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

      I don’t think he’s capable of making up the difference.

      She has higher potential. But she could also do worse, which doesn’t really matter.

  • macarthur_park@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    NYTimes reporting the call wasn’t anything exciting.

    Vice President Kamala Harris tried to buck up the Democratic Party’s biggest donors on Friday, telling about 300 of them that there was little to worry about in President Biden’s campaign.

    Ms. Harris spoke to the group at a time of extraordinary turmoil among Democrats, with many hoping that she will replace Mr. Biden as the party’s nominee. But several listeners said they found the meeting overall to be of little value and even, at times, condescending, believing that the message ignored donors’ legitimate concerns about the Biden-led ticket.

    Ms. Harris, of course, is in a delicate position: She must demonstrate loyalty to her boss but also be prepared to jump immediately to the top of the Democratic ticket if Mr. Biden were to withdraw.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The NYT that has a personal vendetta against Biden for reasons that Biden stans can never articulate?

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s been kind of maddening, seeing the discourse about her electability go from zero to hero. US politics makes no sense outside of corporate and wealthy circles. She is way more electable than Biden.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I wouldn’t listen to any network or pundit that flip flops that noticeably

      Where are you seeing that kind of drastic shift?

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

    We should update our currency “enabling the worst of us”. We deserve what we get at this point.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?

        To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

        Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.

        How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?

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

        Its not, last time we did this Reagan won by a fucking landslide. I am very nervous but voting D.

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

          In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.

          If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?

              • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                What I mean is this is probably a bad idea. We did something similar and it was bad. But go for it. I’m voting D no matter who.