1006
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Montagge@lemmy.zip 59 points 4 months ago
[-] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 106 points 4 months ago

Senator Mark Kelly, he can do this

He flipped AZ to blue

He is an astronaut, all American, former servicemen

He can get red votes and blue alike

[-] alienzx@feddit.nl 29 points 4 months ago

Isn't senator Kelly the one that created the mutant registration act?

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 23 points 4 months ago

Yea, but who cares about those sub-human mutants.

[-] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

Ok, he is probably the best name anybody has thrown out.

[-] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Hmm...not bad. Not amazing name recognition, but that could be remedied.

Having Gabby campaign for/with him, especially after the DJT assassination attempt, could be beneficial, too. (Or could look like a disgusting political plot, but that's really all our politics.)

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago

Damn that would be a great pick. I'd like to see AOC but Kelly probably has more broad appeal with all the things you mentioned.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Kelly or Mayor Pete seem like the best options.

Buttigieg and AOC ticket? That would be the youth candidacy. Kelly and Buttigieg or vice versa would be more centrist but probably be the most robust candidacy.

I hate to say it, but in this political climate and with the threat of Trump, the best shot is probably two young-ish white guys.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

This is…not a bad idea!

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 5 points 4 months ago

Actually that's not a bad idea at all

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I highly doubt Kamala will want to pull a sitting Democratic senator away from the 50/50 Senate given the elections coming up.

I think there is a greater chance that she picks one of the governors. My pick is J.B. Pritzker.

[-] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

That is true, I really was just spitballing, I’ll have to look into JB Pritzker, I’m regrettably unfamiliar with him

[-] Qkall@lemmy.ml 32 points 4 months ago

yeah... i don't think harris is the answer....

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 58 points 4 months ago

If Harris is in, she can use the money already donated. Otherwise they have to start from scratch.

So it's almost guaranteed Harris will be in. Who they pick for VP is the question.

[-] PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee 17 points 4 months ago

Can they still keep her as VP and put someone else on as prez?

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago

I find this so insane. People talk about who gets to keep the money, who has which rich asshole routing for them, which strategy has been successfull in the past, like always setting up the current president for reelection...

We need to focus on who has actually inspiring policies and ideas. We need to focus on these, because that is what the Reps lack. All they offer is "not the Dems" while the policies they propose are actually unpopular with many of their base. And the whole "Not Trump" strategy of Biden just fell apart.

Is there noone in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?

[-] Pandantic@midwest.social 4 points 4 months ago

Is there no one in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?

This is why I think Pete Buttigieg should throw his hat in if they do have a primary. He just had a Bill Maher interview that just went viral because he knows how to talk to the common people. I think his visions are inspiring, he’s done a lot of work for his department, and he isn’t afraid to walk across party lines and go on Republican shows to talk about the real problems. He’s smart enough to smash Trump in a debate, calling out all his lies, and even if Trump is too scared to debate him, he has no problem laying out Trump’s lies elsewhere coherently and cognitively.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, they don't. The Democratic Party can give the donated money to whoever is the candidate. Not sure where people are getting that.

Edit: After reading up, I am mistaken kind of. If Harris is still the VP candidate, the money could be used. Otherwise a PAC would have to be setup to funnel money to the candidate...maybe. Bloomberg was simply able to transfer his campaign funds directly to the DNC since it was part of his campaign money...even though the vast majority of it was his own money.

[-] mrlavallee@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

The money Biden has raised directly however can only go to the people that were on his ticket at the time the donation was made

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

That's correct, but nearly none of the money is the direct donation stuff - it's almost in PACs which are (due to a legal fiction) entirely independent of the candidate.

[-] mrlavallee@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

There are still more restrictions however on spending on other candidates and they would have to act like any other PAC, only helping via donating/running ads in support of (but importantly not directly by) any other candidate.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The $100 million warchest belongs to the Biden/Harris campaign, not the Democratic Party. They are separate organizations, and Biden/Harris only answers to Biden and Harris.

The DNC has its own funds of course, but nowhere near as much. And DNC funds are supposed to be shared with multiple Democrats, not just the one running for president.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 months ago

And notably even if Biden/Harris were supporting the alternative, they're an outside group. They can spend like a super PAC, but can't pay bills or do direct advertising.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago
[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

On the one hand: "you can't have her she's ours!". On the other, she's out in 26 regardless, and she's pretty good so maybe we can share with the rest of the country.

[-] Qkall@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

I just don't think she can beat big orange. I'm not saying she shouldn't .... but I don't know ... doubtful

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

He was a prosecutor for years, so she has plently of oratory chops, and shes 20 years younger than trump to boot.

Her only liability is the she is a she and there are plently of sexist fucks out there. Thats it.

[-] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

You forgot that she's a POC and there are also tons of racists fucks out there.

Even before getting to her actual credentials (some great, others really not), people will be assholes. I still have hope that she, as a former prosecutor, could mop the floor with the fascists.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 months ago

On the plus side, racist and sexist heavily overlap.

[-] Emperor@feddit.uk 7 points 4 months ago

July 11th poll:

Americans divide 46-47% between Biden and Trump if the election were today, almost identical to a 44-46% ABC/Ipsos poll result in April. Among registered voters (though there’s plenty of time to register) it’s an absolute tie, 46-46%.

Were Vice President Kamala Harris to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee, vote choices are 49-46%, Harris-Trump, among all adults (and 49-47% among registered voters). Harris’ 49% is slightly better than Biden’s 46%, although she doesn’t have a statistically significant lead over Trump.

Also possibly key:

Both candidates [Biden and Trump] face a high degree of scorn. About 4 in 10 Americans say neither has the mental sharpness or the physical health to serve effectively, and as many say neither is honest and trustworthy. Sixty percent say Trump is too old for a second term, also a new high, up from 44% in spring 2023. And in a sign of the nation's political polarization, 50% say that given his debate performance, Trump should step aside in favor of another nominee -- although, in contrast with Biden, very few of Trump's own supporters say so.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

You can expect Harris's numbers to drop given she's vulnerable to almost every criticism Biden was except age and the fact that the Trump campaign has already been preparing to attack her.

[-] Pandantic@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

And they’ve already made anti-Harris ads, which I heard on live CNN rn that they are already running them.

[-] Montagge@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 months ago

Half of America lost it's mind when Obama was elected, and we're still dealing with the fallout from that lovely dose of racism. There's no way Kamala could win in this country.

[-] Qkall@lemmy.ml 19 points 4 months ago

like all that aside, a lot of folks aren't appreciative of her background as a cop... but yeah that's a cherry to what you already mentioned

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 15 points 4 months ago

And a lot of swing voters will probably like that she was a prosecutor, a "law and order" type.

[-] ImADifferentBird 2 points 4 months ago

I think most of the "law and order" types might have a bigger problem with her being a black woman.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

She aint "black" as much as "brown." Its an incredibly stupid hair to split, but indians are generally considered a "model minority" by racists, so it will likely hurt her but not as much as you may think.

[-] ImADifferentBird 2 points 4 months ago

Isn't she half-black and half-Indian? Or am I mistaken on that?

Regardless, the flame out of Bobby Jindal shows what those folks think of Indians anyway.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, you're right. I honestly forgot she was half black.

I guess I hope the "moderate" racists do as well.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 18 points 4 months ago

Obama won. And then won again. Stop pumping up the reactionaries as some unstoppable force. They're a minority and have been on a long term losing streak.

[-] nao@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 months ago

still the other half was enough to elect him

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't particularly like her, then again I detest nearly all politicians. That being said, I'm more motivated to vote, that's for certain. I didn't mind Biden, but it felt like elder abuse lol. He's been better than anyone in my lifetime. Good God, I'd rather have her than Hilary as the first woman in the spot. Biden was just hard to watch and that position needs someone that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions in office. Will be curious to see who else puts their name in. 4 years ago he said he wouldn't run again and he seems to be keeping that promise too. If they were clever, they'd put Biden as VP or as an advisor.

[-] ImADifferentBird 5 points 4 months ago

She'll have to be. Anybody else would be starting from square one, and that's a luxury we don't have right now.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 13 points 4 months ago

Harris 2024 babyyyyy

[-] nl4real@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

This late in the game, it's almost certainly Harris. Probably picks a swing state governor like Whitmer or Shapiro.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

Or Mark Kelly. Regardless, it's probably going to be a white male from a swing state to appeal to as broad of an electorate as possible.

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
1006 points (100.0% liked)

News

23361 readers
2833 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS