Several columnists have an idea on how to make President Joe Biden more electable in 2024: Drop Vice President Kamala Harris and pick a new running mate.

Yes, voters think Biden may be too old to serve another four years, according to recent polls, but three columnists believe that a stronger running mate will gain traction in the country or even in the party.

In a piece urging Biden not to run again, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius suggested as a backup plan that Biden could replace Harris with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass or Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.

Ignatius says voters are sensibly focusing on Harris because of Biden’s age, while noting that Harris is less popular than Biden, with a 39.5 percent approval rating, according to the polling website FiveThirtyEight.

“Biden could encourage a more open vice-presidential selection process that could produce a stronger running mate,” Ignatius writes.

Biden himself has committed to Harris as his running mate for 2024. He said last year, “She’s going to be my running mate, No. 1. And No. 2, I did put her in charge. I think she’s doing a good job.”

In a New York Magazine Intelligencer column, Eric Levitz floats several options to replace Harris including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.).

“To be sure, replacing Harris with another running mate is not a great option,” Levitz writes. “It’s just that Democrats have no good ones. It is risky to switch out the first Black and female vice-president for someone else. But it is also risky to saddle an 81-year-old nominee with an exceptionally unpopular running mate who — if all goes well — will be all but guaranteed the party’s nomination in 2028.”

This brings me to the matter of Biden’s vice-presidential choice. Kamala Harris, the current holder of the post, shares with Henry Wallace progressive values and a proclivity to verbal infelicities. There are no indications that she would be soft on Russia or otherwise swerve—as Donald Trump has—from mainstream American foreign-policy tenets. But neither are there indications that she has developed, over her three years in the White House, any strong, recognizable convictions on America’s role in the world, or how Washington should exercise global leadership. Equally importantly, she has struggled mightily to move the public on any aspect of policy, even those policies—such as civil rights and immigration—on which she has taken an active interest or prominent role. While Republicans, most notably Donald Trump, have leveled, and will continue to level, ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated charges against Harris, they will be amply justified in making her presence on the ticket a major campaign issue.
https://time.com/6589518/joe-biden-owes-the-country-new-vice-president/

Anonymous wrote:Kamala: "When I am president, it will be a day one priority to bring down prices."

Kamala has been Vice President for 1,301 days.

Prices are up 20.2% while real average weekly wages are down 3.9%.

If Kamala has a plan to bring down prices, why isn't she doing it right now?

Anonymous wrote:Dem playbook since 2020 is to hide their idiot candidates from debates, press conferences and interviews. If they put Kamala in any of these 3 situations it will be political malpractice and they know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Day 24 of Kamala dodging the media.
She is the sitting VP. She is being paid with tax payer money. And, she is not answering to the American people. And, apparently has no plans to.
She is scared. She is not capable of a coherent press conference or interview.

CNN: "Would it kill you guys to have a press conference?"

HARRIS SPOX: Kamala holds rallies so she can read from her teleprompter!

CNN: "A campaign rally is not a press conference."

HARRIS SPOX: "We're gonna be having a sit-down interview here before the end of the month."

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference this week?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference before the end of the month?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

The media she is "dodging" has been in the tank for Trump for years. They are owned by billionaires and corporate conglomerates. The fact the media didn't air her Phoenix speech but did air Trump's Bozeman speech later the same day is a tell. Why would she want to subject herself to such obvious bias. No one is complaining about this other than people who are in the tank for Trump. She is doing great managing her own campaign and her own message.

Hilarious.

Maybe the reason the media stopped airing her speeches is because it is actually the same 17 minute stump speech she has given at all of her rallies so far. Same words. Same gestures.....Why air something that has been seen over and over?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of us are old enough to remember Whitewater, Al Gore sighs, Dean screams, Iraq yellowcake, Kerry flip flops, more good news for John McCain, but her emails, and Biden is old. Meanwhile Trump lies about post-birth abortions and the press mostly just shrugs and ignores it.

There's good reason for Harris to brush off the media who mostly just want free content for their product.

If she is too scared to sit down with the media in the US, there is no way we can expect her to sit down with the leaders of adversarial nations.

This is disqualifying for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Day 24 of Kamala dodging the media.
She is the sitting VP. She is being paid with tax payer money. And, she is not answering to the American people. And, apparently has no plans to.
She is scared. She is not capable of a coherent press conference or interview.

CNN: "Would it kill you guys to have a press conference?"

HARRIS SPOX: Kamala holds rallies so she can read from her teleprompter!

CNN: "A campaign rally is not a press conference."

HARRIS SPOX: "We're gonna be having a sit-down interview here before the end of the month."

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference this week?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference before the end of the month?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

The media she is "dodging" has been in the tank for Trump for years. They are owned by billionaires and corporate conglomerates. The fact the media didn't air her Phoenix speech but did air Trump's Bozeman speech later the same day is a tell. Why would she want to subject herself to such obvious bias. No one is complaining about this other than people who are in the tank for Trump. She is doing great managing her own campaign and her own message.

Hilarious.

Maybe the reason the media stopped airing her speeches is because it is actually the same 17 minute stump speech she has given at all of her rallies so far. Same words. Same gestures.....Why air something that has been seen over and over?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Day 24 of Kamala dodging the media.
She is the sitting VP. She is being paid with tax payer money. And, she is not answering to the American people. And, apparently has no plans to.
She is scared. She is not capable of a coherent press conference or interview.

CNN: "Would it kill you guys to have a press conference?"

HARRIS SPOX: Kamala holds rallies so she can read from her teleprompter!

CNN: "A campaign rally is not a press conference."

HARRIS SPOX: "We're gonna be having a sit-down interview here before the end of the month."

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference this week?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference before the end of the month?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

The media she is "dodging" has been in the tank for Trump for years. They are owned by billionaires and corporate conglomerates. The fact the media didn't air her Phoenix speech but did air Trump's Bozeman speech later the same day is a tell. Why would she want to subject herself to such obvious bias. No one is complaining about this other than people who are in the tank for Trump. She is doing great managing her own campaign and her own message.

Hilarious.

Maybe the reason the media stopped airing her speeches is because it is actually the same 17 minute stump speech she has given at all of her rallies so far. Same words. Same gestures.....Why air something that has been seen over and over?

You say this like it's a bad thing. She's on message and not giving you concern trolls things to twist her words to use against her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Day 24 of Kamala dodging the media.
She is the sitting VP. She is being paid with tax payer money. And, she is not answering to the American people. And, apparently has no plans to.
She is scared. She is not capable of a coherent press conference or interview.

CNN: "Would it kill you guys to have a press conference?"

HARRIS SPOX: Kamala holds rallies so she can read from her teleprompter!

CNN: "A campaign rally is not a press conference."

HARRIS SPOX: "We're gonna be having a sit-down interview here before the end of the month."

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference this week?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference before the end of the month?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

The media she is "dodging" has been in the tank for Trump for years. They are owned by billionaires and corporate conglomerates. The fact the media didn't air her Phoenix speech but did air Trump's Bozeman speech later the same day is a tell. Why would she want to subject herself to such obvious bias. No one is complaining about this other than people who are in the tank for Trump. She is doing great managing her own campaign and her own message.

Hilarious.

Maybe the reason the media stopped airing her speeches is because it is actually the same 17 minute stump speech she has given at all of her rallies so far. Same words. Same gestures.....Why air something that has been seen over and over?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RINO

You know what? I am a RINO. I'm a Reagan Republican and I'm sick of what has happened to the GOP. So, I'm voting Harris/Walz because I want the GOP to come back to sanity and to get rid of the "basket of deplorables" and return to the reasonable Republicans. MAGA has consumed the party and forced the real Republicans out. The only way to get the MAGA out of control is for them to lose elections and to show that they no longer have the ability to win elections. We need real Republicans to defeat MAGA in primaries. We need to elect real Republicans and not elect MAGA. The only way for the MAGA republicans to lose control is if they lose elections and no longer have the ability to win general elections.

So, I will vote for real Republicans in primaries and general elections, but I will always show up to vote against a MAGA candidate. Country (and state/county/local) before Party. Party before Candidate. I vote to save the Republican Party from MAGA.

I always find this a bit ironic since Reagan was the one who originally coined the slogan “Make America Great Again,” and the dystopian novelist Octavia Butler knew it had staying power because the president of the dystopian America in her novel The Parable of the Sower re-used it as well. A highly recommended read.

So, to some of us, Trump is an expected and natural outgrowth of Reagan’s Republican Party, to the point where at least one person predicted the rise of a Reagan/Trump hybrid thirty years ago!

Maybe on advertising and slogans, but not in reality.

Reagan would never have created an umbrella for the extreme fringe groups of society and included them and given nods to their dysfunctional causes. Reagan would never have associated with the Q-anon sect who believe that the Clintons were the head of a Satanic ring of pedophiles, or committed and supported election fraud, or pandered to Christian fundamentalists who want to put women into indentured servitude as baby incubators, or pander to right-wing militant militia groups that want to bring down the federal government.

I will give you that Reagan was somewhat antisemitic and did effectively say there were good people on both sides of the issue (his visits to German cemetaries vs concentration camps and his comment about victims on both sides was quite similar to Trump's good people on both sides in Charlottesville). And he was a product of his generation and times on race issues.

But Despite being 40 earlier than Trump, he was far more enlightened than Trump. Trump is trying to set us back more than 60-70 years beyond even the standards of the Reagan era.

+1 Also Reagan was relentlessly positive about the country while Trump acts like it’s a dystopia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Day 24 of Kamala dodging the media.
She is the sitting VP. She is being paid with tax payer money. And, she is not answering to the American people. And, apparently has no plans to.
She is scared. She is not capable of a coherent press conference or interview.

CNN: "Would it kill you guys to have a press conference?"

HARRIS SPOX: Kamala holds rallies so she can read from her teleprompter!

CNN: "A campaign rally is not a press conference."

HARRIS SPOX: "We're gonna be having a sit-down interview here before the end of the month."

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference this week?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

CNN: "Can you commit to a press conference before the end of the month?"

HARRIS SPOX: No.

The media she is "dodging" has been in the tank for Trump for years. They are owned by billionaires and corporate conglomerates. The fact the media didn't air her Phoenix speech but did air Trump's Bozeman speech later the same day is a tell. Why would she want to subject herself to such obvious bias. No one is complaining about this other than people who are in the tank for Trump. She is doing great managing her own campaign and her own message.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats Kamala... well done ma'am!

1) Trump negotiated the pull out with the Taliban, bypassing US Allies in the Afghan government
2) Trump and Pompeo released 5,000 Taliban fighters, without anything in return.
3) Trump set the timeline for US removal before he left office.
4) Trump and Pompeo closed the State Department Special Visa office, thus leaving little capacity for our on-the-ground allies to gain access to the US legally.

The Biden pullout didn't happen in a vacuum. He inherited it with little control over the broad strokes, including that Trump had already pulled out most of our troops and little capacity to recover the equipment the person tweeting is complaining about.

Facts matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats Kamala... well done ma'am!

The same Taliban with whom Trump cut a deal?