2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?

[iNow]

Y’all woke libs! Kill DEI! Trump 24!

Bumper sticker simplicity better than policy point precision in elections 

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Y’all woke libs! Kill DEI! Trump 24!

Bumper sticker simplicity better than policy point precision in elections 

Or as Trump would like it "Trump 24/7/365!"

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Y’all woke libs! Kill DEI! Trump 24!

Bumper sticker simplicity better than policy point precision in elections 

Yes and fornicate with the person they presumably do not like...?

I should probably add to my previous comment that there are obviously bad actors promoting such labels. Bannon's openly said that his strategy was to push identity politics and we can see something happening on that front from Russia, too (or perhaps it is the same strategy).

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

Who did that? Was it someone in this thread? Seems silly, since even many Israelis don't support those methods.

Bernie is a Jew but never a Zionist. Shapiro has expressed Zionist leanings in the past, but now says he's changed. My concern is that populists often change their stance when the winds change.

[MigL]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

My concern is that populists often change their stance when the winds change.

My concern is that some people are so wedded to an ideology, they won't change their stance even when confronted with evidence that their ideology is faulty.

Notice I said people, and resisted the urge to 'label' them, as you did 🙂 .

[Phi for All]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

My concern is that some people are so wedded to an ideology, they won't change their stance even when confronted with evidence that their ideology is faulty.

Notice I said people, and resisted the urge to 'label' them, as you did 🙂 .

I'd hate to think my stance is too nuanced for you to understand, but if you read it again you'll see I referred to populists, but didn't label a person that way. I know it doesn't fit with the narrative you're spinning, but I simply don't know, without digging further, whether Shapiro's change of heart about a two-state solution is genuine enough to help change policy. He used to think there was only one solution for Israel, but now says Netanyahu is a bad leader. In a country where there is a constitutional separation of church and state, I don't want elected officials quoting the Bible at me, not even Josh and the Torah. So I have concerns about Harris' VP pick, and they go far beyond the labels you're focused on.

As iNow said, whoever Harris picks will have the support of the Dems and many Independents too. Sorry if you think I'm labeling, but now is the time to voice preferences and concerns, before the VP is actually chosen.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

My concern is that some people are so wedded to an ideology, they won't change their stance even when confronted with evidence that their ideology is faulty.

Yes, but it’s not like this is a new phenomenon. It’s been true for a very long time. They dig in when you show them - the backfire effect. They need an emotional path to change.  

[CharonY]

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, but it’s not like this is a new phenomenon. It’s been true for a very long time. They dig in when you show them - the backfire effect. They need an emotional path to change.  

More likely than not this is also a  default stance. Folks arrived at a given ideology somehow, unlearning that is going to be difficult no matter what.  

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

As iNow said, whoever Harris picks will have the support of the Dems and many Independents too.

I certainly hope so.
Now is not the time to start questioning our candidates; the Republicans will do that soon enough.
We need to stand with them, and you guys had better get every one out to vote.
Not just the US, but the whole world, cannot sustain another 4 years ( maybe a whole lot more ) of D Trump.

[StringJunky]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Who did that? Was it someone in this thread? Seems silly, since even many Israelis don't support those methods.

Bernie is a Jew but never a Zionist. Shapiro has expressed Zionist leanings in the past, but now says he's changed. My concern is that populists often change their stance when the winds change.

Shapiro is being like a good scientist: changing his position with the mounting evidence. History will be on the side of the antizionists. The true nature and aims of Zionism is execrable. The US and Europe has fought wars against the governing assembly of fascists and authoritarians who want a monoethnocentric state, and here  they are throwing billions and arms at such people so that they can create one.

America and the UK has truly been bought. AIPAC, and the like, are an existential threat to world peace.

Edited August 3 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Now is not the time to start questioning our candidates; the Republicans will do that soon enough.

I disagree. The time to question the candidates is ALWAYS before they become candidates.

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Shapiro is being like a good scientist: changing his position with the mounting evidence.

I hope this is the case. It would help distinguish him from Vance, who is obviously changing his tune strictly because his new stance benefits him better.

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. The time to question the candidates is ALWAYS before they become candidates.

I hope this is the case. It would help distinguish him from Vance, who is obviously changing his tune strictly because his new stance benefits him better.

 

Trump and Vance are spineless political chameleons.

[iNow]

Code switching is the term of art here, like how they flipped on crypto when speaking in front of the crypto bros

[MigL]

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. The time to question the candidates is ALWAYS before they become candidates.

I, and many others, dislike Spam.
But if one candidate is a shit sandwich, and the other is Spam on white, I will take the Spam anytime, without question. This was the humor part ( sometimes you don't recognize my lame humor ).

All I'm trying to say is, if you don't like Harris/Shapiro, you can vote them out in 4 years; you may not be able to with Trump/Vance. You may "never need to vote again".

Edited August 4 by MigL

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

All I'm trying to say is, if you don't like Harris/Shapiro, you can vote them out in 4 years; you may not be able to with Trump/Vance. You may "never need to vote again".

So good to know! Meanwhile, Harris' running mate hasn't been chosen, so I'm going to continue discussing her options. Brace yourself, I may be critical.

[MigL]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Brace yourself, I may be critical.

I've come to expect it; and wouldn't have it any other way.

[MSC]

On 8/2/2024 at 10:21 AM, MigL said:

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

If you'll recall though I did say people were being too critical of Biden and I will hold up my hand and say I was wrong for saying dropping Biden for anyone else would be political suicide for the dems so close to the election. Do I still think people were being overly judgemental of Biden? Yes. However in political terms, based on how a lot of people felt about it, Biden had lost the faith of enough voters for him to recognise that the political wind just wasn't there for him. So yeah, I was wrong. 

However it isn't or wasn't the same as the running mate nomination discussion since Kamala promoted out of that position leaving it to be filled by someone else who hasn't been picked yet. Once they are picked though, I'm totally onboard with what you are laying down. Strategic unity to beat MAGA all the way. Shapiro, Buttiegieg, Kelly, all are better than Just dance Vance and Scrooge McTrump! D-MAGA, don't make America Gag again. 

One person in the running I don't think would be a good choice is Pritzker. Having lived in Illinois for three years while he was governor I just feel he never really improved the place. Also, Illinois is pretty safely Democrat with or without Pritzker. If he could have flipped a swing state maybe but IL is a safe bet and the other midwest states have little reason to fall behind Kamala just because Pritzker is hypothetically on the ticket. 

[MigL]

You are right.
Any of the proposed candidates for VP would mop the floor with J Vance in a debate. His past opinions are in the public domain, and he hasn't 'seen the light', it is just unashamed opportunism.

Where you are maybe wrong is that this is still America, and many Americans are superficial.
They don't consider a person's policies, or opinions, but rather judge them on their ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. And maaybe that makes some of the best candidates unelectable ?
I always thought K Harris was a good fit, but she should have been given more 'exposure' during the last 4 years, to dispel any fears Americans might have had about her gender and skin color.
and I admit to being pleasantly surprised at the reaction in the polls; maybe there's hope for America, after all.
Lets hope that translates to undecided voters in swing states

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I always thought K Harris was a good fit, but she should have been given more 'exposure' during the last 4 years, to dispel any fears Americans might have had about her gender and skin color.
and I admit to being pleasantly surprised at the reaction in the polls; maybe there's hope for America, after all.

I have speculated that American voter bias is now more about regionalism (especially the rural/urban divide) than about ethnic/gender anxieties.  32 states have had female governors (including most of the Red states, interestingly enough), 33 have had female senators, and we have had a two term black president, so I feel that Harris hurdles may be more about her political origins in Sodom in the Land of Flaky Liberals, I mean San Francisco, than melanin or two X chromosomes.  I'm not discounting some misogyny on the Right and with RW Evangelicals, but they aren't the moderate swing voters at issue.

But it's not a surprise that her genome still obsesses Trump, who has just attempted to resuscitate the Birther Theory again, long past its freshness date.  He is getting desperate, I sense.

 

Side note: agree with @MSC that Pritzker is a weaker option for VP.  Really, I think his inclusion on a list was just a political courtesy.

 

 

[MigL]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I admit to being pleasantly surprised at the reaction in the polls; maybe there's hope for America, after all.

It seems even more Republicans have found their back bone ...

'Unprecedented': Launch of 'Republicans for Harris' causes commotion (msn.com)

and ...

Democrat Ruben Gallego promotes Republican support in his Arizona Senate campaign against Kari Lake (msn.com)

Edited August 4 by MigL

[MSC]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Where you are maybe wrong is that this is still America, and many Americans are superficial.
They don't consider a person's policies, or opinions, but rather judge them on their ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. And maaybe that makes some of the best candidates unelectable ?

That is a good point to make, the bigoted elephant in the room. That may have even been some of my hesitation in advocating for someone other than Biden because in the end he was a white male and accounting for superficiality in the electorate, seemed like the safe option, but in the end I have to question whether that itself is just a manifestation of my own biases. 

How do you gauge when America is really ready to make that change, until it makes it? Is it wrong to discourage the people fighting to make that change happen? Trump or no Trump? 

There is another aspect to that superficiality in virtue signalling though, call it what you want but some people may very well vote for Kamala Harris just so they can say they are not racist. Whether that means they are or aren't bigots I don't know but it is something to keep in mind. At the moment if that is something that prompts people to vote Harris, I'll take that W. 

There is a bit of a silver lining in that really we only have to gauge if whether or not a few swing states are ready to vote for a black woman. The popular vote I think is most definitely ready for that. It's voted for a black person and a woman before. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, Obama won pop and electoral college, and due to Trump's odious personality I think that maybe this is the perfect candidate for a black lady to beat. Black lady Whitehouse! (Guess the reference)

[MigL]

No J Shapiro or M Kelly.
VP  running mate to be T Walz.

[TheVat]

Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, now Tim Walz.  Sometimes you go to Minnesota to get a Midwest translator.  Prepare yourself for headlines punning on a certain dance performed by a couple in 3/4 time.  

[MigL]

And, we have to start calling some Republicans 'weird', not a*sholes.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I don't know much about him but I like what I'm hearing so far...

 

...I guess I need to tune in to Fox News so I will know what to really think...😄

Ol white guy though...obviously a DEI pick but at least they had the sense not to announce it as that this time...