The poll, which was conducted from July 7 to July 9, found that 73 percent of Democratic voters “somewhat” or “strongly” approve of Harris as Biden’s replacement. In an earlier iteration of the same survey, conducted from July 3 to July 6, a 66 percent majority of Democrats approved of Harris as a replacement.

  • vga@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It would be amazing if Harris, a black woman, beat the shit out of Trump. But how probable is this? I thought Kamala Harris was universally disliked across the board?

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s less that she’s universally disliked and more that she’s not particularly liked. In her most prominent appearances in the past 4 years, she’s lacked charisma and not taken stances notable enough to distinguish her from the administration. She’s heavily disliked on the left-wing of the Democratic Party for being a DA who laughed about jailing people for drug crimes she herself had committed in the past (possession), and not particularly popular on the right-wing of the Democratic Party because they’re still racist, just LESS racist than Republicans.

      She may be the best choice to go with at this junction, but she wouldn’t be my first pick if the field was open. But the field isn’t open, so we make do with what we have.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        4 months ago

        I do very much like one thing about her. In a race where we need to be hitting Trump very hard on the campaign trail, a former prosecutor should be extremely well-practiced and good at that.

        But otherwise I agree.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          former prosecutor should be extremely well-practiced and good at that.

          Prosecutor vs. convicted felon. Who wins? Watch our brand new reality show!

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        And to that end, I think Newsom would be the safest choice for a pivot by far.

        • white
        • male
        • heterosexual
        • somewhat corporate friendly
        • a bit religious, but not too much
        • charismatic + GREAT public speaker

        Reasoning:

        • the first three are simply attributes that make it easier to min/max voter responsiveness in a country that still has a lot of prejudices
        • the fourth is so the mega donors don’t just dig in their heels
        • the fifth is so the religiouses don’t just dig in their heels
        • the sixth is generally a good attribute to have in a serious political contender

        We’re trying to stop the fascists from winning. Anything else is (unfortunately, but necessarily) secondary at this point. Pragmatic triage of the situation MUST be the mindset with which the party is evaluating their choices.

        Of course, the DNC is neither triaging the situation, nor being pragmatic about the candidate who can actually fucking win and stop the fascists, because from where I’m standing, it looks like Biden hasn’t done a great job at any point in his term of slapping down the Nationalist Christians + MAGA crowd (and friends).

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          nor being pragmatic about the candidate who can actually fucking win

          It’s been a long time, and I don’t remember the exact quote and the entire context, but I remember Trae Crowder (the “liberal redneck”) on Real Time just after donnie was selected by the EC and people were trying to do some kind of post mortem on just how the hell we ended up with donnie.

          And Trae Crowder says something like, “…or do you want to fucking WIN?” I remember Ana Marie Cox looking kind of put out by the comment, but IIRC, it was about pragmatism. I’m pretty sure exchanges like that went on, in various forms, all around the country during 2015-2016 and they are playing out again…

          If anyone has a link to that full exchange, or to a transcript of it, I sure would appreciate it, by the way.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you think about the Democratic parties base, two groups stand out. Lefties (like most people on Lemmy) and people of color, particularly black women. If you select Newsom over Harris you i.) deal an enormous insult to people of color, and ii.) don’t go nearly far enough left to satisfy Lefties. What part of the base would be enthusiastic about such a milquetoast replacement?

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            The part of the base that doesn’t want fascism (I.e. literally anyone who is sane) would be fine with a pragmatic choice.

            Don’t fight all battles all the time. In this situation, it would be a grave strategic mistake to try to tick all the boxes in the face of an imminent fascist threat. Pick the guy who’s not going to offend (regressive-minded) people in flyover states, in the interest of, you know, not letting the fascists win.

            I’m not saying those goals aren’t important. I am saying that those goals need to take a backseat for the moment to the goal of “let’s not elect the First American Reichschancellor in November”.

  • Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, as an anarchist I’m particularly unenthused by “Top Cop” Kamala. I’m also concerned that people haven’t learned the lesson that Americans are extremely fucking racist and misogynistic. I’ll sadly be “voting blue, no matter who” but when the DNC runs these deeply uninspiring candidates, they can’t be surprised at how the low turnout costs them.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    Biden can only use his quarter billion in campaign funds for his running mate Kamala. So the only choice is a Biden*/Harris ticket in November. And realistically no matter who anyone would prefer, you’re not going to sell a new candidate before November.

    We’ve all in this mess, so now it’s time to grab the Go Joe, and clean it up.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is simply untrue. He cannot give more than the maximum to another campaign, but he can give the balance to the DNC or a Super PAC to elect a new nominee.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think the funds that the primary campaign got do actually go to Harris first. The DNC, PACs, and SPACs should be able to transfer like you said though.

        Disclaimer: I’m not sure any of this shit is actually figured out. I doubt they thought about this situation when they wrote the FEC bill.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          My reading on the subject, which is far from authoritative obviously, was that Biden can direct the funds anywhere he wants, he has the final say on where they go. Either to Harris’s campaign, a Super PAC, or the DNC.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s the right sentiment phrased incorrectly. Harris can take over the campaign funds entirely, because it’s the same campaign. Nobody else can do that, so anyone else would have to start campaign fundraising from scratch as the DNC or a PAC they can’t coordinate with has all the money.

        Campaigns get a discount on ad spend and there’s a lot of perks with being able to send exactly the message you want to spend. It’s a notable advantage.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I understand what you’re saying, but at the end of the day the campaign is going to put out press releases for what they’re focusing on at that time. While they can’t coordinate, they can just read the press releases that are released to the public and do ad spends based on them.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    I seriously don’t give a fuck who it is, just give me someone who’s likely to get to 270. Will vote for any D, dead or alive, over any R, always.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      So it won’t matter if she replaces him, right? I mean, if it doesn’t matter who the candidate is with polling, then changing the candidate shouldn’t matter, right? Like, why are we keeping Biden if it doesn’t matter who the candidate is? Theoretically, if it doesn’t make a difference who the nominee is, and it won’t change anything, then changing the nominee shouldn’t be a problem, right?

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It more has to with polls. If the electorate is more or less set, then the numbers game turns into a get out the vote campaign. There is no reason to think that the candidate will have an affect on that, unless of course if you’ve already voted for them once

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          If polling is static for all potential candidates, then what harm can come from changing them? Why fight so hard for a candidate that you know is going to lose, unless you want that candidate to lose? 🤨

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            First of all - more or less static

            Second ‐ it stops being who do you want as President, and who you’ll drag your ass to the polls for.

            Current polls don’t answer that

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        We aren’t “keeping” Biden, the primary process was when other people could run against him and we got to pick. Now that he has secured the nomination, only one person on Earth decides if Biden continues to run or not–Biden himself.

        Unless he gets impeached and removed from office or something, which is not very likely.

        Hell, he even gets immunity for all sorts of possible crimes now, thanks to the Supreme Court.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            No, all they can do is stop donating. They cannot hold a gun to his head and control his actions.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s why you’re seeing a struggle within the party. It’s over, it’s been over, Biden just hasn’t accepted it yet.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Maybe, I don’t know. I was just shooting down that standard DNC conspiracy theory nonsense. “Donors deciding” is just a step away from “Jews run the world”, with the George Soros conspiracy theories being the step in the middle.

                Common sense dictates that money does not grant you mind control powers, however, just sway.

                • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  This is an incredibly bad position. Saying that donors decide is nothing like saying “Jews run the world”. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it is a recognition that campaign funds are integral to a presidential election. If Biden can’t bring in money then his campaign will fold.

    • spaduf@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes but she’s capable of actually campaigning. Expectations have been clear since the debate. If he got right out there and started campaigning immediately, he’d probably be doing fine. It’s becoming clear however that he can’t.

  • Toastypickle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    Jesus christ. Can we just stop? Biden’s the nominee. Doesn’t matter who else you could get to run because they’d get crushed. Yes, it’s a terrible position the DNC has put us all in, but that’s just the way it is now.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        The problem is, you have one side whos worried their candidate might be too old and another who doesn’t even care if their candidate raped a child and tried to overthrow their government.

        However, for reasons no one can quite explain, only one of them is being called to drop out of the race.

        • spaduf@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          doesn’t even care if their candidate raped a child and tried to overthrow their government

          It’s right there. It’s because his voters don’t care. Calls to drop out from a faction Trump calls ‘the enemy of the people’, is a huge waste of time.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          However, for reasons no one can quite explain, only one of them is being called to drop out of the race.

          No one can explain? He got on a debate stage in front of the entire world and looked like a confused, doddering, and feeble old man. Any party would call for their candidate to step down after that.

          As for why Trump doesn’t get the same treatment, it’s because the Republicans are no longer a political party, but have become a cult of MAGA. Hell they have people holding signs that say real men wear diapers.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    I do wish everyone would stop pretending the Biden replacement would be anyone but Harris. Everyone being cagy about who the replacement is just hurts Democrats, because it gives false hope to people who want someone other than Harris and thus encourages those people to both push for Biden to leave the race while still not being happy with the end result.

    It will be Harris, if it’s anyone other than Biden. Period. Literally the only way Biden doesn’t endorse her as his successor is if he dies, and if he dies she will be the incumbent president.

    • MonkRome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That’s before even a day of campaigning with her at the top of the ticket, I don’t think those numbers are as bad as you think. Trump has been campaigning nonstop for nearly a decade. Unfortunately Harris is not exactly energizing, but I bet she can pick up 2-3 points just by being normal for 4 months.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s true. Although it’s just as possible she’ll say the wrong thing and lose points. Some voters on the left are quick to abandon a candidate.

        • Xanis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s not quite right. It isn’t that voters on the left are quick to abandon. They are fastest at disagreeing. Which, if not checked, will lead towards a desire to abandon.

          The one great weakness of the left is our inability to agree to disagree. We all want our right to be the right and will shoot ourselves in the foot to prove it.

          Post - Welcome: Irony.

          If we all swallowed our disdain and moved forward together, we’d easily outstrip any efforts from the Right to win anything.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        What’s switching to another low polling candidate going to do? I’m just suggesting they nominate someone that poll tests higher before repeatedly calling for him to step down.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          How many people know much about Whitmer or Newsom? I’ve had people on political subreddits tell me that Newsom is too liberal, when he’s always run as a pro-business, conservative Democrat.

          Polling is useless until they’re on a big stage and people know them. Biden is well known and has been trending down since April. Have Newsom as the nominee and come out swinging at Trump, now the he’s too old argument plays well. I just don’t know who is voting for Biden but not Newsom.

  • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    If they try to change Biden at this point, republican states will invalidate the Democrats for failing to have their nominee by the deadline.

    It doesn’t matter if it would be tossed out on legal challenge previously, the SCOTUS will invent a reason to uphold it. Trump wins.

    Biden is the candidate. Let him run. Make him win. He can step down and hand it off to Harris later if he needs to. But the process is too far along now to go with another.

  • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    Of course she is. What other choice do they have? DEI doesn’t leave them much of a choice. And Republicans know they’re running against her anyway because Bidens not going to make it another 4 years.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      DEI does not get voters electing you to a California Senate seat in 2016. Or, were those elections stolen in your opinion?