It helps if your two choices for president aren't Father Time and the Orange Rage Demon.
Father Time and the Orange Rage Demon sounds like a great B-movie, though 😄
You dropped your p
make it a landslide
That's the only way that democracy is not in imminent danger.
If fascism is only beaten by the same tight margin that more sane and humane (but still neurotic and cruel) conservatism was for the second presidential election in a row, that means that the second largest party in the richest and most powerful country in the world being a fascist party has become the norm rather than just an unusually persistent aberration.
I hope she picks a good VP and not wet blanket like democratic establishment would want.
It appears she's looking at people who could swing a purple state, so that probably won't excite anyone hoping for a progressive ticket.
Almost as if you need to win before you can do anything at all.
Like it or not, the reality of the electoral college.
You can win in multiple different ways, not simply picking a purple state moderate. The whole reason there's a story about "more youth voters like Harris" is because more youth voters could help her win. And the youths notably live in every swing state.
The youth are not historically known for showing up to vote.
That's what the media says, but kids these days are showing up more than their parents were at their age.
Tim waltz seems like a good pick. Seems to have a bit of the Bernie, no-bullshit, authenticity that plays well with independents.
My preference is as follows:
-
Mark Kelly - Pros: Astronaut/Navy Combat Pilot; will pull veterans and people voting for novelty. He generally has moderate policies and won a national race in a battleground state. His Senate seat is safe because Gov. Hobbs (D) can appoint another Dem to fill it.
-
Pete Buttigieg - Also a veteran, oxford/rhodes scholar; one of the best debaters in D.C. Coming from a Cabinet position so does not risk any loss.
-
Whitmer - Contrary to some, I like the idea of doubling-down on women in this post-Roe, MeToo era. She brings a lot to the table, but she's no longer in the running as she (a) both publicly and privately declined, and (b) she like Shapiro would be better off carrying their respective battleground states without either state feeling like they've been abandoned.
-
Jon Stewart - He won't do it, but hear me out: Viral excitement; strong debater; cross-over appeal to veterans & first-responders thanks to his decades of helping them. The Zelenskyy of our nation. Counter lies and half-truths with satire and mockery.
I DON'T think Harris should pick Cooper, Beshear, Walz, or especially Newsom.
Mark Kelly was one of the people giving standing ovations and clapping away at Bibi's speech to Congress. That really made my stomach churn.
I like your list. I think Mark Kelly is the obvious best choice and I hope she lands on him. Novelty factor is strong, it would be foolish to underestimate the astronaut card. He balances the ticket well and might also help win Arizona.
Jon Stewart would be absolutely hilarious, though. If nothing else than for a potential VP debate with alleged couch fornicator Vance.
Damn I really want Jon Stewart to get into actual political office. He's probably the most trusted voice out of anyone for my generation.
Mark Kelly looks good on paper, but his pro genocide and lukewarm stance towards unions is a wet blanket. Do people find him genuine?
If you felt “meh” about doing the utmost to avoid Trump, you might just be an idiot,
Remember, if they're voting in their first election this year, there's a decent chance they were under ten before Trump emerged on the scene as a politician. They don't remember what it used to be like. They think this is normal.
Shit, you're absolutely right but I never thought about it that way.
Jesus, we've let these kids down. This is all they've known through their adolescence...
There will be an entire branch of psychology opened up for kids who were born between 2006-2021. War, climate change, Trump, COVID, more war, more war? On its own, the fact that they're not spending every waking hour in ceaseless screaming is worth writing a few papers on.
I mean...lots of kids have had to deal with worse...my main frustration is that we could have given them so much better with relative ease.
My grandparents were born in the 30s, growing up in the Great Depression (all but one, who had the awful luck to be born in the Philippines, and instead of the depression, got to experience brutal Japanese occupation). That's far worse than what American kids as a demographic are growing up with now, but that was entirely out of the hands of their parents to avoid.
I feel like for today's teens, it's not that bad, but it's bad because of selfishness and greed rather than huge national or global tragedy.
Fucking yikes. That's terrifying.
Good.
Shocker, few can relate to an octogenarian running for office.
It has nothing to do with his age. His brain is on vacation. Bernie Sanders is older than Biden, but if he were the nominee we'd see the same enthusiasm as we're seeing for Harris.
Am I the only one sad because a “serious” publication allows a headline with “meh” instead of apathetic?
It’s in quotes, so I think they made it clear they were quoting something the young people might say.
I don’t know if they’re right that the 18-35s use that word very often, but I think that’s what they’re going for.
You're not alone, there are hundreds of Lemmy users who hold equally vocal opinions over details irrelevant to the point.
If you're complaining about all the people who are now coming on board you should probably just stfu and get on board with the new nominee and face the facts that people calling for Biden to exit were right and you were wrong. That it did matter and it made a huge difference.
I honestly thought it was a bad idea to pivot to Harris but I was happily proven wrong. There's so much excitement and energy surrounding her. Like a breath of fresh air. Glad to see it.
They can “meh” all they want, no vote—no voice.
It's that smug attitude that got us Biden. Democrats win or lose by convincing the meh people that it's worth their time to go vote. If they don't go vote trump wins so they literally can't go meh all they want if Democrats wants to win.
They need to be more invested in their primary, mid-term, and local elections. That is the time for people to decide for better than "meh" choices. Too many people sit out of such a large part of the process. That said, I am also for throwing out first past the post too.
If they want to have a future, a lot more of them should get to feeling zero "meh" about voting for not donnie.
They just showed the party what to do in order to get them excited to vote.
The party listened to their concerns, and they fell in line instantly. All the party has to do to get voter enthusiasm is to listen to the voters.
You don't get enthusiasm by ignoring people's concerns. That's how you get apathy and resentment.
Kind of bothers me that her age and gender are such deciding factors for some. I think some of these people would have voted mtg if she ran.
The party demonstrated responsiveness to voters' concerns for the first time in decades.
I've been thinking about this story for almost a decade.
Right after the 2016 election, there was a panel with the creative teams behind US TV's biggest political dramas. Veep, Scandal, West Wing, House of Cards, and other shows. All the panelists agreed on one point; if they'd presented a fictional character who said they 'liked soldiers who didn't get captured' the networks and advertisers would have demanded that the character be shown to lose the election and be hated by all sides.
We can't pretend that voters will do the right thing
She should just pick Clooney as VP so we can be done with it already.
politics
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.
- 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.
- 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