Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Random_Dragon]

Woo this is going to be...interesting. I don't think this is going to outright hand the presidency to the orange cuck, but it will make things much less predictable. Problem is mainly that "anything goes" includes a lot of new and exciting ways this could go to shit.

[da_nang]

I swear, if they start campaigning on Kamala being black and a woman ("her turn", etc), we'll see a repeat of 2016.

I'm not sure how well she'll do in the swing states. Beyond not being Trump, she's got some baggage from her legal career.

[Egan_BW]

Things ever happen.

[Folly]

I swear, if they start campaigning on Kamala being black and a woman ("her turn", etc), we'll see a repeat of 2016.

There were a LOT of reasons why people disliked Hillary, but I don't think that her campaigning as the first female president was prominent among them. That angle likely helped far more than it hurt her.

[Starver]

A lot may depend upon whatever the 'X' is in "the Harris-X ticket". I mean, the general fate of a VOTUS is to be ignored most of the time whilstsoever there's still a valid POTUS at the front (which probably hasn't helped Harris's budding reputation, but then again likely also not overly hurt it any more than her general history does).

Though of course the attack-ads that were prepared against her (for whatever eventuality she might end up being put in pole position) have already had the cellophane removed and shoved out there (though it sounds like they're mostly of the unimaginative "look what was done under Biden's her watch" type, little more than what was already unwrapped under the presumption of Biden(-Harris) again). The question is whether there are similar ads pre-prepared for every possible partner (or replacement) that might happen. Maybe there's a surprise out there.

(And it's a bit of a rush, from the public side of things, but I'm betting that there's already been a lot of horse-trading behind the scenes, probably part of the requisite for the withdrawal announcement. It's probably not actually any kind of done deal, but it likely won't be as up in the air as we're seeing.  If there aren't arch-strategisers arch-strategising these things behind the scenes, then the party is very behind the times in all that jazz.)


Every which way, the ride isn't over until it's over, and there'll be twists and turns aplenty.

[anewaname]

So, going with the presumption that Kamala will be the candidate (because, no one else in the D party is going to get a broad base of support from the majority of the party), who would be the VP pick?

This CBS vid lists the governors Andy Beshear, JB Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, Roy Cooper, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, and Wes Moore, the senators Mark Kelly and Raphael Warnock, and Biden's Secretaries Gina Raimondo and Pete Buttigieg...

I look at that list and while I've seen some of them do media interviews, etc, the only ones that stand out as being able to ad-lib and maintain a non-party dialogue are Whitmer, Newsom, and Buttigieg. Whitmer would make it into a two-woman ticket which seems bad, Newsom has that "slippery" thing going on plus having a two-Californians-ticket is an issue, and then there is Buttigieg... He doesn't seem like a bad choice unless the voters are homophobic. He could be the best VP pick, because he shows professional competence and verbal alacrity, and what could Maga say about Buttigieg besides "oh, he's gay..."? He doesn't have specific baggage for maga to exploit, and he can point out the stupid every time he is talking with a trump-bobblehead.

[pisskop]

Im more okay with the idea of Buttigieg than most.  He was even one of the more reasonable candidates in the 2020 elections runup

[hector13]

Im more okay with the idea of Buttigieg than most.  He was even one of the more reasonable candidates in the 2020 elections runup

I liked him. Can’t remember a goddamn thing about him but he seemed a reasonable choice.

Whitmer would be able to counter the “attack on democracy” talking point that Trump seems to want to push with the assassination attempt, though I think the guys who were plotting to kidnap her got caught in a FBI sting, so it may backfire if that became a thing.

[EuchreJack]

Gavin Newsom would be the pick, since he's been in the news lately, but he can't be picked as VP since both of them are from California.

[PTTG??]

Democrats raised $52 million in 8 hours.

Without a VP candidate.

Considerations now that Kamala is the heir apparent:
1: Democrats can attack Trump for his age and incoherence.
2: There is no more threat of Congress refusing to approve a VP should Biden pass during his next term.
3: There's less baggage from inflation and other recent history (not no baggage, but less).
4: Disengaged people don't care about policy by can be swayed by a good narrative. First woman President is a great narrative.
5: People who will never vote for Kamala out of bigotry was already a locked-in Trump vote, so no loss.

There is room for cautious optimism here. I certainly feel better about this than I did when I had to pretend that I thought Joe Biden didn't disqualify himself in the debate.

[Frumple]

I don't, but that's mostly because I expect buttery males 2.0 to show up within the month and news to go back into scorpion mode the instant they get that excuse.

If that doesn't happen, well. Maybe some optimism. Probably not until an actual winning election, though

[Lord Shonus]

Gavin Newsom would be the pick, since he's been in the news lately, but he can't be picked as VP since both of them are from California.

 Them being from the same state would not matter anywhere except California, though that's an important "except". The bigger problem with Newsom is that he's pretty much the Democratic equivalent of Ron Desantis - a grandstander who is reasonably popular in his own state but who is despised by same-party voters in many others. Picking him would straight forfeit many key battleground states.

[MaxTheFox]

The stakes are up now.

I'm not sure if she has better or lower chances than Biden. Factors for and against that.

What is clear, at least to me, is that she will be more capable if she wins, at least because she's not senile. 59 is pretty young for a president. And yea the first POC woman president is a good wayto keep progressive-leaning but jaded people in the booths... there's been a lot of (understandable) angst over the choice being between 2 elderly white men.

I'm cautiously optimistic and ngl I feel better than before Biden stepped down, 2 months is enough to drum up support.

[Duuvian]

Here is something that may be of interest, though it concerns UK voters and UK specific issues, it also has an overlap with voters in the US in some of the general concerns and perhaps some ideas may be gleaned in regards to some of the mysteries deposited earlier in the thread.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/policy-lab/sites/policy_lab/files/ucl_policy_lab_change_pending.pdf

On that list I like Warnock the most by, like, a lot. Whitmer has been a good governor; I don't mind if it's two ladies because I'd be more concerned about policy rather than identity if that's fair to say. Buttigieg would probably also be a good choice, the only thing I've noted was that his former campaign manager's brother was stabbed in China in what was by the little I know of it, an angry response to being bumped into. I had a bookmark folder prepared and named in deference to Hollywood movie titles Goldpockets 2: Triad Revenge but hooray! It appears to have been unnecessary as well as something I obviously know nothing about. Here is a link if it matters: https://www.reuters.com/world/four-american-educators-stabbed-park-northeast-china-says-us-media-officials-2024-06-11/

Buttigieg himself has been very rare in TV appearances but to be fair, seeing what CNN has become would make me want to stay off too.

[da_nang]

Gavin Newsom would be the pick, since he's been in the news lately, but he can't be picked as VP since both of them are from California.

 Them being from the same state would not matter anywhere except California, though that's an important "except". The bigger problem with Newsom is that he's pretty much the Democratic equivalent of Ron Desantis - a grandstander who is reasonably popular in his own state but who is despised by same-party voters in many others. Picking him would straight forfeit many key battleground states.

Agreed. At the very least, a Harris-Newsom ticket would lose the gun-owning swing-states. I can't think of a less anti-2A ticket.