NYT and WaPo report Biden is close to stepping down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Of equal importance, if not more so, is what will happen with the Biden/Harris campaign funds. They have something like $90 million. My understanding is that only Harris can access it if Biden drops out. If that is true, she is really the only option to replace him.

Do you really think she can win?

Yes, and fairly easily.

Jeff, normally I agree with your take and find you very reasonable. But this response baffles me. Why do you think Kamala can easily win? She did poorly in the primary and dropped out early. The unfair misogyny that plagued Hilary hasn’t disappeared. Polls show her faring not much better than Biden. To be fair, they don’t show any Democrat with much of an edge, but lack of name recognition is a factor for the less known Dems. Everyone knows who Kamala is.

My theory is that Biden actually has a great legislative record. My single complaint is his handling of the Israel-Gaza war. The economy is in pretty good shape with high employment, the stock market hitting record highs, and inflation under control. If Biden were 20 years younger, this election wouldn't even be close. But, Biden is not 20 years younger. However, Kamala Harris is. She can take credit for many of Biden's achievements because she was part of the team and she can promise to keep the same course. She will be a very credible messenger on women's health issues and I think she will inspire young people.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton lost because of misogyny, She lost because she ran a poor campaign and because of James Comey's attempting to act politically and screwing it up royally.

In short, Harris just has to campaign on a message to continue the path that has dug the U.S. out of the hole Trump put us in, the path that has made our economy the envy of the world, and promise to protect reproductive rights. And then show energy. She will out hustle Trump and can campaign everywhere. Her historic candidacy will be inspiring and create a lot of excitement.

You think her hypothetical VP pick matters (I think it does)? If yes, who’s your prediction?

I expect that the VP choice will be a White male former or current governor. I don't think it matters which one.

Generic white male governor as VP didn’t work out for Hilary. I am on board with other posters who want a daring, exciting VP pick.

To have a chance, Kamala needs a blockbuster VP. Like:

- Adam Kinzinger
- Michelle Obama
- Jon Stewart
- Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock)
- Jonny Kim (JD Vance has a decent origin story, but Jonny’s blows it to smithereens)

I think Pete Buttigeig is the most likely VP candidate in this scenario, and I think that will be strong.

Pete would make Vance run crying to his mama during a VP debate.

[Anonymous]

If you are going to vote for Biden, are you honestly saying you know wouldn't vote Dem if, Kamala gets the nomination?
On the flip side, if you typically vote Democrat, but we're not going to vote Biden, will you vote for, Kamala?

[Anonymous]

Pritzker makes the most sense.

Midwest, a governor, and an actually wealthy person vs a fake billionaire and able to draw serious donors. Will make business feel good about the ticket.

And— I know I’m repeating myself— will shore up the donor base.

But my favorite ladies only ticket is actually Kamala and Liz Cheney. If 2024 is going to be about putting country over party and country over self-interest…she’s the person to make that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Of equal importance, if not more so, is what will happen with the Biden/Harris campaign funds. They have something like $90 million. My understanding is that only Harris can access it if Biden drops out. If that is true, she is really the only option to replace him.

Do you really think she can win?

Yes, and fairly easily.

Jeff, normally I agree with your take and find you very reasonable. But this response baffles me. Why do you think Kamala can easily win? She did poorly in the primary and dropped out early. The unfair misogyny that plagued Hilary hasn’t disappeared. Polls show her faring not much better than Biden. To be fair, they don’t show any Democrat with much of an edge, but lack of name recognition is a factor for the less known Dems. Everyone knows who Kamala is.

My theory is that Biden actually has a great legislative record. My single complaint is his handling of the Israel-Gaza war. The economy is in pretty good shape with high employment, the stock market hitting record highs, and inflation under control. If Biden were 20 years younger, this election wouldn't even be close. But, Biden is not 20 years younger. However, Kamala Harris is. She can take credit for many of Biden's achievements because she was part of the team and she can promise to keep the same course. She will be a very credible messenger on women's health issues and I think she will inspire young people.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton lost because of misogyny, She lost because she ran a poor campaign and because of James Comey's attempting to act politically and screwing it up royally.

In short, Harris just has to campaign on a message to continue the path that has dug the U.S. out of the hole Trump put us in, the path that has made our economy the envy of the world, and promise to protect reproductive rights. And then show energy. She will out hustle Trump and can campaign everywhere. Her historic candidacy will be inspiring and create a lot of excitement.

You think her hypothetical VP pick matters (I think it does)? If yes, who’s your prediction?

I expect that the VP choice will be a White male former or current governor. I don't think it matters which one.

Generic white male governor as VP didn’t work out for Hilary. I am on board with other posters who want a daring, exciting VP pick.

To have a chance, Kamala needs a blockbuster VP. Like:

- Adam Kinzinger
- Michelle Obama
- Jon Stewart
- Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock)
- Jonny Kim (JD Vance has a decent origin story, but Jonny’s blows it to smithereens)

I think Pete Buttigeig is the most likely VP candidate in this scenario, and I think that will be strong.

Pete would make Vance run crying to his mama during a VP debate.

Yes and he has centrist appeal. Even my Trumpy mother begrudgingly likes him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Of equal importance, if not more so, is what will happen with the Biden/Harris campaign funds. They have something like $90 million. My understanding is that only Harris can access it if Biden drops out. If that is true, she is really the only option to replace him.

Do you really think she can win?

Yes, and fairly easily.

Jeff, normally I agree with your take and find you very reasonable. But this response baffles me. Why do you think Kamala can easily win? She did poorly in the primary and dropped out early. The unfair misogyny that plagued Hilary hasn’t disappeared. Polls show her faring not much better than Biden. To be fair, they don’t show any Democrat with much of an edge, but lack of name recognition is a factor for the less known Dems. Everyone knows who Kamala is.

My theory is that Biden actually has a great legislative record. My single complaint is his handling of the Israel-Gaza war. The economy is in pretty good shape with high employment, the stock market hitting record highs, and inflation under control. If Biden were 20 years younger, this election wouldn't even be close. But, Biden is not 20 years younger. However, Kamala Harris is. She can take credit for many of Biden's achievements because she was part of the team and she can promise to keep the same course. She will be a very credible messenger on women's health issues and I think she will inspire young people.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton lost because of misogyny, She lost because she ran a poor campaign and because of James Comey's attempting to act politically and screwing it up royally.

In short, Harris just has to campaign on a message to continue the path that has dug the U.S. out of the hole Trump put us in, the path that has made our economy the envy of the world, and promise to protect reproductive rights. And then show energy. She will out hustle Trump and can campaign everywhere. Her historic candidacy will be inspiring and create a lot of excitement.

You think her hypothetical VP pick matters (I think it does)? If yes, who’s your prediction?

I expect that the VP choice will be a White male former or current governor. I don't think it matters which one.

Generic white male governor as VP didn’t work out for Hilary. I am on board with other posters who want a daring, exciting VP pick.

To have a chance, Kamala needs a blockbuster VP. Like:

- Adam Kinzinger
- Michelle Obama
- Jon Stewart
- Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock)
- Jonny Kim (JD Vance has a decent origin story, but Jonny’s blows it to smithereens)

I think Pete Buttigeig is the most likely VP candidate in this scenario, and I think that will be strong.

Pete would make Vance run crying to his mama during a VP debate.

Yes and he has centrist appeal. Even my Trumpy mother begrudgingly likes him.

Pete is a laughing stock known primarily for taking paternity leave in the middle of transportation debacles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pritzker makes the most sense.

Midwest, a governor, and an actually wealthy person vs a fake billionaire and able to draw serious donors. Will make business feel good about the ticket.

And— I know I’m repeating myself— will shore up the donor base.

But my favorite ladies only ticket is actually Kamala and Liz Cheney. If 2024 is going to be about putting country over party and country over self-interest…she’s the person to make that point.

If it’s country over party then the push should be for Biden to step down now and make Kamala president, not to have a person who can’t manage a coherent sentence to keep his office for several months.

[Anonymous]

Why can’t we just support Biden knowing that Harris will/can take over after he wins? This is the perfect set up unlike the Ruth incident.

[Anonymous]

Harris’ own party has not touted her in any meaningful way. You hear she gets an assignment and then never hear anything that she’s accomplished. Why? You’d think Ds would have been promoting her knowing that Biden is old and the WH job ages people prematurely. But Ds didn’t want to hear it. Go back through DCUM threads. If they start puffing her up too much now, it won’t be viewed credibly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are going to vote for Biden, are you honestly saying you know wouldn't vote Dem if, Kamala gets the nomination?
On the flip side, if you typically vote Democrat, but we're not going to vote Biden, will you vote for, Kamala?

If you are upset about the choices made in the Biden administration from the economy to the border, why would Kamala escape judgment for that? She was part of that as VP.

If you don’t like the direction the country has taken over the last four years, it makes sense to not vote for either, regardless of political party.

This election will be about the record of the administration not personalities. Only outsiders like Whitmer or Newsom would escape this issue.

[Anonymous]

I just want to say that today is the day to ask yourself/ am I truly an ally to women of color?

Are you going to push Kamala out of line for a white woman or a gay white man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pritzker makes the most sense.

Midwest, a governor, and an actually wealthy person vs a fake billionaire and able to draw serious donors. Will make business feel good about the ticket.

And— I know I’m repeating myself— will shore up the donor base.

But my favorite ladies only ticket is actually Kamala and Liz Cheney. If 2024 is going to be about putting country over party and country over self-interest…she’s the person to make that point.

Democrats need a wealthy candidate who appeals to big business? I thought democrats were sick of rich people and their wealthy buddies running the presidency?

[Anonymous]

Rut Ruh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pritzker makes the most sense.

Midwest, a governor, and an actually wealthy person vs a fake billionaire and able to draw serious donors. Will make business feel good about the ticket.

And— I know I’m repeating myself— will shore up the donor base.

But my favorite ladies only ticket is actually Kamala and Liz Cheney. If 2024 is going to be about putting country over party and country over self-interest…she’s the person to make that point.

Democrats need a wealthy candidate who appeals to big business? I thought democrats were sick of rich people and their wealthy buddies running the presidency?

There are actually quite a lot of businesses that prefer the stability and predictably of a Democratic ticket. Not every businessperson is Elon Musk for which, I’m sure, Mars thanks us.

I don’t know that he needs to be wealthy, but having a real billionaire to contrast a fake one, who can even self fund, is a feature not a bug IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pritzker makes the most sense.

Midwest, a governor, and an actually wealthy person vs a fake billionaire and able to draw serious donors. Will make business feel good about the ticket.

And— I know I’m repeating myself— will shore up the donor base.

But my favorite ladies only ticket is actually Kamala and Liz Cheney. If 2024 is going to be about putting country over party and country over self-interest…she’s the person to make that point.

If it’s country over party then the push should be for Biden to step down now and make Kamala president, not to have a person who can’t manage a coherent sentence to keep his office for several months.

I think country over party works if he doesn’t run again, and allows him to do what I think worked in 2020– draw a bright line between himself and Donald Trump, who is so clearly only in this for himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pritzker makes the most sense.

Midwest, a governor, and an actually wealthy person vs a fake billionaire and able to draw serious donors. Will make business feel good about the ticket.

And— I know I’m repeating myself— will shore up the donor base.

But my favorite ladies only ticket is actually Kamala and Liz Cheney. If 2024 is going to be about putting country over party and country over self-interest…she’s the person to make that point.

Democrats need a wealthy candidate who appeals to big business? I thought democrats were sick of rich people and their wealthy buddies running the presidency?

There are actually quite a lot of businesses that prefer the stability and predictably of a Democratic ticket. Not every businessperson is Elon Musk for which, I’m sure, Mars thanks us.

I don’t know that he needs to be wealthy, but having a real billionaire to contrast a fake one, who can even self fund, is a feature not a bug IMO.