Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?


Alex_Krycek

Recommended Posts

Delegates are now free agents, by party rules, but likely it will be seen a better chance of winning if they accept Joe's endorsement of Harris (especially given her sterling resume) rather than waste time on all the horsetrading and pyrotechnics of an open convention.  If they still do the early pre-convention nomination balloting, they can give Kamala and Veep a couple extra weeks.  

I'm hearing all kinds of weird buzz.  One is a Unity ticket, e.g. Harris-Cheney or Harris-Kinzinger.  While such a hypothetical fistful of bipartisanship could be interesting and motivating to some Log Cabin Republicans and Indies, I doubt it would happen.  More likely, a strong governor as a VP, like Beshear, Newsom, Shapiro or Whitmer.  Or a Mindbending Number of Firsts ticket, Harris-Buttigieg.

I want to be the first to point out that a Harris Beshear pairing could be called (cough) the Barber Ticket.  🙄

Edited by TheVat
add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm hearing all kinds of weird buzz

From whom? The same anonymous sources that started this clusterf* or was it the donors who didn’t like the support that labor was getting?

Quote

Delegates are now free agents, by party rules

Always were, apparently. A “conscience clause” meant that they could vote for another candidate if they wanted to, but being pledged to Biden probably meant they wouldn’t have wanted to.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I didn't really think he could win this time around and in this political climate, but I felt his slide in the polls wasn't so much gains for D Trump, rather losses for J Biden amid Republican, and Democrat, criticism of his mental health.

We won’t know what would have happened if there had been no infighting, and instead there was a full-court press on all of Trump's failings, Dobbs, and the myriad other unpopular positions in project 2025. That’s where all the time and energy should go (and should have gone)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Holy backflipping Jesus on a trampoline!

Well I can now definitely assert that Biden cannot win the election!

😀

Just read the BBC site. Holy smoking mackeral! I could hug him, even If I didn't agree with all his agenda. He can now leave with his legacy intact. What happens henceforth won't be down to him.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Delegates are now free agents

California has the most delegates and they’re being pressured to come out strongly and immediately in support of Harris (esp since it’s her home state)

They want momentum today to avoid the chaos of a brokered convention ahead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

California has the most delegates and they’re being pressured to come out strongly and immediately in support of Harris (esp since it’s her home state)

They want momentum today to avoid the chaos of a brokered convention ahead. 

It makes sense, she already has the exposure and is pretty solid. If she wins, it would be historic as well, and I think that's probably a plus. We said that earlier, didn't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Just read the BBC site. Holy smoking mackeral! I could hug him, even If I didn't agree with all his agenda. He can now leave with his legacy intact. What happens henceforth won't be down to him.

This was the only logical outcome after that disastrous debate performance, as I deduced weeks ago. 

It was only a mater of time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

From whom? The same anonymous sources that started this clusterf* or was it the donors who didn’t like the support that labor was getting?

People writing in to the Post.  A couple political forums I browse.  It wasn't meant as a statistically rock solid sample, just me noting the weirdness.  As the rest of my paragraph says, I don't find it a plausible match.  The last unity ticket to win was Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson - and the longterm result wasn't that great. 

 

 

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I’d like to see Buttigieg. That guy could wipe the floor with Trump and would be a real breath of fresh air. CV is fantastic and great communicator. 

I don't know who CV is.  

😏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This was the only logical outcome after that disastrous debate performance, as I deduced weeks ago. 

It was only a mater of time.  

Oh, bullshit. None of this was inevitable.

It was because of everybody dogpiling after the debate. If the press didn’t wet themselves at the thought of holding the GOP to the same standard and reported news instead of chasing clicks, and certain dems having a backbone instead of caving to megadonors (who freaked out because of the “news” stories) the path could have been quite different.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

I’d like to see Buttigieg. That guy could wipe the floor with Trump and would be a real breath of fresh air. CV is fantastic and great communicator. 

I think the US is too homophobic and that would cost votes. I think Pete’s great and should be campaigning but that and his inexperience would be negatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

I think the US is too homophobic and that would cost votes. I think Pete’s great and should be campaigning but that and his inexperience would be negatives.

Not the US, per se, but in the critical 3 electoral votes of Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania it would be a problem for sure. I am anxious for the same reasons in those same states for Kamala’s chances. Female AND nonwhite = Trump sweet spot for opposition.

I liked Pete when I met him in the primaries, though. He has a good future ahead and may be a good counter to JD Vance even if not selected this round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not the US, per se, but in the critical 3 electoral votes of Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania it would be a problem for sure. I am anxious for the same reasons in those same states for Kamala’s chances. Female AND nonwhite = Trump sweet spot for opposition.

I liked Pete when I met him in the primaries, though. He has a good future ahead and may be a good counter to JD Vance even if not selected this round. 

Agreed, there are well-established trajectories to attack her (e.g. the stupid diversity  hire line).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Externet said:

Would a swap in positions be beneficial to their party and elections ?  Biden for vicepresident ? 🤔

No. He's been jettisoned. He won't make anyone feel better about Harris in that position, and he'd remain as fodder for the MAGA crowd.

Remember, the GOP voters aren't impressed with Biden's ethical call in the slightest. Only those voting to save the democracy care about "doing the right thing" or "the greater good". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I am anxious for the same reasons in those same states for Kamala’s chances. Female AND nonwhite = Trump sweet spot for opposition.

A nonwhite person won twice, and a woman got more votes than Trump in 2016. A lot of Trump voters have died since then (some thanks to Trump). The question is whether the GOP has been able to suppress more votes than that.

But Dobbs is the big difference since then. People don’t like having rights/freedoms taken away.

AndTrump being a felon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

A nonwhite person won twice, and a woman got more votes than Trump in 2016.

Past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results. Trump changed things in meaningful ways among those electorates.

More Importantly, Hilary lost all three of those states in 2016.

Also, I meant Michigan not Ohio 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The type of voter that won’t vote for her because she’s a women or of colour would probably tend to vote for Trump anyway. 
She just needs to avoid the mistakes she made in 2020, stick to accurate accusations against Trump, get a good running mate that compliments her…and she’ll be fine. She is certainly more capable of defending her/Biden’s administration than Biden could have, and more than capable of attacking Trump…there’s certainly plenty of ammo for her to do it honestly.  
 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Agreed, there are well-established trajectories to attack her (e.g. the stupid diversity  hire line).

As I said at the time, she should have been announced as the best available running mate. She’ll need a good deflection for that and keep it about Trump. She’s by far the better alternative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Agreed, there are well-established trajectories to attack her (e.g. the stupid diversity  hire line).

The DEI Hire crap gets regular workouts.  Justice Jackson weathered this a couple years ago.  Should be challenging to try and smear that on someone whose been Attorney General, US Senator  and VP, but I'm sure they will try.  

Cogitating wildly on her possible VP choices, I wonder if there might be serious consideration of someone like Gen. James Mattis, who radiates probity, instead of the usual calculus of finding a strong swing state governor.  They can't really pick Newsom (unless causing Middle America to cringe from an All California ticket is a goal).  I like Buttigieg but he's not ready (for reasons already mentioned) and Transport Secretary to VP would be some anomalous form of political quantum tunneling.  Also, I wonder if the swing state governor gambit could backfire in some way.  Twill be fascinating to watch all the gears turning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The DEI Hire crap gets regular workouts.  Justice Jackson weathered this a couple years ago.  Should be challenging to try and smear that on someone whose been Attorney General, US Senator  and VP, but I'm sure they will try.  

As early as 2-3 weeks ago, Kelly Ann Conway from her relatively elevated and respected perch was already calling Harris lazy and often unprepared for meetings.

It informed me that the trope had clearly already taken hold among those in the darker 4chan style corners. 

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Transport Secretary to VP would be some anomalous form of political quantum tunneling.

Gina Raimando (Secretary of Commerce) would be a good pick tho 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She needs a running mate with a high profile, preferably white, male and with some experience in government - to lay to rest any notions of a feminist or minority agenda. 

Then the Dems have to pull together like they've never done before, and keep hammering on the message: This is what we have done - this is what they have done. No frills, no personalities, no history; just the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

She needs a running mate with a high profile, preferably white, male and with some experience in government - to lay to rest any notions of a feminist or minority agenda. 

She could pick DJT himself and those notions still would never rest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time will tell, but really the electoral college system is far more stupid than most Americans. She could win 8M more votes and still lose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, swansont said:

Oh, bullshit. None of this was inevitable.

It was because of everybody dogpiling after the debate. If the press didn’t wet themselves at the thought of holding the GOP to the same standard and reported news instead of chasing clicks, and certain dems having a backbone instead of caving to megadonors (who freaked out because of the “news” stories) the path could have been quite different.

My prediction was based on the polling data.   The American people knew what they saw and they didn't like it.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

She needs a running mate with a high profile, preferably white, male and with some experience in government - to lay to rest any notions of a feminist or minority agenda. 

Then the Dems have to pull together like they've never done before, and keep hammering on the message: This is what we have done - this is what they have done. No frills, no personalities, no history; just the facts.

What's interesting is I think we'll see an open convention.  Everyone throwing their hat into the ring.

What's this, actual democracy happening again?  Spectacular.  

Edited by Alex_Krycek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.