Oh, right, the Senate. And judges. Maybe some republicans in the cabinet? Ah well, looks like this might not be as bad as I thought it would be. It didn't even occur to me that Biden stepping aside was pretty much calling their bluff and screwing up their entire strategy, and now Trump is the "old and senile" candidate. Too bad Trump said he's not doing any debates with Kamala. Maybe he can be bullied into it?
Please. I’m 60 years old and guarantee I am eversomuchmoreso irresponsible or whatever you think is wrong with your daughter. AOC, in my opinion, is the only congressperson right now who even wants America to be the way the FF envisioned. Unfortunately, she can’t do it alone, so, the reason she can’t/shouldn’t run has nothing to do with her own actions, but those of others.
Reddit is on fire over the change, and there's dozens of posts saying Trump now is the oldest candidate ever put forward by a party for the US presidency, how he falls asleep in both his trial and the RNC, how he shits himself, how he's sundowning, all of his speech gaffes, on and on and on. The concentrated attacks on Biden's age coming from the right and corporate media all now apply to Trump. And then there's the posts that it doesn't matter how old the rapist, felon, fraudster, pedophile is. I'm repeatedly hitting the forums with a post on how 40 of the 44 Trump Cabinet members haven't endorsed him, and half a dozen have said he's either unfit to serve or an active threat to the United States. That's absolutely unprecedented in US history.
I agree that the there shouldn't be a GOP candidate as VP. There's lots of reasons, including progressives would be pissed, rightfully so, and you need to build your bench, and the VP slot is where you do that. However, I absolutely could get behind Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger being in the Harris administration at a high level, perhaps even a cabinet level pick. You announce that ahead of time. It has much of the same upside of showing the Dems as the voice of reason and the people, with none of the downside. Will they take it, different question. Oh, and Manchin talking about switching back to Democrat so he can run for President. BWAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAHAH. Wow.
I'm fucking flabbergasted. This is mindboggling. How did @The Original Faceman know Biden was dropping out ahead of time? I'm in awe.
Also, there's a decent chance of a 50/50 Senate, and I don't really want Liz Cheney being the tiebreaker.
Liz Cheney for AG? Especially if SCOTUS tosses out another 55 years of special counsel precedent to boot Smith.
I don't know how much stock to put in the conventional indicators of a campaign's success anymore — the past several years have broken conventional political wisdom in a lot of ways. I'm also wary of basing too much on what I personally see and hear, because of selection bias. (Remember all the Republicans who were convinced Romney would win in a landslide because nobody they knew was voting for Obama?) However, there has been a big shift in the way the liberals in my social circle are feeling about the election. A week ago, they were determined. Now, they're actually excited. What does this mean? Hard to say. Most of the people I'm thinking of have probably never missed an election in their lives, so nothing about their vote is actually changing. But does the difference between determination and excitement make some difference along the margins? Maybe.
If noted Constitutional scholar @Steal Your Face says special prosecutors are unconstitutional, then by gum they are unconstitutional. It's not like he has any agenda he's following or anything.
Well, she is a JD from Chicago Law and a practicing attorney. So it could work. And having Cheney in charge of prosecuting the Jan 6th folks would put a smile on my face. Her background though is in International Law, and she actually worked at State as one of her first jobs. I don't think you give Cheney a role that high, but that's her skill set. I wonder if she would take Undersecretary of State. That would be a good fit for her, but its questionable whether she would be interested.
I should specify, my problem is not with the idea of "tax the rich". It's my disappointment that she'd give the Met Gala any press by going.
Fair enough. I personally don't care and appreciate the advocacy at a high profile event, but each to their own. I don't think that is nearly enough to countermand the good she's done, especially in driving new voters and being an inspiration to young women. But again, reasonable people can differ.
If I refused to vote for every politician who disappointed me (or pissed me off) at one time or another, I wouldn't vote for anyone.
Manchin says he won't serve as Kamala's VP. Well, geez, I'm glad he settled that. Would have hated to spend a lot of energy on the 'draft Joe Manchin' movement at the Democratic National Convention. LOL.
This is what can make a difference. There aren't that many people who would prefer Harris over Trump but would prefer Trump over Biden. The change in candidate is not going to change the general orientation of very many voters. What it will change is how motivated they are to get out and vote. I fully intended to vote Biden, even though he really wasn't my first choice (I thought he was too old), but I would have voted. (In Michigan -- my vote counts for more than a lot of others, because I vote in a "swing state".) Too many people wouldn't have, though. It just wouldn't have seemed to be important enough to bother. And that would have given almost all the swing states, and thus the election, to Trump. With a different candidate, people might actually be more motivated to do something. And that could change everything in a close election.
I wish I was still in a swing state. Florida used to be, but we've had too much of an influx of California Republicans since Covid.
Pelosi and all the members of the Squad, Pritzker of Indiana, Whitmer of Michigan, Beshear of Kentuckyl. Newsome of California, the Clintons, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Klobuchar. They have all endorsed Harris. As have the Progressive Congressional Caucus.
I would not be surprised if there were a fair amount of people who specifically bought into the "Biden is a drooling vegetable" logic and yet ignored possible signs of Trump's cognitive decline who will now vote for Kamala. I was getting in an argument with a FB friend, though, who is complaining that there should be voice given to alternatives since there's a lot of people supposedly who will be hesitant to vote for Kamala the Cop. As if the FOP-endorsed authoritarian would be a better choice.
I have some reservations about the racism and sexism of america being an issue with Kamala, but if America is going to chose Trump because they won't vote for a woman or POC then they deserve Trump. I am better with losing with Kamala than losing with old white racist sexist scumbag joe. At least we might actually have our first black female president instead of Joe saying that is what he was. It also has to bite racist and sexist Joe in the ass that Obama told his old white massa ass to GTFO and he was replaced with a black woman. It would be so great if both him and Trump would be crying after the election because the two of them lost to black people. It would serve their segregationalist, anti-abortion asses right.
They won't vote for Kamala the cop, but they would vote for tough on crime superpredator joe? I do not think those are honest or informed people because Joe did much more for throwing black people in jail for bullshit than Kamala has. How long has it taken Joe to get pot off the schedule 1 list? It is sort of like he is hesitant to remove the easiest tool for imprisoning black people from the LEO arsenal.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but those FB friends are fucking idiots if they're going to actually call her Kamala the Cop.
Biden beat Trump, and the Trumpers cried "election fraud" and did January 6th. What are they going to do if Kamala wins? A black-Asian woman president? Clearly that's too woke to be real.
