absolutely go with Harris. Partly out of deference, partly because she would remain in control of the Biden/Harris $100 million warchest and ground operations org, partly because her name can't be taken off the general ballot in multiple states, and partly because Democrats need to campaign on women's rights and it would look awful to pass over a Black woman.
I also think that Newsom/Whitmer/Beshear/Pritzker et al are not interested in replacing Biden. They will inherit chaos, are very likely to lose in the general, and that will be the end of their presidential aspirations.
Again, where is your proof of this? Ballots haven't been finalized anywhere in the country, as Biden isn't even officially the nominee yet. You keep saying these things as if they're set in stone, but from what I can tell they're not. Do you have proof that ballots have been printed before the convention, or that states have closed the registration window for running mates before closing the registration window for candidates?
Note: I agree with the rest of what you said, for the most part.
As you suggest it's a regulatory problem. There was a recent kerfuffle involving the Ohio ballot, which was solved by putting Biden/Harris on the ballot before they are officially nominated. So any changes made at the Democratic convention will come too late to change the Ohio ballot.
There was a similar issue in Alabama, but it looks like they just moved their deadline after the convention.
.....nnnnno. That's not what's happening in Ohio. From your article:
I really hate to repeat myself because it seems like you're engaging sincerely and at least trying to support your argument, but there are currently no ballots that have been formalized in the entire country. Biden and Harris have not been put on the ballot before they're nominated, they're being nominated before the ballot access deadline in Ohio. So quite simply, as long as the Democrats nominate any US-born person older than 35, that person's name will appear on the Ohio ballot. You have it quite literally backwards.
Are you supposing that the party could settle on a non-Harris replacement for Biden before their convention??
Getting delegates to agree on someone other Harris in smoke-filled backrooms in Chicago is unwise and unlikely, but at least within the realm of possibility.
Getting them to agree before they've even met sounds like pure fiction. And that's what would be necessary to meet the Aug 7 deadline. Kamala Harris will be on the Ohio ballot no matter what happens in Chicago.
So his delegates are not pledged to Harris, they aren't required to support Harris, her name isn't on a single ballot in the country, Biden's name isn't on a single ballot in the country, and no one has officially been nominated. You've offered no proof to the contrary.
Whether you think a change is likely before ballots are finalized was not my question, merely whether or not you had proof that it's impossible.
I think it's impossible to replace Harris before Aug 7.
Even the staunchest proponents of running Newsom (or whoever) hope to accomplish this in Chicago.
You've offered no proof that it is, despite my asking several times. From what I can tell that's just your opinion, which is fine but carries significantly less weight.
Will someone please come out and say what the problem with Kamala Harris is? I see people hinting about it all the time, but I have no idea what it’s all about.
Her record as DA is problematic for a lot of people. She was labeling herself as a progressive, but then behaved as a conservative. Fought to keep a lot of people in prison for minor offenses, fought to keep the death penalty, etc. While doing that, she had a book out about criminal justice reform… and went against her own advice. Pretty much a lap-dog for conservative criminal justice policy. Overall, blatantly hypocritical to anyone that was paying attention.
Thanks for explaining.
I have a problem with many of her past decisions but, the same goes for Biden. Both are still a significantly better choice than Trump.
Is she pro genocide? My only problem with Biden is his age and Israel policy, and I have no idea what hers are.
Unfortunately, anyone who has any real chance of being president isn't going to do anything meaningful to stop what is happening in Gaza.
It's because she's a woman. They're scared.
It’s certainly true that women who rise to the top of national politics get relentlessly, negatively caricatured (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi). With Kamala Harris it’s different because a lot of the murmuring comes from Democrats and they never say why.