2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?

[MSC]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It will be interesting to see Harris' VP pick. If Josh Shapiro can guarantee 19 electoral votes that Slump was counting on, I'd lean in that direction,

Based on some new information I think you're right. New polling data shows her gaining in some swing states but not Pennsylvania, however she is due to attend a campaign rally in Philadelphia and is expected to attend with her VP pick who will be announced there. Why announce in philly if you're not going to pick Shapiro? Would be like visiting the Catholic part of Glasgow and saying you're a Rangers supporter. Dead on arrival! No way she'd be stupid enough to kick a swing state in the teeth like that. 

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, MSC said:

Based on some new information I think you're right. New polling data shows her gaining in some swing states but not Pennsylvania, however she is due to attend a campaign rally in Philadelphia and is expected to attend with her VP pick who will be announced there. Why announce in philly if you're not going to pick Shapiro? Would be like visiting the Catholic part of Glasgow and saying you're a Rangers supporter. Dead on arrival! No way she'd be stupid enough to kick a swing state in the teeth like that. 

Like you, I'd rather she pick Mayor Pete. He's part of the Sanders movement, did an award-winning high school essay on Bernie, and would hopefully steer us more in that direction as a country. Two terms with Harris, then President Pete? I sometimes wonder where we would be now if Bernie had won in 2016.

Mark Kelly has been arguing against Israeli tactics for quite some time. I'd actually rather see him as VP if I can't have Buttigieg. It seems clear that the Dems don't want to FA&FO, so Shapiro is probably their choice.

[MSC]

51 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Like you, I'd rather she pick Mayor Pete. He's part of the Sanders movement, did an award-winning high school essay on Bernie, and would hopefully steer us more in that direction as a country. Two terms with Harris, then President Pete? I sometimes wonder where we would be now if Bernie had won in 2016.

Mark Kelly has been arguing against Israeli tactics for quite some time. I'd actually rather see him as VP if I can't have Buttigieg. It seems clear that the Dems don't want to FA&FO, so Shapiro is probably their choice.

I think something to keep an open mind about is whether or not Shapiro can support Harris foreign policy agendas that might conflict with his views as governor. A hard stance on Israel for example; if the Harris administration felt compelled to take a hard action against Israel, sanctions etc, can Shapiro take to that?

[iNow]

538 reports that, with Harris scheduled to announce her VP on Tuesday, Shapiro just canceled multiple fund raising events he was previously scheduled to attend this weekend. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/us/politics/josh-shapiro-potential-harris-vp-pick-cancels-weekend-fund-raisers.html

[CharonY]

There is a bit of grumbling regarding a settlement for sexual harassment in Shapiro's office. As the perpetrator was an aide and no himself it might not be that critical, though there is a (highly hypocritical) vector of attack. 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

Based on some new information I think you're right. New polling data shows her gaining in some swing states but not Pennsylvania, however she is due to attend a campaign rally in Philadelphia and is expected to attend with her VP pick who will be announced there. Why announce in philly if you're not going to pick Shapiro? Would be like visiting the Catholic part of Glasgow and saying you're a Rangers supporter. Dead on arrival! No way she'd be stupid enough to kick a swing state in the teeth like that. 

Yep.  And presidents have been known to balance their ticket to thread tricky issue needles like Israel-Gaza.  (that was also the speculation with Kelly, who is more of an immigration hawk than Harris)  

Edited August 2 by TheVat

[MSC]

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Yep.  And presidents have been known to balance their ticket to thread tricky issue needles like Israel-Gaza.  (that was also the speculation with Kelly, who is more of an immigration hawk than Harris)  

No need for an immigration hawk when Dems can just correctly point out that the Republicans killed attempts to push through new immigration policies while they controlled the house just to not give Biden a win in an election year. You can't even give these people what they want without them biting your hand. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

There is a bit of grumbling regarding a settlement for sexual harassment in Shapiro's office. As the perpetrator was an aide and no himself it might not be that critical, though there is a (highly hypocritical) vector of attack. 

I wonder how that would go...

"At least Trump does it himself and doesn't leave it to subordinates!"

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yep.  And presidents have been known to balance their ticket to thread tricky issue needles like Israel-Gaza.  (that was also the speculation with Kelly, who is more of an immigration hawk than Harris)  

Kelly has been advocating for Israel to use guided munitions against Hamas to avoid all the civilian casualties, and Israel clearly wants fewer Palestinians overall so they ignore him. Bet a dollar Netanyahu pressed Harris through Biden to choose Shapiro.

[MigL]

14 hours ago, MSC said:

if the Harris administration felt compelled to take a hard action against Israel, sanctions etc

No US administration will ever sanction Israel.

You guys are doing it again, by being critical of the people you want to win.
Everyone, especially Democrats,  was critical of J Biden until he had to step down, even though he was hundreds of times better than a D Trump Presidency.
Now we attack J Shapiro, and claim there are much better choices for VP pick ?

Do you want the 'best' candidate and let D Trump win the election, or are we willing to compromise to keep an idiot like Trump out of the White House ?

I'm sure swansont would agree; sometimes Democrats can be their own worst enemies.

[exchemist]

14 hours ago, MSC said:

I think something to keep an open mind about is whether or not Shapiro can support Harris foreign policy agendas that might conflict with his views as governor. A hard stance on Israel for example; if the Harris administration felt compelled to take a hard action against Israel, sanctions etc, can Shapiro take to that?

Is Shapiro a real Likudnik, then? He can be Jewish and generally pro-Israel,  yet still disavow the current Israeli government's Gaza policy, I'd have thought. 

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

You guys are doing it again, by being critical of the people you want to win.

Typical behavior for those who aren't populists. Stop being critical and you get trumped on.

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Everyone, especially Democrats,  was critical of J Biden until he had to step down, even though he was hundreds of times better than a D Trump Presidency.

But it was doubtful he could beat Slump after the debate. It doesn't matter how much better he is as POTUS if he can't do better than break even against someone so odious. 

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Now we attack J Shapiro, and claim there are much better choices for VP pick ?

Absolutely. Compromise with the DNC gave us Clinton. And there ARE better choices for VP pick if you're looking past just beating Slump. 

[MigL]

Yeah.
And after you lose the election, and live in a Trump dictatorship, you can always claim "I wasn't populist".

Labelling seems to be more important to you than the outcome of the election ...

Myself, I would be more than happy to live in a free, just society, whilst being labelled a 'populist'.

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do you want the 'best' candidate and let D Trump win the election, or are we willing to compromise to keep an idiot like Trump out of the White House ?

This POV raises a lot of red flags with me. It's exactly what some American oligarch heavily invested in arms manufacturing would say to me so Shapiro keeps the supply chain open to Israel.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yeah.
And after you lose the election, and live in a Trump dictatorship, you can always claim "I wasn't populist".

Labelling seems to be more important to you than the outcome of the election ...

Myself, I would be more than happy to live in a free, just society, whilst being labelled a 'populist'.

The outcome is very important, but this is also the time when the unscrupulous take advantage of populous fervor. I don't want to be blinded by the bigotry and hate to the point where I trade one set of manipulators for a similar set.

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Labelling seems to be more important to you than the outcome of the election ...

I've made several points here that you ignore in order to label me. We used your technique wrt Clinton, and we got TFG. Address that instead of standing on the same old soapbox.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I wonder how that would go...

"At least Trump does it himself and doesn't leave it to subordinates!"

Perhaps, "Trump is a real man, he does all the harassment and rape himself".

[MigL]

@Phi for All
I have never been a fan of labels, and have some issues with identity politics ( as you well know ).
People are defined by their actions, not by the labels they give themselves, or are assigned by others.

You make quite a few unfounded leaps about J Shapiro's intentions; I'm sure Republicans will gladly use those unfounded innuendos in their attack ads.

I'm not sure if you've ever said it, but it has often been repeated by posters on this forum, 'best' is often the ruin of 'good enough', when good enough will win the election, but the best, as in P Buttigieg, might very well lose it.

[TheVat]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

Now we attack J Shapiro, and claim there are much better choices for VP pick ?

Do you want the 'best' candidate and let D Trump win the election, or are we willing to compromise to keep an idiot like Trump out of the White House ?

I will be super clear:  If it helps Kamala win WINVAZ PAGAMI (my mnemonic for the essential swing states), I would be all in for a rabid hyena named Beelzebub who digs up the corpse of Mister Rogers and buggers it on national television.  

[MigL]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I will be super clear

your mnemonic is a mouthful, and you have a dark, sick  imagination, but I like your post anyway 😄 .

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I will be super clear:  If it helps Kamala win WINVAZ PAGAMI (my mnemonic for the essential swing states), I would be all in for a rabid hyena named Beelzebub who digs up the corpse of Mister Rogers and buggers it on national television.  

I think this time, you've just got to think about winning. The alternative is too unpalatable. There is the prospect of there not being another election for many years after this one. Those millions of guns could about to be getting very busy in a few years or less.

Edited August 2 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

Thanks kindly, @MigL   and I appreciate your reminders that Democrats cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  I would guess any of the VP noms would be an asset in some way (especially if they can bring a suitcase full of electoral votes with them, like Shapiro, Kelly, Whitmer or Cooper (who just dropped out btw)).  And as @StringJunky notes, losing this round is especially unpalatable.  I feel we Americans owe it to the whole world to keep the orange existential threat out of the WH.

 

[iNow]

Lots will talk about potential risks of various VP options and stances they've taken which are disagreeable, and that's both fair and appropriate in a society that doesn't mandate purity in others, but most everyone will still vote for the Harris / X ticket whatever that turns out to be so this is all basically moot, IMO. 

[Phi for All]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

@Phi for All
I have never been a fan of labels, and have some issues with identity politics ( as you well know ).
People are defined by their actions, not by the labels they give themselves, or are assigned by others.

The problem with this stance (and I've held it myself) is that we can view any classification or pattern as a label. Labels themselves are actually very helpful things. I'll bet you're a big fan of labels when they're appropriate, such as when a woman in a bar lets you know she's gay, or when a co-worker mentions they're Italian on their mother's side.

It's when the labels are stretched to cover what they were never meant to that causes problems. As long as one doesn't assume a bunch of inappropriate aspects because of the label (generalizing about gay people or Italian people), labels are just pattern identifiers.

I think the labels you're talking about are the ones the media keeps pushing, the single words that they let everyone define however they want. Most hot button issues are dealt with this way, with abortion, immigration, conservative, liberal, all defined in sometimes completely opposite ways. That feels differently to me, like it's been engineered by spin doctors to make us all look at "the other side" and see only craziness. 

[TheVat]

Wonder if this breaking story from the Washington Post could be of any use to the Harris campaign....

https://wapo.st/3SxAkvO

(PW free gift URL)

 

Five days before Donald Trump became president in January 2017, a manager at a bank branch in Cairo received an unusual letter from an organization linked to the Egyptian intelligence service. It asked the bank to “kindly withdraw” nearly $10 million from the organization’s account — all in cash.

Inside the state-run National Bank of Egypt, employees were soon busy placing bundles of $100 bills into two large bags, according to records from the bank. Four men arrived and carried away the bags, which U.S. officials later described in sealed court filings as weighing a combined 200 pounds and containing what was then a sizable share of Egypt’s reserve of U.S. currency.

Federal investigators learned of the withdrawal, which has not been previously reported, early in 2019. The discovery intensified a secret criminal investigation that had begun two years earlier with classified U.S. intelligence indicating that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi sought to give Trump $10 million to boost his 2016 presidential campaign, a Washington Post investigation has found.

Since receiving the intelligence about Sisi, the Justice Department had been examining whether money moved from Cairo to Trump, potentially violating federal law that bans U.S. candidates from taking foreign funds. Investigators had also sought to learn if money from Sisi might have factored into Trump’s decision in the final days of his run for the White House to inject his campaign with $10 million of his own money....

 

Edited August 2 by TheVat
paywall free url added

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The problem with this stance (and I've held it myself) is that we can view any classification or pattern as a label. Labels themselves are actually very helpful things. I'll bet you're a big fan of labels when they're appropriate, such as when a woman in a bar lets you know she's gay, or when a co-worker mentions they're Italian on their mother's side.

It's when the labels are stretched to cover what they were never meant to that causes problems. As long as one doesn't assume a bunch of inappropriate aspects because of the label (generalizing about gay people or Italian people), labels are just pattern identifiers.

I think the labels you're talking about are the ones the media keeps pushing, the single words that they let everyone define however they want. Most hot button issues are dealt with this way, with abortion, immigration, conservative, liberal, all defined in sometimes completely opposite ways. That feels differently to me, like it's been engineered by spin doctors to make us all look at "the other side" and see only craziness. 

It is tricky and in open discussions we can also see that some labels are getting outsized attention. But ultimately I think everyone uses labels knowingly or not, because that is how humans think. This does lead to a certain bias, as some groups will use different codes and labels and these are then considered identity politics, whereas the categories oneself uses are most invisible as they are part of the way we see the world.

The issue is that one needs to make a conscious effort to not remain on the superficial level in public discourse, but the increasing reliance on short bits of information makes it increasingly difficult. And while there are folks who weaponize it to spin, I am increasingly worried that folks are also just less well trained to go beyond these superficial aspects.

I.e. it is not necessarily a well orchestrated manipulation, but more a general lack of competence in processing, understanding and presenting information (and I say that as someone who is working on a regular basis with the next generation of thinkers).

 

 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'll bet you're a big fan of labels when they're appropriate, such as when a woman in a bar lets you know she's gay

Actually, that's never come up, as a woman will let you know with her actions whether she's interested in company or not, long before she's comfortable enough to let you know her sexual orientation.

I do agree with you, labels can be useful when used appropriately.
They are not, as CharonY has opined, when they are used superficially, as in J Shapiro is a Jew, so he must favor Israel's methods in Gaza.
Or when one applies the unfavorable 'populist' label to the will of the people, and a desire to avoid another disastrous Trump Presidency.