527
AOC says many who want Joe Biden off ticket also want to remove Kamala
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
527 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
1813 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ugh. I agree that Kamala sucks, but I think it’d be a mistake to try to go with anyone else at this point. She has a pulse, a functional brain, lots of political experience, a long life ahead of her, and yeah, she’s made some terrible decisions and gaffs in her career, just like Joe Biden.
I don’t like that she was a cop, but Joe Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary committee for like 100 years, and got us Clarence Thomas, so…nobody has the moral high ground here.
We just need to win, and frankly I think if we try to go with someone new and untested, we’ll lose. We’ve been in a “lesser of two evils” situation for some time now.
There's weeks left to go 'til the convention, plenty of time to run an actual primary if the DNC wanted to.
Ideally, yeah, but think about the logistics of pulling something like that off. And would it be a full primary redo? Like fresh ballots sent out to all dems? Or do you mean a mini primary just with the existing delegates? Because we already voted in the Democratic primary election…
I’m just really trying to be pragmatic about this, I can’t imagine a scenario where we pull this off and come out stronger. I would love to be wrong.
Saying a month is "plenty" of time to plan and run any kind of election on a national level is so ridiculously out-of-touch I read it back like five times thinking maybe it was sarcastic. Off the top of my head there's booking polling places, securing & training staff, voting machines, ballots that need to make their way through the entire supply chain starting all the way back at pre-production. Mail in ballots alone usually go out like a month ahead of time to compensate for issues with the mail.
At this point in time, there's a higher probability of Superman flying around the world backwards to rewind time and correct the gunman's aim to actually hit Trump at that rally than there is of the Democrats being able to successfully pull off a second primary in a month. And that's not even to touch the "coming out stronger" piece of it, which again, no chance in hell that happens with the kind of chaos a second primary would cause.
People live in their fantasies, where national primary elections are just a cut and paste affair that takes two days to set up.
You know, they could be. But I agree right now they aren't.
Personally, I don't think it matters in this case. It's not like we had a robust primary from the Dems this time around.
The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken news cycle. England can call for snap elections and install a new government just 25 days later, and that's England.
Um OK but surely they already have policy, processes, and infrastructure in place to successfully execute it within that time frame. There's a big difference between being already set up for it and the Dems randomly deciding that they're going to run another primary next week.
I guess the USA just can't handle it. We must be pretty weak.
That sounds like the party's problem.
They should spend some of Biden's PAC money on it.
England is also a much, much smaller country in terms of both size and population.
They have less GPD per capita too, but still manage it.
Probly just the superdelegates choosing in secret, like they threaten too if they don’t like the public vote. If their going to only be Democratic when it’s convenient, they might as well as course correct. I am for replacing Biden, but if they are even talking about it now they best get a move on. Apathy is gaining ground every second they are not at the wheel.
Feeling free yet?
If we used Ranked choice voting, then we could simply switch to the next in line. That is, if the democrats would grace us with a primary.
Please sir, but a scrap of representative democracy.
If there is an actual primary, it will not be with actual voters, but amongst the named delegates (99% of whom are pledged to Biden and are obligated to vote for him of he is still in the race) and the superdelegates.
Look at what a practical idea this is
As with other things e.g. Bernie Sanders as the nominee, there actually is a sensible option here, which is running a contested convention… it is highly notable to me that a lot of the people offering such constructive criticism on this topic are so studiously avoiding those sensible strategies when they are trying to “help”
I dunno, there are actually quite a few sensible and practical ideas in this thread, your thread, btw. Your post has elicited a good discussion, why throw shade on the people earnestly participating? If you actually want a contested convention, this thread is nothing compared to some of the wild shit that would go down in that scenario.
Because redoing the primary is an absurd idea
And I am, probably to an excessive and embittered degree, made cynical by the amount of open propaganda in and out of the media which is attempting to put out bad ideas on purpose to hurt the Democrats and help the fascists
And you’re not wrong. A contested convention would be a massive shit show which might doom the Democrats in the election irrevocably. But it might also produce a nominee with some kind of mandate, which would be nice. It would also be feasible to do, whereas holding another primary election would not.
But only Harris can keep the funds accumulated for Biden's campaign, right? Wouldn't make much sense to go for another candidate I think...
Given the source of most campaign financing in the USA, I'd actually prefer a candidate who refuses to touch PAC money.
I'm not confident how this stuff works, because it's dumb as hell, but any PAC can do whatever they want, as long as they don't directly coordinate with the campaign. The Biden-Harris PAC can just use their money to support whoever the Democrats choose I believe. It doesn't have to be spent supporting either of them.
You're right and I wish they would, but I have near zero faith in their willingnes, ability, and coordination.
I don't think there time for an actual primary. I'd favor an open convention tbh.
If the party leadership goes with Kamala, we'd damned well better have a real primary in 2028.
Consider working towards passing electoral reform in your state so you can vote for something that is not evil, secure in the knowledge that your vote would still count for the lesser evil.
Yep, I really do not like Harris, but in this context she's the most realistic option and she's slightly better than Biden on basically everything. Otherwise it becomes a battle against right-wing establishment democrats, and we have no more time for that really. Getting Biden out is hard enough.