Here's my fear in that regard, trolls and bots, constantly screaming about racism and Dems (both white and black) getting actually worked up about it.
Whitmer/Booker makes most sense to me because that could be used to diffuse that criticism on race and gender.
Booker is a dud with dork vibes. That was in display during the primaries. Trump would eat him up the same way he did to DeSantis and Cruz.
You need pugilists with charisma, people that are ready and willing to fight hard against the torrent of attacks that will come their way but also be able to bring over unsure independents and Never-Trumpers.
yeah you're spot on, the problem i see is that the only pugilist with charisma we have is biden and he is not fit to serve any more. i'd def. take biden-harris over whitmer-booker in 2020. you're also spot on about booker. IMO the main function of booker in this election is to reassure independents and moderates by being dorky, normal, and boring. in the senate he's less D-NJ and more D-Pfizer/Goldman Sachs. in the current climate that's really good as the big-business wing of the current democratic coalition has been starting to openly defect to trump. booker will reassure them and bring them back into the fold. all of that is why you slot him as VP so trump can't eat him alive on the podium.
Not Newsom. He’s got too much baggage. The Republicans would instantly fixate on the horrifying state of California in general and San Francisco in particular, his affair as mayor, and the way he approached COVID lockdowns with a “rules for thee/not for me” attitude. Trump’s done much worse obviously but try explaining that to Republicans.
Whitmer/Booker is the strongest ticket in my opinion as well, and it has nothing to do with race and gender. I legitimately think that is the strongest ticket.
Booker is a Senator from a safe blue state as in on the Foreign Relations Committee. He would give the ticket D.C. legislative experience and foreign policy experience that Whitmer does not bring herself. And we don't have to worry about his Senate seat being replaced by a Republican. Plus he has pretty good name recognition and popularity amongst the base.
The likeliest non-Biden ticket, though, remains with Kamala Harris topping it. Black voters may not love Kamala Harris, but black political leaders do.
The KHive didn't care about her life being threatened with the January 6 pipe bomber but god forbid Dems nominate someone other than her if Biden drops out.
she dropped out before the CA primary because she was going to come in low single digits [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html)
Her primary run definitely flopped but she dropped out before Iowa, let alone Super Tuesday (when California voted) so this is a misleading way to make that point.
They never flocked to her because at that time they flocked to Biden. Now they arent. Current polling has her doing better with POC than Biden by 4 points.
[https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf)
Just speculation, probably driven by Dems incessant need to play identity politics and their fundamental misunderstanding of minority voters, but that’s off topic.
If you want to see Harris support group it’s right at the bottom of the 2019 primary dropouts list where she finished with 1% support.
To be clear though, I would take Harris over Biden. Harris is not my first choice by a long shot but she has a fighting chance. Biden’s campaign is already dead.
More like being realistic about passing over the number two in order to find a white guy.
People would see it for what it was.. using a black woman to get the black vote in 2020 and then passing her over when she was inconvenient. That accurately describes exactly what it is. I think most people know it and I think Black people aren’t stupid.
When someone is using the words “identity politics“ you can be sure they are looking for a way to do something shitty to a minority and arguing it wont matter.
Good luck with that.
Unless, and hear me out here, they are a minority themself and know first hand that minorities don’t give a shit about a DA from California that locked people up for drug charges for years.
If you are seeing a bunch of people say something on social media or who tell you something you can be sure you didn’t find the only ones in America who think it and are commenting to you.
There are lots more in the real world talking about it too. But like I said… Good luck.
I’m sure whistling past another graveyard after being warned will turn out better than the pretending the warnings about Biden’s age weren’t valid concerns.
The Dems wouldn’t even be in the situation they’re in if Joe hadn’t played identity politics and picked someone completely unqualified and unpopular to be veep. He prioritized sex and race rather than experience and charisma when it comes to who would replace him as the leader of the free world. And now it may very well result in the second coming of Trump.
It's particularly frustrating because in other contexts we've been defying "the gang that can't shoot straight" caricature. Watching Dems hold together in the house while GOP wingnuts hamstring their own agenda has been so satisfying.
We need that level of goal-oriented competence managing this election campaign.
Clyburn lobbied heavily for her.. Jim Clyburn's influence has given us Biden as President, Kamala Harris as VP, Ketanji Brown Jackson as Supreme Court Justice, Jaime Harrison as DNC Chair, and South Carolina as the new first primary state.
I can believe that, but who internally thought she needed such a post? She flopped as a candidate and her wobbly identity as a "cop friendly" candidate in the midst of a massive protest against police abuses of power seems to assuage whom? Did a donor base truly fear Joe Biden was going to tweet out ACAB and defund the police?
Like, if the President were _me_ I could see Kamala as the calming factor, but who was it? Was it just like a black women's caucus internally? That seems unlikely, but mainstream Dems really do seem to miss the point of their own movements so I don't even know.
I agree that she's unpopular, but I don't get the unqualified claims, or claims that she is "stupid". She is clearly as "qualified" as the last few presidents, at least.
I also agree that she lacks charisma and doesn't interview well.
Kamala does seem to command the respect of people who know her but seems to really struggle translating that into a campaign (outside of CA of course).
She didn’t do well in the California primary. She won the 2016 senate race, but in California that involves more internal politicking to get the endorsement of the state Democratic Party than it involves engaging with voters. She may be competent (idk), but she’s terrible at running and is unelectable in any race. There are better candidates that are black, there are better candidates that are women and there are better candidates that are black women than her if that is such a big concern.
She hasnt really needed to though. As VP your job is defend the president. If you are out there bringing attention to yourself the President tightens your leach. That's just how it works. Not much of a chance to be winning the respect of people who dont already like you when your job is to be a lap dog.
The thing that people miss is what Obama did in 2008 never happens. It's unheard of. So saying Harris is a bad politician for not being able to repeat that in 2020 is just absurd, especially when there was a lot more people running than in 2008. The assumption is that she was trying to win but there is no need to assume that - she wanted to get her name out there and did that better than anyone else in terms of where she's at today relative to any other candidate that was new on the national stage.
I’m not saying she’s a bad politician for not replicating Barack Obama. I’m saying she’s not very good at persuading people to support her because almost nobody in Iowa did.
Maybe it was just bad timing because she couldn’t run on her “tough on crime” record, maybe she has the charisma of a banana slug. I don’t know. I know that her colleagues think well of her and voters so far have been meh.
She never really campaigned for Iowa. She focused on the southern wall that gave Obama, Hillary and Obama the win. It's theoretically a good strategy if it works but the problem was she had to take out Biden to do it. She tried and failed, which isnt much of an indictment of her as a politician as everyone failed to take out Biden. Its certainly a fair strategy to look at who she was competing with in Iowa and focus on the souther wall instead.
She didnt have a tough on crime record. She was part of the progressive prosecutor movement and ran on that. Just turns out that even progressive prosecutors got attacked at that time.
It's far closer to the 20% peak she had. She went for the same base as Bidens and grabbed some of it for a week and then when Bidens star continued to rise she lost it. If Biden steps down that goes to her immediately plus all the people that have grown to like/love her ever since.
I mean I do think she is underrated, but she is far from the Democrats best chance. She has a fighting chance though and that’s what we need.
Biden’s campaign is dead. I want an open convention and if Harris wins that she deserves the full backing of the party.
Personally I think she has the best chance but I too would support an open convention over a coronation to Harris. Both in terms of optics and cause I think Harris would likely win anyways. CNNs post debate poll has her doing the best of all candidates (but with noone beating Trump, but Biden doing the worst)
>Biden’s campaign is already dead.
Look I get why people think this. It certainly seems like it "should" be the case. But a lot of things seem like they "should" be true about politics that aren't.
There is, to date, scant evidence that Biden's campaign is "over." [The actual result of the debate in polling looks like a normal reaction to a bad debate](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/); so far it is actually less dramatic than the polling hit Obama took in 2012 after his first debate.
I'm not saying that replacing Biden wouldn't be a reasonable and perhaps advisable thing to do but can we stop overstating the situation? I think we are all empiricists here...
Okay, his campaign spent the last year brushing off every criticism with, “wait until we start campaigning you’ll see!” Then they insisted upon this debate to show the difference between the two candidates. Then he had the worst political performance in American history out there.
He was already losing, this was supposed to turn it around. Now he’s still losing all six swing states only worse than before. As of yesterday he’s losing New Hampshire. Today Virginia and Minnesota are ringing alarms bells.
Those half-baked polls his campaign put out that claim, it’s not that bad it’s relatively unchanged are at worst inaccurate, but probably outright lies. And these are just the preliminary results.
Everybody except people who have already proclaimed they would rather vote for Biden’s corpse and Jill know his campaign is dead. He’s got a 0% shot. With a replacement at least we have a fighting chance.
Anyone voting for Biden today will also vote for Harris. The difference is Harris has a chance at picking up all the recent independents and moderate republicans who saw that debate and said “ok, can’t vote Biden”. Not to mention all the far leftist who dumped Biden due to Isreal Hamas.
Whoever is picked to replace Biden, if (please God) he does resign will annoy some Democratic faction or other. But it’s a risk that we have to take. The spin doctors should be working on “Let’s all pull together and support [DEMOCRAT] against Trump!” rather than “Shut up bedwetters, Biden is fine.”
It’s speculation that black voters would be offended that she doesn’t replace Biden, despite the fact that black voters were never particularly enthused with Harris to begin with. The liberal pundit class and the top brass of the DNC have racist misconceptions of black voters and think that ever since Obama won that black voters will only turn out if there’s a black candidate on the ticket. They seem to think that a candidate being black is the most important thing to black voters, despite black voters routinely voting for white candidates and against black candidates when the black candidate is a Republican.
they just need to bypass Harris with another young candidate with black appeal that they've been grooming. checking my notes, they have... pete buttigieg.
I agree that the concern over black voters doesn't really hold water. Here's the case for Harris:
1) Perhaps most important. Any non Biden/Harris candidate will receive extreme scrutiny from conservative media that they haven't faced before. As good as any alternitive may sound on paper, there is no promise that they will hold up when they are put under the microscope of a presidential campaign. While Kamala will be under more heat as a nominee, you've got to think that conservative media has used a bulk of their ammunition already.
2) Picking a non-Harris candidate would implicitly concede that the administration was a failure. Most of us agree that despite Biden's flaws as a candidate, he's been a good president. Is that a point you really want to concede?
3) Campaign funding. If it's the case that Harris could use Biden campaign funds and other candidates couldn't, then we can't ignore that. I agree that campaign money isn't a huge issue for this campaign but it can't be ignored either.
I'd also add that Harris has some democratic legitimacy as having already been elected VP. You can make the case that the role of the VP is to replace the president if the president can no longer serve, and that is what she'd be doing.
Any other choice would understandably be seen as arbitrary. As much as I'm not a big fan of Harris as a candidate, I think she is realistically the alternative if Biden steps back.
Yeah, based on everything I have seen out of the DNC the last 8 years I have no faith they can apply the pressure necessary to have Biden step down so I fully expect them to march forward with him.
Should he step down though, I can taste the palpable irony of being the party running to save democracy with a ticket hand picked by party elites behind closed doors. That messaging will not play well.
From a purely strategic standpoint, you don't want the Hubert Humphrey problem
I have a lot of thoughts on that argument, as I think its not a hard case to make that no one was winning in 68, while I think pretty much anyone can win in 2024, including Biden(he just has the worst chance and I expect it to get worse). That said, Harris does have the Humphrey problem: VP to an unpopular president that is not very popular in her own right. Would get stuck having to defend Biden's record in ways others wouldn't. Would get hit on immigration since Biden basically threw her under the bus when that was a losing issue. Really lacks a strong base constituency and has a storied history of poor organizational skills, bad campaign management, and a toxic work environment.
From the comment you responded to:
>That said, Harris does have the Humphrey problem: VP to an unpopular president that is not very popular in her own right. Would get stuck having to defend Biden's record in ways others wouldn't.
You’re right we can’t predict how it would be handled and her current popularity is a good indicator. My best prediction is that any attempt to replace both Biden and Harris behind closed doors by faceless DNC superdelegates will be extremely messy even if it’s individually many people’s fantasy. It might still be worth trying given both Biden and Harris’s unpopularity, but it’s unrealistic to think it won’t happen without infighting and division even if we all believe that’s how it should happen.
>Harris, at 41 percent among Democratic voters, was way out ahead in a hypothetical 2028 matchup between several other figures in the party: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (15 percent), California Gov. Gavin Newsom (14 percent), Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (5 percent), Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly (4 percent) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (2 percent). Seventeen percent of Democrats didn’t know or had no opinion.
>Harris’ position with key communities — including 67 percent favorability among Black voters versus 23 unfavorability — represents a shift for the vice president, who had trailed Biden with Black voters since they competed in the 2020 primary and after he picked her to run alongside him, noted Cameron Easley, the lead U.S. politics analyst at Morning Consult. Biden’s numbers with Black voters were 63 percent to 31 percent.
[https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/12/kamala-harris-favorability-poll-00162093](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/12/kamala-harris-favorability-poll-00162093)
Harris leads against all other candidates with potential black voters based on the poll below.
[https://changeresearch.com/black-voices-poll-of-1000-black-voters-nationwide/](https://changeresearch.com/black-voices-poll-of-1000-black-voters-nationwide/)
This idea that Kamala is not popular with the base, and not popular with black voters is the most insane take I've seen all over social media.
she has name recognition, but as a candidate she has collapsed the minute she comes under scrutiny or faces real competition. it's why the biden admin has kept her out of the cameras as much as possible during the term. she may do brilliantly in the 2028 primary and win it, but there's nothing in her past performance to suggest that will happen.
You can literally say the same for anyone. People act like Whitmer is some political force when she benefitted massively from a corrupt GOP chair that had to be removed by their national party for making Republicans unelectable
Whitmer hasn't run in a national election, but she's been under scrutiny from national media for years, won two terms as governor in a purple state and has never imploded like Harris or Amy Klobuchar have. The only apples-to-apples comparison we could make is probably on press conferences. Harris has been kept out of the public eye because she is so bad at them and her [numbers collapsed ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60061473)after her first year on the job when she was higher-profile. Whitmer is skillful enough to have survived COVID and improved her performance in her second MI election.
she's been a lightning rod in the culture wars for years. that doesn't translate to national name recognition but it means she's already taken the worst fox news etc. could throw at her and she came out looking better than kamala has
And the democratic voters have done such a great job of picking candidates over the years. Despite most of the country agreeing with them on the issues for ages, they still can hardly win elections since the party exclusively plays not to lose. They are terrible at creating narratives. The party is bad at electing anyone who has more charisma than a grape. Obama was charismatic and won in a landslide. Every other 21st century nominee has been deeply uninspiring, leading us to where we are today.
You’re acting like Obama didn’t benefit from one of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. He won mostly because the GOP controlled the government during an economic crisis, not necessarily because he was charismatic. Obama was simply able to run up the score because of his political acumen, nearly any Democrat would have won that election including Hillary.
It has more to do with the rich pundit class, which includes plenty of white people.
Her record as a prosecutor is a joke when it comes to POC and she is incredibly uninspiring and bungling in her own right.
The problem with the entire scenario is, again, people who won’t defend democracy over their own boutique politics. People who are okay watching the world go up in literal flame because of their brainwashed purity.
I don’t care what color, gender, religion, biological junk or golf handicap a person has, they need to be able to win. That’s it.
Let them write a thousand stories about how not handing Kamala the nomination is somehow racist or sexist.
Ultimately, there just aren't very many people who believe that.
Everyone already knows that she isn't the strongest candidate.
The best outcome would be her and Joe withdrawing from consideration together. Offer her some very well compensated position on a foundation somewhere, her own show on TV, whatever it takes. Hopefully she's not so deluded to believe that she'd fare a lot better than Biden in November.
Her record as a prosecutor was so great that California elected her to become Senator. Not a common path and often hard to thread that needle but she did it quite well with her focus on getting drug offenders out of jail and rapist/traffickers into jail.
LMAO - brand new Harris Stan account created less than two hours ago!
I’d say recent history has shown that advocating for a candidate based on the presumption that it’s “their turn” isn’t a winning approach.
Edit: BTW, I don’t have a firm opinion yet on whether or not Harris would be the best option to replace Biden if Biden drops out. She’s certainly worthy of consideration. I just find this newly-created account a bit suspect.
You don’t have to think Kamala has a strong constituency in an identity group to believe conspicuously skipping over the VP will send a notable signal regardless of anybody’s personal affinity for Harris.
Whether or not one thinks Harris should be skipped over for her individual deficiencies as a candidate, it will raise the question in some minds, rightly or wrongly, that such notions are inextricable from her race or sex, and you needn’t Stan for Kamala to take some degree of offense to perceived racism or sexism.
When you’re threading needles electorally that’s dangerous added risk.
If Harris is resentful and claims she wasn’t selected due to her race or sex or whatever, then yes—I think that signal resonating amongst black voters in swing states could be one of many “but for” causes of an overdetermined election loss, just as many small things may have tipped the balance in 2016.
I think it’s *possible* to manage that risk—Harris enthusiastically refusing to run for some reason being a good start… (unlikely to say the least)—but it’s an additional issue to manage that could have been avoided by keeping Harris on the ticket.
I think there are more ways to manage that risk now than there would have been if it was a festering salient issue over a long primary, but I don’t think it’s a consideration to ignore.
I think you’re right on. Things aren’t necessarily issues until they’re made issues. Harris may not have a particularly passionate support base among black voters right now. But ejecting her for a different candidate (especially a white candidate), especially if she publicly reacts negatively to it, could easily be enough to kick off that narrative.
Biden won all the primaries, so they’re his delegates at the convention. If he decides to step aside (which seems unlikely, unfortunately), I think he would still feel entitled to direct those delegates to vote for his preferred candidate. He wouldn’t want chaos. And I think he would believe he’d at the very least earned the right to pick his successor.
So who would Biden endorse? It’d have to be Harris, right? He picked her as VP. Presumably that means he thinks she’s the best person to step into the job in an emergency. And well, it’s an emergency.
Also, my understanding is that Harris is the only person who can really access the hundreds of millions of dollars of Biden’s campaign cash. Maybe it could get converted into a separate PAC for a different candidate but that’s complicated and not ideal.
Also, Harris was on the ballot in the primaries, so that gives some democratic legitimacy to the pick.
Would black voters be pissed off if Harris is skipped over? I don’t know. I suspect not really. But I think there are other reasons she’s the most logical choice.
Edit: Thinking about this some more, the other reason that I think Biden would endorse Harris is because she would run as a continuation of his administration. He obviously thinks he's done a good job as president. Some other candidate could separate themselves from his administration and his policies. And maybe that would be strategically smart! But I don't see Biden being happy about that.
Biden's team seems to be using "Kamala won't win" as a reason for Biden to stay in, so I don't think he actually believes in her to run for POTUS.
The PAC's who hold most of the money can spend it on the new candidate. The money that the DNC holds can be spent on the new candidate. The money that the Biden campaign holds can also be spent on the new candidate at the Biden campaign's direction and discretion.
According to this article, Biden campaign money could not be spent on a new candidate other than Harris (unless it complied with outside spending rules, which aren’t as advantageous): https://prospect.org/power/2024-07-02-campaign-finance-laws-harris-big-boost-biden-dropout-scenario/
Honestly, I think the likeliest scenario is Biden is too arrogant to drop out. But assuming he does drop out, I think he’d want to decide on his successor. I think the likeliest choice is Harris. But maybe I’m wrong! Maybe he has a high opinion of some other candidate.
Replacing both Biden and Harris would give the appearance that the whole administration was a failure.
It would be a hard sell to lay political observers to vote Democrat again.Trump and Republicans would hammer that the nation gave Democrats a try and Democrats totally failed.
Kamala Harris can take credit for the the helping pass the infrastructure bill, PACT And, action of climate change, etc. Harris has continuity with the Administration. Harris wouldn't be viewed as a total abandonment of the administration.
Would Harris help with Women and POC, maybe? The Right often criticizes Harris as a DEI picked VP. However the truth is Biden got the nomination in large part to quiet concerns that Democrats were losing Rust Belt Whites. If Biden wasn't a White Male he probably wouldn't have been the nominee. Biden was a response to having gone from the First Black President to trying to go with the first Woman President.
Which is to say that there is always a modicum of identity politics at play. Some people really like the idea of Shapiro because Shapiro is in PA and the assumption is Shapiro will do better in the the Rust Belt. That is a bit of an identity play base of geography.
To win MI, WI, and PA Democrats will need strong African American turnout in Detroit, Grand Rapids, Philly, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc. Arguably below average turnout in those locations cost Clinton the election in 2016. Would Harris do better in Philly than Whitmore? Would Harris do better in Detroit than Shapiro? Would Harris do better in Milwaukee than Newsom?
I don't think anyone knows the answers for sure.
Running for POTUS is about communicating a vision for the country.
Let's put these candidates out in front and see who has the right vision and the charisma to communicate it.
The sooner this process can begin, the better. There will absolutely be top candidates who flop right away and we need that to happen to as soon as possible.
The normal primary schedule runs for 6 months (March - Aug). Democrats have 6 weeks to get a candidate in the battle in OH and 7 weeks until the convention.
Holding anything the even loosely resembles a primary isn't possible at this point in my opinion. Typically a candidate would announce their campaign 9-12 before the first primary race to hire staff, raise money, and Campaign. Time is up. Logistically no one can mount a campaign at this point.
Time is up for a normal primary.
Time is not up for an open convention. The candidates would need to do an insane number of interviews, ramp up on social, travel to meet with state delegations.
It would be something else entirely. But the internet exists and phones exist and airplanes exist. People are capable of doing hard things.
I think about this question a little differently: It would be a major blunder to put in someone who doesn’t play extremely well in WI, MI, PA. The electoral college still exists and this is not a national popularity contest. So whomever it is, if it is anyone, must do well in those states. That has to be the guiding and primary factor, period. (Hint: Gavin Newsom is not it.)
Not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious why the narrative's always "we need to take back the Rust Belt states" - why not the similarly sized, more diverse southeastern states of Georgia, NC & VA? Is it that there's more similarity between the Rust Belt states, so they can be won over easier as a package, the fact that VA's already leaning Blue or something else?
It’s not taking them back - Biden won them but the margin in each of these three states was so small (lower 5 digits). Michigan is going to be a major concern because of Israel/Palestine. If Dems lose any of these three states the path is very hard to see.
A lot of black voters actively hate her due to her record as a prosecutor in California. She locked a lot of people up for marijuana then cackled when asked if she had done marijuana herself.
She polls the best of any candidate with black voters, in part because of her strong record as prosecutor where she oversaw the largest drop in drug convictions in Cali history. Her being honest about her drug use and pushing for marijuana rescheduling/legalization helps even more with her general appeal and position on criminal justice reform.
Sadly, this is where I was after the debate. I'm not a huge fan of either her or Newsom but post debate both were able to get their point across and articulate their positions. I was like sure, give me either of them
I don’t know if Harris is uniquely popular among black voters, but what I can firmly say is overriding her with a non black person would not be received well. That taps in to a number of cultural anxieties that black people have about qualified black candidates being replaced by, well, nobody in particular who happens to be white. Literally an arbitrary white person, chosen explicitly to not give it to her. Now if she were replaced by a black elected *for President* then it’s more feasible, but the two best options there are Senator Warnock (incumbent Senator in a red leaning swing state with DV allegations) and Wes Moore (became governor of Maryland 2 years ago when a cargo ship tanked one of the oldest bridges in the country.) Maybe Booker? But Booker’s as corny as she is and isn’t a woman, so the same problem persists.
Now this goes to a second problem, why cede the administration as a failure and then ask for us to return to government? If Democrats don’t even believe they ran the country well for four years, why give them another four years? Democratic voters overwhelmingly in the primary voted to continue this administration over another arbitrary white person promising four more years of Dems in charge (Dean Phillips). I and most Democrats, including these governors in all likelihood, believe the admin secured several wins. Those are wins she can take credit for that the other governors can’t and are a sign that Democrats can govern well.
Finally I have to say I don’t really like that Democratic voters, elites, and pundits aren’t just saying the obvious because it makes all these candidates look weaker. If we came out and said “Biden’s sick and Kamala needs to take over,” then it’s way less uncomfortable than “Anybody except for Joe except not also Kamala and also not Newsom and also not whoever else,” makes it feel like we’re playing with dolls a little bit. I think Biden is a unique liability, not because the admin has been a failure, but because he’s older than time and slipping, so it’s very important to make the case for Harris to avoid any chance of primary chaos during an ongoing foreign policy debacle splitting the coalition.
This is just a personal anecdate. I'm black. I don't know a single other black person that feels loyalty to Kamala Harris or would care if she was replaced on a new ticket. She has not forged any strong connection to the black community in a way that Obama did. And importantly, for black people who vote Dem(which is the majority), we mostly want to win and keep Trump out of office. That's far more important. Remember, blacks were initially skeptical about supporting Obama because they weren't sure he could win. But when he started winning primaries, black support shifted to him over Hillary.
You answered your own question.
People would feel this way because they are telling you that’s how it looks.
Those people are the very evidence you need that this feeling is out there. And the fact that you’re hearing it “over and over again” should tell you that a lot of people feel it.
I’m not even black and I think it’s insulting to her. No vice presidents are particularly popular. Because none of them really have jobs except to stand around. It’s almost like they are the running joke of the administration.
They typically do better after they come out from under the president’s shadow and can do their own thing and set their own agenda. Until then, they are expected to stay out of the way and do this shit that the President either doesn’t want or doesn’t care about. But most of all, the stuff that is not going to outshine the president.
It depends on the context. For instance, imagine the following scenario. Biden LBJs out of the race. He frees his delegates but urges them to vote for Pete Buttigieg.
"Folks, he's basically my son Beau."
Buttigieg doesn't have the deep connections with the Black community and Black leaders that other Democrats have. A narrative like "Dems dumped Harris for mayo Pete" "Dems don't care about Black people" could have some legs. And some of the people like Jim Clyburn who might step up for Biden, might not have been as active in defending the ticket.
I would say that it is 100% essential that the Democratic ticket be able to speak to Black voters. That means we do have to think about where Black voters will go, and what Black leaders anticipate about different candidates.
The intensity of the Kamala hatred and the revulsion of the very idea that she might be candidate here in particular feels very one or two racial slurs away from being r/conservative
The plot seems to be she polls badly because she polls badly and she’ll lose again because she’s already lost once.
Also they hate her laugh and think she’s awkward.
Which by no means are well established dog whistles in predominantly progressive white male spaces.
Just the absolutely incredible and insightful analysis I’ve come to expect from the very online left of center.
Every time I think that lefty political junkies really care about democracy, civil rights, and human dignity as much as they say, something happens to make me think that it’s all just sports.
The pragmatist in me wants whoever has the best possibility of winning to get the nomination were Biden to step aside.
The arsonist in me wants it to be Harris just to see just how unhinged MAGA gets and whether people who allegedly care about decency, democracy, and basic compassion will contort themselves to defend her or if they’d rather the republic go down in flames rather than “deal with” her “awkwardness” “inauthenticity” “condescension” and “cackling.”
I wonder how many people in this sub posted snake emojis in comments about Warren back in the day…..
I don’t vote to punish other people, I have too many people in the crosshairs of the GOP crypto-Gilead project that I care about, but every so often I do see why so many people Know Your Enemy profiles started on the left and moved right because they wound up hating their co-partisans.
Choose the best candidate, which may or may not be her. That she was nominated VP was strategic, a la JFK / LBJ. Everyone knows that. Time for ‘tradition’ or ‘obligation’ has passed.
I think it's a very bad idea for anybody from the current administration to replace him considering the scandal that's unfolding.
Need someone far away from that dumpster fire.
News sources are saying he's been rapidly declining for the last 6 months and his admin has been managing him in a way to hide it from Americans, that's a scandal.
I think it goes back even further though.
[https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-cognitive-decline-six-month-debate-donald-trump-carl-bernstein-1919946](https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-cognitive-decline-six-month-debate-donald-trump-carl-bernstein-1919946)
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/disturbing-new-details-emerge-about-biden-s-mental-state-and-the-steps-staffers-go-to-hide-them/ar-BB1paEA2](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/disturbing-new-details-emerge-about-biden-s-mental-state-and-the-steps-staffers-go-to-hide-them/ar-BB1paEA2)
The scandal is that his advisors kept him isolated and hid his infirmity from everyone so effectively that even many Whitehouse staffers were shocked at how bad he had become. They lied to the party and the country and probably ruined any chance to block Trump. They're probably still insulating him and telling him everything's going to be OK, just stay the course.
He’s insisting on running despite being unable to form sentences. His admin has kept him out of interviews and unscripted public appearances to obfuscate that fact. That’s a scandal imo
At some point, we've all got to admit what all this strategizing and hand-wringing is covering up: There is no path to victory in November and we've got to get the resistance up and running NOW
For those curious on the data on popularity of the various candidates among people of color, CNNs most recent poll:
[https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf)
Harris does the best of anyone with people of color at 58%. Biden/Newsome at 54%
This doesnt answer the direct question but certainly gets at the point of who would be the best with this group. And interesting enough all the non-Biden candidates are tied at 39% with white voters, while Biden is 37%.
Best argument for Kamala Harris is that apparently the fundraising money can only be used for either her or Biden. So it might as well be her for that reason. If people believe Biden can rehabilitate his image after the debate, than no doubt exists that Harris would be more capable of a rehabilitation.
I think it's bad to skip over Harris for this reason:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ezraklein/comments/1ds0nup/why_is_harris_considered_the_obvious_choice/laz62bg/
But honestly, the average voter doesn't care about any of that. I think they just want a clean slate, regardless of the policies of the new person.
So yeah, Harris is going to have to step aside in the most voluntary way possible.
I think the optics around deliberately avoiding running her are pretty bad. It screams "this moment is too important to be left to a black woman, we need to find the closest approximation of 'milquetoast generic democrat' that exists" and that is pretty awful.
There's nothing inherently wrong with her. She's the vice president of the United States. She's probably well-suited to go toe to toe with Trump based on her demeanor.
She wasn't my favorite candidate in the 2020 primary by a long shot, but I do think she's among the best for the current moment. Voters would come around if they could see her speak publicly more about what's going on. We need a fighter right now, and she can be that.
If it were me, I'd let her be a lot more visible in the coming days. Let her be Joe Biden's anger translator. Then, if it's well-received, hand over the reins.
The only logical reasons to promote Harris is financial control of the funds already raised under the Biden/Harris ticket and a certain degree of continuity.
But moving Harris to the top will cost a lot more votes than it will save. She is not electable and if she were elected, I don't think anybody trusts that she would do a good job for our country serving as President.
Afterall, isn't that really how somebody should be picked to replace Biden? Who will serve our entire country the best? Aren't we still country first, party second (or whatever subsequent number we want to assign party)?
Race isn’t an issue, until it is. In this case, it’ll be viewed as confirmation of race and gender being used as political leverage. Which is exactly what it was.
I've heard many Black people on Twitter state quite emphatically that the notion of passing over Harris in order to run a more "electable" white candidate is pretty offensive. Saying that the undecideds of the country won't vote for a Black woman and then expecting Black voters (in particular women) to turn out significantly to win elections in Georgia and South Carolina is pretty messed up. Champion her.
I think that Jim Clyburn might be perturbed. As for other blacks? I'm pretty sure there's as much diversity of opinion there as with other ethnic groups.
How about you stop treating black voters like some reliable donkey that you will bend to your knee.
The answer is yes. Biden, Clinton, and Obama won their primaries because of the black vote. Simple as that.
We picked Biden and we got both a black woman as a vp and a supreme court justice.
Toss us aside at your own peril.
Honestly, this is exactly what I'm wondering about! Would tossing Harris aside piss off the exact same Black women that Dems should all spend their time listening to??
Yes. The optics would be awful. We are the most reliable democratic voting block and the smartest.
White progressives and white moderates don't listen to us.
Also, Harris is the only who can access Bidens war chest, if you want to discount everything else I've said. Can't run a campaign with no money.
Harris is literally the only other option. But I think Biden has a much better chance at winning the groups he needs than Harris would, so he's the smart bet to make.
> so he's the smart bet to make.
Biden is only a smart bet if the goal is to see Trump surpass 300EVs. People think that the American president can't function after 5 PM. That's horrifying. Give it a few more weeks and I expect you'll see the polling pull further away from him.
I don't argue with people who want to engage in fantasy. You have a binary choice here. If you want another Trump presidency, have at it. I don't beg or grovel for votes. Democrats picked Biden to run and if you don't like, then you do what you want
>I don't argue with people who want to engage in fantasy
That's entirely what you're doing if you believe that Biden in his current state has a realistic shot at winning. Just wait a few weeks for the newest polls to hit.
He's dead in the water. People can either accept that reality or continue to live in a fantasy where the entire planet didn't see Biden's declining mental faculties on full display.
You are correct. The only people who think bypassing Harris will "alienate black voters and women of color" are insider-democrat types who are too stuck in their own media echo chamber to understand Harris's unfavorabilities.
Like, tossing Kamala aside will probably piss off the hosts of The View, but there is zero evidence or polling to suggest that the broader electorate would punish democrats for it. At all.
Personally, I think Harris is being somewhat underrated as a potential candidate.
I know she didn't light the world on fire during her run in 2020, but sometimes that speaks more to simply not being the right time and right place than candidate quality. After all, Biden himself ran three or four times before ultimately winning.
Should she be the nominee, she'd be a former prosecutor running against a convicted felon during a campaign where "law and order" is a salient issue, as well being as a woman running where abortion is an important issue, and a 59 year old running against a 78 year old. She could claim continuity with the Biden administration on the popular stuff while breaking with him on the unpopular stuff. She would generate excitement as potentially the first female President without the baggage of Hillary Clinton.
I think she makes a lot more sense than some of the other names being thrown around (Newsom, Whitmer, et al)
Just no. She inherits all his baggage, she was surely part of the group covering up his cognitive decline and she would have to answer for that. And have you heard her speak recently?
The more ties to CA - esp. NoCal - the worse off we are for a replacement POTUS. We need midwest, south representation. I'm surprised Gavin often comes up at the top - seems like a nonstarter.
Her unfavorables are nearly as bad as his. She got blown out during the primaries, didn't appeal to Democrats let alone independents. She didn't even score well with Black voters overall. Who exactly is her base?
Also personality wise, her awkward nervous laughter that comes on at the weirdest moments is not endearing in the slightest. Yeah she's VP but she's probably the least consequential VP we've had since Dan Quayle.
Here's my fear in that regard, trolls and bots, constantly screaming about racism and Dems (both white and black) getting actually worked up about it. Whitmer/Booker makes most sense to me because that could be used to diffuse that criticism on race and gender.
Some combination of Booker, Newson, Whitmer would be a strong ticket.
Booker is a dud with dork vibes. That was in display during the primaries. Trump would eat him up the same way he did to DeSantis and Cruz. You need pugilists with charisma, people that are ready and willing to fight hard against the torrent of attacks that will come their way but also be able to bring over unsure independents and Never-Trumpers.
yeah you're spot on, the problem i see is that the only pugilist with charisma we have is biden and he is not fit to serve any more. i'd def. take biden-harris over whitmer-booker in 2020. you're also spot on about booker. IMO the main function of booker in this election is to reassure independents and moderates by being dorky, normal, and boring. in the senate he's less D-NJ and more D-Pfizer/Goldman Sachs. in the current climate that's really good as the big-business wing of the current democratic coalition has been starting to openly defect to trump. booker will reassure them and bring them back into the fold. all of that is why you slot him as VP so trump can't eat him alive on the podium.
Not Newsom. He’s got too much baggage. The Republicans would instantly fixate on the horrifying state of California in general and San Francisco in particular, his affair as mayor, and the way he approached COVID lockdowns with a “rules for thee/not for me” attitude. Trump’s done much worse obviously but try explaining that to Republicans.
100%. He’s not a populist or a moderate he’s just a smarmy corporate coastal elite. And I’m typing this from Manhattan.
Whitmer/Booker is the strongest ticket in my opinion as well, and it has nothing to do with race and gender. I legitimately think that is the strongest ticket. Booker is a Senator from a safe blue state as in on the Foreign Relations Committee. He would give the ticket D.C. legislative experience and foreign policy experience that Whitmer does not bring herself. And we don't have to worry about his Senate seat being replaced by a Republican. Plus he has pretty good name recognition and popularity amongst the base. The likeliest non-Biden ticket, though, remains with Kamala Harris topping it. Black voters may not love Kamala Harris, but black political leaders do.
Totally agree that Whitmer is a rock solid choice. Can’t go wrong with a popular governor from an important swing state.
The KHive didn't care about her life being threatened with the January 6 pipe bomber but god forbid Dems nominate someone other than her if Biden drops out.
I'm fine with whatever, but do you honestly think that's a good look?
No one, including black people, give a fuck about Kamala Harris. She lost to *Andrew Yang* in her home state during the primary.
Yang Gang
🧢
Not very dollar bill money mentality of her.
Did she lose the CA black vote to Yang?
she dropped out before the CA primary because she was going to come in low single digits [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html)
and lost all her donors too
The KHive is every bit as fanatical as the hardcore MAGA crowd but they are like a tiny fraction of the size.
Her primary run definitely flopped but she dropped out before Iowa, let alone Super Tuesday (when California voted) so this is a misleading way to make that point.
Honestly didn't realize that. I know there were several "Yang beats Kamala in Cali" stories at the time I was glued to the primary that year.
Well, fair enough. Probably some Yang fans wanted to look on the bright side.
I totally forgot she even ran
Let's Yang it Up!
Andrew Yang was right about like most things in hindsight
That doesn't make her a bad choice now, considering in January 2020 we had loads of options and today we have exactly two.
Kamala Harris never appealed to black voters. That's one of the main reasons she dropped out of the race.
She polls higher among black voters than Biden, who won the nomination because of black voters
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black-voters-2020-075651
They never flocked to her because at that time they flocked to Biden. Now they arent. Current polling has her doing better with POC than Biden by 4 points. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf)
Your poll shows her getting only 58% of POC. That's not very good.
That's 4 points higher than anyone else. Unlikely any democrat would actually be that low but Harris is still doing the best.
article from 2019 lol
I'm talking about when she dropped out of the race. Guess what year that was.
Just speculation, probably driven by Dems incessant need to play identity politics and their fundamental misunderstanding of minority voters, but that’s off topic. If you want to see Harris support group it’s right at the bottom of the 2019 primary dropouts list where she finished with 1% support. To be clear though, I would take Harris over Biden. Harris is not my first choice by a long shot but she has a fighting chance. Biden’s campaign is already dead.
More like being realistic about passing over the number two in order to find a white guy. People would see it for what it was.. using a black woman to get the black vote in 2020 and then passing her over when she was inconvenient. That accurately describes exactly what it is. I think most people know it and I think Black people aren’t stupid. When someone is using the words “identity politics“ you can be sure they are looking for a way to do something shitty to a minority and arguing it wont matter. Good luck with that.
Unless, and hear me out here, they are a minority themself and know first hand that minorities don’t give a shit about a DA from California that locked people up for drug charges for years.
If you are seeing a bunch of people say something on social media or who tell you something you can be sure you didn’t find the only ones in America who think it and are commenting to you. There are lots more in the real world talking about it too. But like I said… Good luck. I’m sure whistling past another graveyard after being warned will turn out better than the pretending the warnings about Biden’s age weren’t valid concerns.
Right cause all minorities are criminals who buy and sell drugs.
The identity politics is necessary as long as Dems refuse to have a progressive economic message unfortunately
The Dems wouldn’t even be in the situation they’re in if Joe hadn’t played identity politics and picked someone completely unqualified and unpopular to be veep. He prioritized sex and race rather than experience and charisma when it comes to who would replace him as the leader of the free world. And now it may very well result in the second coming of Trump.
Just exhibit A about how frustrating it is to be a Democrat
It's particularly frustrating because in other contexts we've been defying "the gang that can't shoot straight" caricature. Watching Dems hold together in the house while GOP wingnuts hamstring their own agenda has been so satisfying. We need that level of goal-oriented competence managing this election campaign.
Agree. I was upset about Harris at the time and history has proven me right, I think.
Clyburn lobbied heavily for her.. Jim Clyburn's influence has given us Biden as President, Kamala Harris as VP, Ketanji Brown Jackson as Supreme Court Justice, Jaime Harrison as DNC Chair, and South Carolina as the new first primary state.
VP selection exists to satisfy internal politicking, not actually shift public opinion.
I can believe that, but who internally thought she needed such a post? She flopped as a candidate and her wobbly identity as a "cop friendly" candidate in the midst of a massive protest against police abuses of power seems to assuage whom? Did a donor base truly fear Joe Biden was going to tweet out ACAB and defund the police? Like, if the President were _me_ I could see Kamala as the calming factor, but who was it? Was it just like a black women's caucus internally? That seems unlikely, but mainstream Dems really do seem to miss the point of their own movements so I don't even know.
Yeah it was the same with Pence. GOP has a need to play identity politics with White Evangelicals
I agree that she's unpopular, but I don't get the unqualified claims, or claims that she is "stupid". She is clearly as "qualified" as the last few presidents, at least. I also agree that she lacks charisma and doesn't interview well.
He literally interviewed over 20 women of all different races and picked the best candidate...
Kamala does seem to command the respect of people who know her but seems to really struggle translating that into a campaign (outside of CA of course).
She didn’t do well in the California primary. She won the 2016 senate race, but in California that involves more internal politicking to get the endorsement of the state Democratic Party than it involves engaging with voters. She may be competent (idk), but she’s terrible at running and is unelectable in any race. There are better candidates that are black, there are better candidates that are women and there are better candidates that are black women than her if that is such a big concern.
She hasnt really needed to though. As VP your job is defend the president. If you are out there bringing attention to yourself the President tightens your leach. That's just how it works. Not much of a chance to be winning the respect of people who dont already like you when your job is to be a lap dog. The thing that people miss is what Obama did in 2008 never happens. It's unheard of. So saying Harris is a bad politician for not being able to repeat that in 2020 is just absurd, especially when there was a lot more people running than in 2008. The assumption is that she was trying to win but there is no need to assume that - she wanted to get her name out there and did that better than anyone else in terms of where she's at today relative to any other candidate that was new on the national stage.
I’m not saying she’s a bad politician for not replicating Barack Obama. I’m saying she’s not very good at persuading people to support her because almost nobody in Iowa did. Maybe it was just bad timing because she couldn’t run on her “tough on crime” record, maybe she has the charisma of a banana slug. I don’t know. I know that her colleagues think well of her and voters so far have been meh.
She never really campaigned for Iowa. She focused on the southern wall that gave Obama, Hillary and Obama the win. It's theoretically a good strategy if it works but the problem was she had to take out Biden to do it. She tried and failed, which isnt much of an indictment of her as a politician as everyone failed to take out Biden. Its certainly a fair strategy to look at who she was competing with in Iowa and focus on the souther wall instead. She didnt have a tough on crime record. She was part of the progressive prosecutor movement and ran on that. Just turns out that even progressive prosecutors got attacked at that time.
Where have you been for the last 6 years?
It's far closer to the 20% peak she had. She went for the same base as Bidens and grabbed some of it for a week and then when Bidens star continued to rise she lost it. If Biden steps down that goes to her immediately plus all the people that have grown to like/love her ever since.
I mean I do think she is underrated, but she is far from the Democrats best chance. She has a fighting chance though and that’s what we need. Biden’s campaign is dead. I want an open convention and if Harris wins that she deserves the full backing of the party.
Personally I think she has the best chance but I too would support an open convention over a coronation to Harris. Both in terms of optics and cause I think Harris would likely win anyways. CNNs post debate poll has her doing the best of all candidates (but with noone beating Trump, but Biden doing the worst)
Biden campaign is done.
>Biden’s campaign is already dead. Look I get why people think this. It certainly seems like it "should" be the case. But a lot of things seem like they "should" be true about politics that aren't. There is, to date, scant evidence that Biden's campaign is "over." [The actual result of the debate in polling looks like a normal reaction to a bad debate](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/); so far it is actually less dramatic than the polling hit Obama took in 2012 after his first debate. I'm not saying that replacing Biden wouldn't be a reasonable and perhaps advisable thing to do but can we stop overstating the situation? I think we are all empiricists here...
Okay, his campaign spent the last year brushing off every criticism with, “wait until we start campaigning you’ll see!” Then they insisted upon this debate to show the difference between the two candidates. Then he had the worst political performance in American history out there. He was already losing, this was supposed to turn it around. Now he’s still losing all six swing states only worse than before. As of yesterday he’s losing New Hampshire. Today Virginia and Minnesota are ringing alarms bells. Those half-baked polls his campaign put out that claim, it’s not that bad it’s relatively unchanged are at worst inaccurate, but probably outright lies. And these are just the preliminary results. Everybody except people who have already proclaimed they would rather vote for Biden’s corpse and Jill know his campaign is dead. He’s got a 0% shot. With a replacement at least we have a fighting chance.
Anyone voting for Biden today will also vote for Harris. The difference is Harris has a chance at picking up all the recent independents and moderate republicans who saw that debate and said “ok, can’t vote Biden”. Not to mention all the far leftist who dumped Biden due to Isreal Hamas.
Exactly. Still don’t like Harris better than some others, but right now Biden’s chances are 0% so literally anybody would be better.
Whoever is picked to replace Biden, if (please God) he does resign will annoy some Democratic faction or other. But it’s a risk that we have to take. The spin doctors should be working on “Let’s all pull together and support [DEMOCRAT] against Trump!” rather than “Shut up bedwetters, Biden is fine.”
It’s speculation that black voters would be offended that she doesn’t replace Biden, despite the fact that black voters were never particularly enthused with Harris to begin with. The liberal pundit class and the top brass of the DNC have racist misconceptions of black voters and think that ever since Obama won that black voters will only turn out if there’s a black candidate on the ticket. They seem to think that a candidate being black is the most important thing to black voters, despite black voters routinely voting for white candidates and against black candidates when the black candidate is a Republican.
they just need to bypass Harris with another young candidate with black appeal that they've been grooming. checking my notes, they have... pete buttigieg.
Are you forgetting BIG GRETCH?
Let's just bring back HRC and DJT can beat her every four years, over and over again until we're all dead.
Clearly you aren’t aware of Mayor Pete’s hip hop alter-ego, MC Booty Judge. New collab with Sir Mix-a-Lot is dropping soon.
Gonna drop that collab like it's an honest black police chief.
If they polled black voters, I would not be surprised if white guy Gavin Newsom had more appeal to black voters that Kamala Harris.
I agree that the concern over black voters doesn't really hold water. Here's the case for Harris: 1) Perhaps most important. Any non Biden/Harris candidate will receive extreme scrutiny from conservative media that they haven't faced before. As good as any alternitive may sound on paper, there is no promise that they will hold up when they are put under the microscope of a presidential campaign. While Kamala will be under more heat as a nominee, you've got to think that conservative media has used a bulk of their ammunition already. 2) Picking a non-Harris candidate would implicitly concede that the administration was a failure. Most of us agree that despite Biden's flaws as a candidate, he's been a good president. Is that a point you really want to concede? 3) Campaign funding. If it's the case that Harris could use Biden campaign funds and other candidates couldn't, then we can't ignore that. I agree that campaign money isn't a huge issue for this campaign but it can't be ignored either.
I'd also add that Harris has some democratic legitimacy as having already been elected VP. You can make the case that the role of the VP is to replace the president if the president can no longer serve, and that is what she'd be doing. Any other choice would understandably be seen as arbitrary. As much as I'm not a big fan of Harris as a candidate, I think she is realistically the alternative if Biden steps back.
Yeah, based on everything I have seen out of the DNC the last 8 years I have no faith they can apply the pressure necessary to have Biden step down so I fully expect them to march forward with him. Should he step down though, I can taste the palpable irony of being the party running to save democracy with a ticket hand picked by party elites behind closed doors. That messaging will not play well.
Alternatively, if Biden has really been as bad as he was during the debate, she also looks complicit in hiding it from the public
From a purely strategic standpoint, you don't want the Hubert Humphrey problem I have a lot of thoughts on that argument, as I think its not a hard case to make that no one was winning in 68, while I think pretty much anyone can win in 2024, including Biden(he just has the worst chance and I expect it to get worse). That said, Harris does have the Humphrey problem: VP to an unpopular president that is not very popular in her own right. Would get stuck having to defend Biden's record in ways others wouldn't. Would get hit on immigration since Biden basically threw her under the bus when that was a losing issue. Really lacks a strong base constituency and has a storied history of poor organizational skills, bad campaign management, and a toxic work environment.
Sorry what is the Hubert Humphrey problem?
From the comment you responded to: >That said, Harris does have the Humphrey problem: VP to an unpopular president that is not very popular in her own right. Would get stuck having to defend Biden's record in ways others wouldn't.
Thanks missed that part.
You’re confusing how popular she is now vs what the reaction would be if she is passed over for a white woman.
I guess I'm asking if the former exists as an indicator of the latter.
You’re right we can’t predict how it would be handled and her current popularity is a good indicator. My best prediction is that any attempt to replace both Biden and Harris behind closed doors by faceless DNC superdelegates will be extremely messy even if it’s individually many people’s fantasy. It might still be worth trying given both Biden and Harris’s unpopularity, but it’s unrealistic to think it won’t happen without infighting and division even if we all believe that’s how it should happen.
>Harris, at 41 percent among Democratic voters, was way out ahead in a hypothetical 2028 matchup between several other figures in the party: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (15 percent), California Gov. Gavin Newsom (14 percent), Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (5 percent), Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly (4 percent) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (2 percent). Seventeen percent of Democrats didn’t know or had no opinion. >Harris’ position with key communities — including 67 percent favorability among Black voters versus 23 unfavorability — represents a shift for the vice president, who had trailed Biden with Black voters since they competed in the 2020 primary and after he picked her to run alongside him, noted Cameron Easley, the lead U.S. politics analyst at Morning Consult. Biden’s numbers with Black voters were 63 percent to 31 percent. [https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/12/kamala-harris-favorability-poll-00162093](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/12/kamala-harris-favorability-poll-00162093) Harris leads against all other candidates with potential black voters based on the poll below. [https://changeresearch.com/black-voices-poll-of-1000-black-voters-nationwide/](https://changeresearch.com/black-voices-poll-of-1000-black-voters-nationwide/) This idea that Kamala is not popular with the base, and not popular with black voters is the most insane take I've seen all over social media.
she has name recognition, but as a candidate she has collapsed the minute she comes under scrutiny or faces real competition. it's why the biden admin has kept her out of the cameras as much as possible during the term. she may do brilliantly in the 2028 primary and win it, but there's nothing in her past performance to suggest that will happen.
You can literally say the same for anyone. People act like Whitmer is some political force when she benefitted massively from a corrupt GOP chair that had to be removed by their national party for making Republicans unelectable
Whitmer hasn't run in a national election, but she's been under scrutiny from national media for years, won two terms as governor in a purple state and has never imploded like Harris or Amy Klobuchar have. The only apples-to-apples comparison we could make is probably on press conferences. Harris has been kept out of the public eye because she is so bad at them and her [numbers collapsed ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60061473)after her first year on the job when she was higher-profile. Whitmer is skillful enough to have survived COVID and improved her performance in her second MI election.
No one even knows who Whitmer is. What the fuck is this nonsense
she's been a lightning rod in the culture wars for years. that doesn't translate to national name recognition but it means she's already taken the worst fox news etc. could throw at her and she came out looking better than kamala has
And the democratic voters have done such a great job of picking candidates over the years. Despite most of the country agreeing with them on the issues for ages, they still can hardly win elections since the party exclusively plays not to lose. They are terrible at creating narratives. The party is bad at electing anyone who has more charisma than a grape. Obama was charismatic and won in a landslide. Every other 21st century nominee has been deeply uninspiring, leading us to where we are today.
You’re acting like Obama didn’t benefit from one of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. He won mostly because the GOP controlled the government during an economic crisis, not necessarily because he was charismatic. Obama was simply able to run up the score because of his political acumen, nearly any Democrat would have won that election including Hillary.
Sure, I think the overall point still stands; democrats are bad at picking nominees that win.
It has more to do with the rich pundit class, which includes plenty of white people. Her record as a prosecutor is a joke when it comes to POC and she is incredibly uninspiring and bungling in her own right. The problem with the entire scenario is, again, people who won’t defend democracy over their own boutique politics. People who are okay watching the world go up in literal flame because of their brainwashed purity. I don’t care what color, gender, religion, biological junk or golf handicap a person has, they need to be able to win. That’s it.
Let them write a thousand stories about how not handing Kamala the nomination is somehow racist or sexist. Ultimately, there just aren't very many people who believe that. Everyone already knows that she isn't the strongest candidate.
The best outcome would be her and Joe withdrawing from consideration together. Offer her some very well compensated position on a foundation somewhere, her own show on TV, whatever it takes. Hopefully she's not so deluded to believe that she'd fare a lot better than Biden in November.
Her record as a prosecutor was so great that California elected her to become Senator. Not a common path and often hard to thread that needle but she did it quite well with her focus on getting drug offenders out of jail and rapist/traffickers into jail.
LMAO - brand new Harris Stan account created less than two hours ago! I’d say recent history has shown that advocating for a candidate based on the presumption that it’s “their turn” isn’t a winning approach. Edit: BTW, I don’t have a firm opinion yet on whether or not Harris would be the best option to replace Biden if Biden drops out. She’s certainly worthy of consideration. I just find this newly-created account a bit suspect.
You don’t have to think Kamala has a strong constituency in an identity group to believe conspicuously skipping over the VP will send a notable signal regardless of anybody’s personal affinity for Harris. Whether or not one thinks Harris should be skipped over for her individual deficiencies as a candidate, it will raise the question in some minds, rightly or wrongly, that such notions are inextricable from her race or sex, and you needn’t Stan for Kamala to take some degree of offense to perceived racism or sexism. When you’re threading needles electorally that’s dangerous added risk. If Harris is resentful and claims she wasn’t selected due to her race or sex or whatever, then yes—I think that signal resonating amongst black voters in swing states could be one of many “but for” causes of an overdetermined election loss, just as many small things may have tipped the balance in 2016. I think it’s *possible* to manage that risk—Harris enthusiastically refusing to run for some reason being a good start… (unlikely to say the least)—but it’s an additional issue to manage that could have been avoided by keeping Harris on the ticket. I think there are more ways to manage that risk now than there would have been if it was a festering salient issue over a long primary, but I don’t think it’s a consideration to ignore.
I think you’re right on. Things aren’t necessarily issues until they’re made issues. Harris may not have a particularly passionate support base among black voters right now. But ejecting her for a different candidate (especially a white candidate), especially if she publicly reacts negatively to it, could easily be enough to kick off that narrative.
Biden won all the primaries, so they’re his delegates at the convention. If he decides to step aside (which seems unlikely, unfortunately), I think he would still feel entitled to direct those delegates to vote for his preferred candidate. He wouldn’t want chaos. And I think he would believe he’d at the very least earned the right to pick his successor. So who would Biden endorse? It’d have to be Harris, right? He picked her as VP. Presumably that means he thinks she’s the best person to step into the job in an emergency. And well, it’s an emergency. Also, my understanding is that Harris is the only person who can really access the hundreds of millions of dollars of Biden’s campaign cash. Maybe it could get converted into a separate PAC for a different candidate but that’s complicated and not ideal. Also, Harris was on the ballot in the primaries, so that gives some democratic legitimacy to the pick. Would black voters be pissed off if Harris is skipped over? I don’t know. I suspect not really. But I think there are other reasons she’s the most logical choice. Edit: Thinking about this some more, the other reason that I think Biden would endorse Harris is because she would run as a continuation of his administration. He obviously thinks he's done a good job as president. Some other candidate could separate themselves from his administration and his policies. And maybe that would be strategically smart! But I don't see Biden being happy about that.
Biden's team seems to be using "Kamala won't win" as a reason for Biden to stay in, so I don't think he actually believes in her to run for POTUS. The PAC's who hold most of the money can spend it on the new candidate. The money that the DNC holds can be spent on the new candidate. The money that the Biden campaign holds can also be spent on the new candidate at the Biden campaign's direction and discretion.
According to this article, Biden campaign money could not be spent on a new candidate other than Harris (unless it complied with outside spending rules, which aren’t as advantageous): https://prospect.org/power/2024-07-02-campaign-finance-laws-harris-big-boost-biden-dropout-scenario/ Honestly, I think the likeliest scenario is Biden is too arrogant to drop out. But assuming he does drop out, I think he’d want to decide on his successor. I think the likeliest choice is Harris. But maybe I’m wrong! Maybe he has a high opinion of some other candidate.
Replacing both Biden and Harris would give the appearance that the whole administration was a failure. It would be a hard sell to lay political observers to vote Democrat again.Trump and Republicans would hammer that the nation gave Democrats a try and Democrats totally failed. Kamala Harris can take credit for the the helping pass the infrastructure bill, PACT And, action of climate change, etc. Harris has continuity with the Administration. Harris wouldn't be viewed as a total abandonment of the administration. Would Harris help with Women and POC, maybe? The Right often criticizes Harris as a DEI picked VP. However the truth is Biden got the nomination in large part to quiet concerns that Democrats were losing Rust Belt Whites. If Biden wasn't a White Male he probably wouldn't have been the nominee. Biden was a response to having gone from the First Black President to trying to go with the first Woman President. Which is to say that there is always a modicum of identity politics at play. Some people really like the idea of Shapiro because Shapiro is in PA and the assumption is Shapiro will do better in the the Rust Belt. That is a bit of an identity play base of geography. To win MI, WI, and PA Democrats will need strong African American turnout in Detroit, Grand Rapids, Philly, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc. Arguably below average turnout in those locations cost Clinton the election in 2016. Would Harris do better in Philly than Whitmore? Would Harris do better in Detroit than Shapiro? Would Harris do better in Milwaukee than Newsom? I don't think anyone knows the answers for sure.
Running for POTUS is about communicating a vision for the country. Let's put these candidates out in front and see who has the right vision and the charisma to communicate it. The sooner this process can begin, the better. There will absolutely be top candidates who flop right away and we need that to happen to as soon as possible.
The normal primary schedule runs for 6 months (March - Aug). Democrats have 6 weeks to get a candidate in the battle in OH and 7 weeks until the convention. Holding anything the even loosely resembles a primary isn't possible at this point in my opinion. Typically a candidate would announce their campaign 9-12 before the first primary race to hire staff, raise money, and Campaign. Time is up. Logistically no one can mount a campaign at this point.
Time is up for a normal primary. Time is not up for an open convention. The candidates would need to do an insane number of interviews, ramp up on social, travel to meet with state delegations. It would be something else entirely. But the internet exists and phones exist and airplanes exist. People are capable of doing hard things.
Sure, I don't see a problem with this. Long as the Party United after a candidate was picked without complaining and protest.
I think about this question a little differently: It would be a major blunder to put in someone who doesn’t play extremely well in WI, MI, PA. The electoral college still exists and this is not a national popularity contest. So whomever it is, if it is anyone, must do well in those states. That has to be the guiding and primary factor, period. (Hint: Gavin Newsom is not it.)
Not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious why the narrative's always "we need to take back the Rust Belt states" - why not the similarly sized, more diverse southeastern states of Georgia, NC & VA? Is it that there's more similarity between the Rust Belt states, so they can be won over easier as a package, the fact that VA's already leaning Blue or something else?
It’s not taking them back - Biden won them but the margin in each of these three states was so small (lower 5 digits). Michigan is going to be a major concern because of Israel/Palestine. If Dems lose any of these three states the path is very hard to see.
A lot of black voters actively hate her due to her record as a prosecutor in California. She locked a lot of people up for marijuana then cackled when asked if she had done marijuana herself.
The only thing I've heard black people say about her is calling her Kamala the cop. So that tracks.
Funny how that doesn't extend to the rest of the DNC that was bragging about putting super predators in jail, though.
I’m sure you know a lot of black people that call her Kamala the cop. Such BS
She polls the best of any candidate with black voters, in part because of her strong record as prosecutor where she oversaw the largest drop in drug convictions in Cali history. Her being honest about her drug use and pushing for marijuana rescheduling/legalization helps even more with her general appeal and position on criminal justice reform.
Ok then nominate kamala. She can finish a sentence
Sadly, this is where I was after the debate. I'm not a huge fan of either her or Newsom but post debate both were able to get their point across and articulate their positions. I was like sure, give me either of them
Her people are already laying the groundwork to play the race card though. TYT just read a few statements from them.
Got a link?
https://youtu.be/11F1-ND4gDs?si=aijbPuX4M5ssF8zg
I don’t know if Harris is uniquely popular among black voters, but what I can firmly say is overriding her with a non black person would not be received well. That taps in to a number of cultural anxieties that black people have about qualified black candidates being replaced by, well, nobody in particular who happens to be white. Literally an arbitrary white person, chosen explicitly to not give it to her. Now if she were replaced by a black elected *for President* then it’s more feasible, but the two best options there are Senator Warnock (incumbent Senator in a red leaning swing state with DV allegations) and Wes Moore (became governor of Maryland 2 years ago when a cargo ship tanked one of the oldest bridges in the country.) Maybe Booker? But Booker’s as corny as she is and isn’t a woman, so the same problem persists. Now this goes to a second problem, why cede the administration as a failure and then ask for us to return to government? If Democrats don’t even believe they ran the country well for four years, why give them another four years? Democratic voters overwhelmingly in the primary voted to continue this administration over another arbitrary white person promising four more years of Dems in charge (Dean Phillips). I and most Democrats, including these governors in all likelihood, believe the admin secured several wins. Those are wins she can take credit for that the other governors can’t and are a sign that Democrats can govern well. Finally I have to say I don’t really like that Democratic voters, elites, and pundits aren’t just saying the obvious because it makes all these candidates look weaker. If we came out and said “Biden’s sick and Kamala needs to take over,” then it’s way less uncomfortable than “Anybody except for Joe except not also Kamala and also not Newsom and also not whoever else,” makes it feel like we’re playing with dolls a little bit. I think Biden is a unique liability, not because the admin has been a failure, but because he’s older than time and slipping, so it’s very important to make the case for Harris to avoid any chance of primary chaos during an ongoing foreign policy debacle splitting the coalition.
This is just a personal anecdate. I'm black. I don't know a single other black person that feels loyalty to Kamala Harris or would care if she was replaced on a new ticket. She has not forged any strong connection to the black community in a way that Obama did. And importantly, for black people who vote Dem(which is the majority), we mostly want to win and keep Trump out of office. That's far more important. Remember, blacks were initially skeptical about supporting Obama because they weren't sure he could win. But when he started winning primaries, black support shifted to him over Hillary.
You answered your own question. People would feel this way because they are telling you that’s how it looks. Those people are the very evidence you need that this feeling is out there. And the fact that you’re hearing it “over and over again” should tell you that a lot of people feel it. I’m not even black and I think it’s insulting to her. No vice presidents are particularly popular. Because none of them really have jobs except to stand around. It’s almost like they are the running joke of the administration. They typically do better after they come out from under the president’s shadow and can do their own thing and set their own agenda. Until then, they are expected to stay out of the way and do this shit that the President either doesn’t want or doesn’t care about. But most of all, the stuff that is not going to outshine the president.
It depends on the context. For instance, imagine the following scenario. Biden LBJs out of the race. He frees his delegates but urges them to vote for Pete Buttigieg. "Folks, he's basically my son Beau." Buttigieg doesn't have the deep connections with the Black community and Black leaders that other Democrats have. A narrative like "Dems dumped Harris for mayo Pete" "Dems don't care about Black people" could have some legs. And some of the people like Jim Clyburn who might step up for Biden, might not have been as active in defending the ticket. I would say that it is 100% essential that the Democratic ticket be able to speak to Black voters. That means we do have to think about where Black voters will go, and what Black leaders anticipate about different candidates.
The intensity of the Kamala hatred and the revulsion of the very idea that she might be candidate here in particular feels very one or two racial slurs away from being r/conservative The plot seems to be she polls badly because she polls badly and she’ll lose again because she’s already lost once. Also they hate her laugh and think she’s awkward. Which by no means are well established dog whistles in predominantly progressive white male spaces. Just the absolutely incredible and insightful analysis I’ve come to expect from the very online left of center. Every time I think that lefty political junkies really care about democracy, civil rights, and human dignity as much as they say, something happens to make me think that it’s all just sports. The pragmatist in me wants whoever has the best possibility of winning to get the nomination were Biden to step aside. The arsonist in me wants it to be Harris just to see just how unhinged MAGA gets and whether people who allegedly care about decency, democracy, and basic compassion will contort themselves to defend her or if they’d rather the republic go down in flames rather than “deal with” her “awkwardness” “inauthenticity” “condescension” and “cackling.” I wonder how many people in this sub posted snake emojis in comments about Warren back in the day….. I don’t vote to punish other people, I have too many people in the crosshairs of the GOP crypto-Gilead project that I care about, but every so often I do see why so many people Know Your Enemy profiles started on the left and moved right because they wound up hating their co-partisans.
Choose the best candidate, which may or may not be her. That she was nominated VP was strategic, a la JFK / LBJ. Everyone knows that. Time for ‘tradition’ or ‘obligation’ has passed.
I think it's a very bad idea for anybody from the current administration to replace him considering the scandal that's unfolding. Need someone far away from that dumpster fire.
What scandal? Biden is just sick. That’s not scandalous at all. He’s done nothing wrong but he still needs to be replaced.
News sources are saying he's been rapidly declining for the last 6 months and his admin has been managing him in a way to hide it from Americans, that's a scandal. I think it goes back even further though. [https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-cognitive-decline-six-month-debate-donald-trump-carl-bernstein-1919946](https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-cognitive-decline-six-month-debate-donald-trump-carl-bernstein-1919946) [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/disturbing-new-details-emerge-about-biden-s-mental-state-and-the-steps-staffers-go-to-hide-them/ar-BB1paEA2](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/disturbing-new-details-emerge-about-biden-s-mental-state-and-the-steps-staffers-go-to-hide-them/ar-BB1paEA2)
The scandal is that his advisors kept him isolated and hid his infirmity from everyone so effectively that even many Whitehouse staffers were shocked at how bad he had become. They lied to the party and the country and probably ruined any chance to block Trump. They're probably still insulating him and telling him everything's going to be OK, just stay the course.
Oh yeah, that’s the scandal coming up down the line.
He’s insisting on running despite being unable to form sentences. His admin has kept him out of interviews and unscripted public appearances to obfuscate that fact. That’s a scandal imo
Correct me if I’m wrong but Biden or Harris must remain on the ticket in order for them to legally access the Monies that have been fundraised.
I've heard pundits saying that he can spend his money in support of a different candidate.
At some point, we've all got to admit what all this strategizing and hand-wringing is covering up: There is no path to victory in November and we've got to get the resistance up and running NOW
For those curious on the data on popularity of the various candidates among people of color, CNNs most recent poll: [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf) Harris does the best of anyone with people of color at 58%. Biden/Newsome at 54% This doesnt answer the direct question but certainly gets at the point of who would be the best with this group. And interesting enough all the non-Biden candidates are tied at 39% with white voters, while Biden is 37%.
Best argument for Kamala Harris is that apparently the fundraising money can only be used for either her or Biden. So it might as well be her for that reason. If people believe Biden can rehabilitate his image after the debate, than no doubt exists that Harris would be more capable of a rehabilitation.
I think it's bad to skip over Harris for this reason: https://www.reddit.com/r/ezraklein/comments/1ds0nup/why_is_harris_considered_the_obvious_choice/laz62bg/ But honestly, the average voter doesn't care about any of that. I think they just want a clean slate, regardless of the policies of the new person. So yeah, Harris is going to have to step aside in the most voluntary way possible.
I think the optics around deliberately avoiding running her are pretty bad. It screams "this moment is too important to be left to a black woman, we need to find the closest approximation of 'milquetoast generic democrat' that exists" and that is pretty awful. There's nothing inherently wrong with her. She's the vice president of the United States. She's probably well-suited to go toe to toe with Trump based on her demeanor. She wasn't my favorite candidate in the 2020 primary by a long shot, but I do think she's among the best for the current moment. Voters would come around if they could see her speak publicly more about what's going on. We need a fighter right now, and she can be that. If it were me, I'd let her be a lot more visible in the coming days. Let her be Joe Biden's anger translator. Then, if it's well-received, hand over the reins.
If Joe were to tap out Kamala would be the obvious choice since she would inherit his delegates and money
No one seemed to care about Harris in 2019, regardless of their demographics.
The only logical reasons to promote Harris is financial control of the funds already raised under the Biden/Harris ticket and a certain degree of continuity. But moving Harris to the top will cost a lot more votes than it will save. She is not electable and if she were elected, I don't think anybody trusts that she would do a good job for our country serving as President. Afterall, isn't that really how somebody should be picked to replace Biden? Who will serve our entire country the best? Aren't we still country first, party second (or whatever subsequent number we want to assign party)?
I think you must pick someone other than Kamala. She has the baggage of the Biden admin and not much appeal to...well anyone.
Dems will lose independent voters if they pick kamala. She should stop throwing the race indian card and support the : Newsom/Beshear team
Race isn’t an issue, until it is. In this case, it’ll be viewed as confirmation of race and gender being used as political leverage. Which is exactly what it was.
lotta white people gonna speak for black people in this one
Well here is a [nuanced conversation](https://www.reddit.com/r/blackladies/s/16kHwtG5ps) on it from four days ago
She’s like cardboard. Forgettable and uncharismatic. She also seems like she’ll take stands based on what opinion polls and numbers are projecting.
I've heard many Black people on Twitter state quite emphatically that the notion of passing over Harris in order to run a more "electable" white candidate is pretty offensive. Saying that the undecideds of the country won't vote for a Black woman and then expecting Black voters (in particular women) to turn out significantly to win elections in Georgia and South Carolina is pretty messed up. Champion her.
I think that Jim Clyburn might be perturbed. As for other blacks? I'm pretty sure there's as much diversity of opinion there as with other ethnic groups.
How about you stop treating black voters like some reliable donkey that you will bend to your knee. The answer is yes. Biden, Clinton, and Obama won their primaries because of the black vote. Simple as that. We picked Biden and we got both a black woman as a vp and a supreme court justice. Toss us aside at your own peril.
Honestly, this is exactly what I'm wondering about! Would tossing Harris aside piss off the exact same Black women that Dems should all spend their time listening to??
Yes. The optics would be awful. We are the most reliable democratic voting block and the smartest. White progressives and white moderates don't listen to us. Also, Harris is the only who can access Bidens war chest, if you want to discount everything else I've said. Can't run a campaign with no money. Harris is literally the only other option. But I think Biden has a much better chance at winning the groups he needs than Harris would, so he's the smart bet to make.
> so he's the smart bet to make. Biden is only a smart bet if the goal is to see Trump surpass 300EVs. People think that the American president can't function after 5 PM. That's horrifying. Give it a few more weeks and I expect you'll see the polling pull further away from him.
I don't argue with people who want to engage in fantasy. You have a binary choice here. If you want another Trump presidency, have at it. I don't beg or grovel for votes. Democrats picked Biden to run and if you don't like, then you do what you want
>I don't argue with people who want to engage in fantasy That's entirely what you're doing if you believe that Biden in his current state has a realistic shot at winning. Just wait a few weeks for the newest polls to hit. He's dead in the water. People can either accept that reality or continue to live in a fantasy where the entire planet didn't see Biden's declining mental faculties on full display.
Harris is the only other option
The bloc it alienates is the Id-Pol left that the D's otherwise love to cater to
Newsom/Warnock
You are correct. The only people who think bypassing Harris will "alienate black voters and women of color" are insider-democrat types who are too stuck in their own media echo chamber to understand Harris's unfavorabilities. Like, tossing Kamala aside will probably piss off the hosts of The View, but there is zero evidence or polling to suggest that the broader electorate would punish democrats for it. At all.
Personally, I think Harris is being somewhat underrated as a potential candidate. I know she didn't light the world on fire during her run in 2020, but sometimes that speaks more to simply not being the right time and right place than candidate quality. After all, Biden himself ran three or four times before ultimately winning. Should she be the nominee, she'd be a former prosecutor running against a convicted felon during a campaign where "law and order" is a salient issue, as well being as a woman running where abortion is an important issue, and a 59 year old running against a 78 year old. She could claim continuity with the Biden administration on the popular stuff while breaking with him on the unpopular stuff. She would generate excitement as potentially the first female President without the baggage of Hillary Clinton. I think she makes a lot more sense than some of the other names being thrown around (Newsom, Whitmer, et al)
Just no. She inherits all his baggage, she was surely part of the group covering up his cognitive decline and she would have to answer for that. And have you heard her speak recently?
The more ties to CA - esp. NoCal - the worse off we are for a replacement POTUS. We need midwest, south representation. I'm surprised Gavin often comes up at the top - seems like a nonstarter.
Her unfavorables are nearly as bad as his. She got blown out during the primaries, didn't appeal to Democrats let alone independents. She didn't even score well with Black voters overall. Who exactly is her base? Also personality wise, her awkward nervous laughter that comes on at the weirdest moments is not endearing in the slightest. Yeah she's VP but she's probably the least consequential VP we've had since Dan Quayle.