Kamala Harris, who launched her campaign for president, has long been a favorite of Hollywood donors.

Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.

The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.

“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.

  • Kroxx@lemm.ee
    260·
    2 months ago

    I don’t like Harris, mainly because of her time as a prosecutor. I’m also not going to lie, I was having a really really hard time grappling with voting for Biden, I was begrudgingly willing to before the debate but when I watched it I was so outraged. I genuinely feel like his administration has been deceitful with his condition for a while. I’m not saying I wasn’t going to vote for Biden, I understand the stakes, but I kept watching his interviews trying to get any genuine motivation for Biden. All I saw was a stubborn old man who refused to even acknowledge reality.

    I’ve been following Biden news and this week I was convinced that he would drop out and so I wondered who would replace him. Harris immediately came to mind. Now as I said I don’t care for Harris but before Biden announced this today I personally decided I would be willing to support Harris.

    She isn’t ancient, I believe she’s more progressive, and I think she will be good in the debates. She isn’t my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th pick, but I have far fewer hangups voting for Harris compared to Biden, and of course over Trump.

    She isn’t the best candidate in terms of absolute popularity, but when you factor in funding logistics and the fact that I think many good Dems picks would want to run in '28 when the timing isn’t fucked, I think Harris is the most realistic pick. I’ll happily take her compared to Biden.

    • elbucho@lemmy.worldEnglish
      180·
      2 months ago

      You know what? I felt the same way before today. But I’ve been thinking about it a lot since the announcement, and the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Harris is the best possible presidential candidate.

      Like you, I don’t think she’d make the best president. Hell, she wasn’t even in my top 10. I’d have vastly preferred someone like Hakeem Jeffries. But here’s the thing: the person best suited for the office of president isn’t necessarily the best person to run for president.

      Harris has all of the advantages Biden had: she can run on this administration’s record, since it was her administration too. Every positive talking point about the stuff that Biden’s done for the country can equally apply to Harris. Additionally, she gets his entire war chest, and with the president’s blessing today, she’s likely going to have 100% party support as well. To make matters even better, she doesn’t have any of the flaws he sported: she’s young, she’s sharp, she’s great in debates, and because she’s the antithesis of Biden in all of these respects, all of the criticisms pointed at Biden (which could also 100% be applied to Trump) will now all be applied to Trump and Trump alone.

      Lastly, I think that now is the most favorable moment in our country’s history for a non-white, non-male person to become president. She’s got the built-in support of everybody who dreads another Trump presidency. A significant number of people who would vote for Biden but not Harris due to sexism or racism will be rethinking that position when the opposition is Donald Trump. Also, something like 40% of people in the US just simply don’t vote. Biden would never appeal to those people, but a black / asian woman who has succeeded in a mostly male dominated field could be very inspirational to a large number of otherwise apathetic non-voters.

      I honestly think that Harris being endorsed for President is just an unalloyed good. I don’t see any realistic downsides, and an incredible number of upsides. It actually has me excited, which is a feeling I haven’t felt since 2008.

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        43·
        2 months ago

        Don’t forget that the fascists will push away moderates everywhere because they have no idea how racist and sexist they are, nor how to hide it, because it’s their entire platform.

      • HiddenLife@lemmy.world
        31·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know where all this “I don’t like Harris” stuff comes from. Considering the presidents we’ve had lately, hahaha… if she won, it would be amazing. I’m sure there are better people in the world, but they don’t even get close to the White House. We have to be realistic. She’s a great pick considering current political realities.

        • elbucho@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          2 months ago

          Oh for sure. Don’t get me wrong; she’s not my ideal president, but she’d still probably be in the top 5 presidents we’ve ever had. That’s not necessarily making a judgment about her without seeing her performance first, it’s more of a statement about how bad most US presidents are. Still, I have high hopes for a Harris presidency. I think she’ll do a great job. She’s just not my #1 draft pick.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 months ago

        Agreed with all that! But I have one caveat.

        the most favorable moment in our country’s history for a non-white, non-male person to become president

        Look, I cried tears of joy when Obama won. I mean that literally. But guess when the conservative hate machine got dialed to 11?

        Some will say it started earlier, but I disagree. Back then I occasionally listened to Limbaugh and Hannity on the radio while running errands at work. They actually had some sane takes now and again. Wasn’t very political, but I had my ear to the ground. The entire machine, especially Fox News, went so far off the rails in response to a black President, I simply couldn’t listen to any of them, not for a second.

        Conservative brains take time to assimilate new social conditions, gotta chip away at 'em. I’m already hearing the, “Fuck them!” replies, but that doesn’t change the fact that these people exist and vote. And they’re going to get more and more violent.

        Look at LGBT rights. We got them to begrudgingly accept gay marriage. Fresh off that victory, liberals asked for more and more acceptance. Too much, too fast, they went full-on berserk. Now I feel gay rights are perhaps worse than before.

        Scared to see what a double-whammy of a black woman does to their brains. I used to laugh about conservatives choking on their outrage, same with Christians. “Ha! Losing ain’t ya!” But now it isn’t so funny. They’re in a corner and lashing out. What next?

        • elbucho@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          2 months ago

          All, or at least the vast majority, of those people you’re talking about are already Trump voters. They’re going to continue backing Trump no matter who the Democratic party picks. They saw a black guy get elected president, and that radicalized them. They aren’t coming back. Pandering to the imaginary demographic of racists who will surely see the light if we elect the right candidate is simply a losing proposition.

          Will there be right wing violence in response to a Harris presidency? Of course there will be. Is there right wing violence now? Of course there is. I understand that you’re tired of hearing the “fuck them” replies, but seriously: fuck them. They are a cancer on this nation. Holding back on doing something good just because you’re afraid that the fucking awful people you share a country with will do something awful just means that you never make any progress.

        • ImADifferentBirdEnglish
          6·
          2 months ago

          The thing is, they’ve already turned the hate machine up to 11. There’s not much farther they can go than here.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          Too much, too fast, they went full-on berserk.

          Raises a conundrum I struggle with:

          No one should have to wait for rights, true.

          yet

          Idiots vote, true.

          How should we act if we know fighting for certain rights means fascists have an easier time in elections?

          Should we…:

          A. Be publicly on the right side of history at risk of losing an election to the detriment of all.

          B. Be publicly on the wrong side of a human rights issue in order to win, then try to privately backchannel to make up for the sin.

          (Perhaps a false binary here, so ready to be corrected.)

          Idealist in me says fight at all costs, maybe it’ll work out. Pragmatist in me says “win the damn election & backchannel the heck out of your term.” Feel guilty either way.

          Edit: corrected word to “wrong” from “right”

      • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
        2·
        2 months ago

        I’m personally a little nervous about Harris–I remember the 2020 primary where her only notable accomplishments were accusing Biden of being racist over opposition to federal busing policies, and then flaming out shortly after and shuttering her campaign two months before the first caucus and polling single digits in California. Admittedly, she doesn’t have the same headwinds now that she had in 2020–she doesn’t have to differentiate herself from over a dozen other candidates and she won’t struggle to raise money–but she also made some unforced errors (e.g. coming out for total elimination of private insurance before revealing a plan that included private plans, or admitting her own policy on busing was essentially identical to Biden’s).

        Hopefully, she’ll run a much tighter campaign now since she’ll inherit Biden’s staff and can focus solely on attacking Trump, but I do have some concerns.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 months ago

          Polling single digits in California might actually be indicative of her having a better chance. The same reasons why she want the top choice in a deeply blue state may make her a stronger choice in more “on the fence” voters.

      • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.worldEnglish
        67·
        2 months ago

        The only way you’ll get a candidate that aligns with 100% of your personal beliefs, is if you run for office yourself

        That being said, I’d love a real leftwing candidate

        • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
          10·
          2 months ago

          And sometimes you have to run on or embrace the ideals of someone else just to get elected. Unfortunate.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          17·
          2 months ago

          Both candidates are right wing so it’s not really “BOtH sIdEs.” People on the left would like some representation for once.

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            13·
            2 months ago

            What policies have the right and left regularly agreed upon? What bills put forth have unanimous votes?

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                12·
                2 months ago

                Fighting universal healthcare. Refusing to revoke Citizens United. Refusing the Right to Repair.

                The Patriot Act. The Iraq War. Enabling The Genocide of Palestine. The continuous decline into corporatocracy.

                All bipartisan efforts.

                You shitlibs genuinely do not understand the conversation happening in front of you. We know you don’t, or you wouldn’t be a shitlib, you’d be a social democrat at worst.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  15·
                  2 months ago

                  Using the term sHiTliB renders you exempt from discourse. It’s like screaming that you’re unreachable and a huge waste of time

            • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
              11·
              2 months ago

              I think your conflating Right and Left with Republican and Democrat.
              They aren’t the same thing.

              Both parties have been pro-corporate oligopoly. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have been catering to the same class of big corporate donors. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have been pro-military-industrial-complex. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have been pro-Israli genocide. The Republicans, just more so.
              Both parties have shown a little movement toward economic populism. The Democrats, just more so.

              They might not vote together on many bills. Because it would look bad to their respective bases if they did.
              But they’ve both been pushing in similar directions on a number of topics for decades.

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        35·
        2 months ago

        Yes, that’s what rational people do, pick the less damaging choice.

        What the FUCK is wrong with you people who actively choose the more damaging choice for lulz?

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      14·
      2 months ago

      when you factor in funding logistics

      This is an incredibly important point. Unless rich donors said they’d fully make up the current campaign war chest for the new candidate, there would be a significant funding issue. Being able to use the existing funds is extremely important.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      14·
      2 months ago

      It’s attitudes exactly like this why American Democrats are center right, and why we have had almost zero meaningful legislation to help the normal people for 40 years.

      If your family survives this coming shitshow of a fasist coup, I hope you beg their forgiveness and tell them your small part in helping start it.

      • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
        45·
        2 months ago

        As a normal person, I’ve been helped by legislation both by Biden and Obama. Just because it’s not perfect doesn’t mean it’s not good.

        • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
          11·
          2 months ago

          SCOTUS, Congress, and POTUS have all, regardless of party have catered to corporate interest over the citizenry an OVERWHELMING amount my entire life, and I remember life before the internet.

          Sure we get a few crumbs, cars for clunkers, a crippled ACA, a constant ‘will they, won’t they’ over college loans.

          Meanwhile Citizens United gave corporations near unlimited influence, the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the housing collapse in 2008 and the banks were bailed out. Even recently in COVID those most benefitted were the corporations and ultra wealthy who netted a 1.3 FUCKINGTRILLION dollar payday with almost no oversight or pressure to pay back, and we are STILL seeing fraud cases from that show up.

          So was your little 3k ‘gift’ that was meant for relief during A FUCKING PANDEMIC in any way commesurate with the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS the owner class (who was at no financial risk at any time) got to keep?

          Do you feel all these little crumbs of social support they have doled out in meager and begrudging ways makes up for the fact that no matter what their party, NEARLY EVERY MEMBER of our top seats in government are more concerned about the interests of the wealthy than they are in normal people?

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        25·
        2 months ago

        why we have had almost zero meaningful legislation to help the normal people for 40 years.

        The Affordable Care Act is why I was able to take a year off work to focus on my mental health after the pandemic crushed it. The Inflation Reduction Act is helping keep the renewable energy company I work for afloat and offering an optimistic future.

        No one expects to end up on government assistance or using FMLA to take a few months off for an illness. We support it on the left because we know it’s the fucking right thing to do.

        It’s all good and fine to criticize programs as useless theoretically when you don’t rely on them. But when you’ve actually experienced them and needed them, your perspective changes heavily.

        Democrats have gotten good shit done for the average person, and I’ve personally benefited from it when I really needed it.

      • Kroxx@lemm.ee
        16·
        2 months ago

        So the DNC gets to make this decision not me. This is a last minute situation that hasn’t happened since the 60s, every ounce of divisiveness will only embolden the “facist coup”. The time is up, whoever they pick we’ve got to unite behind and hopefully rally voters to the booths. Honestly the presidency needs to be D so it can’t veto/ can veto, the VP can tie break, and executive orders. She will hopefully be a beacon to encourage voters to get more D in the senate and house. The house/senate flips and your meaningful legislation point becomes moot. Lastly I have no clue what you are saying in the 2nd paragraph, somehow voting for Harris makes a facist coup? No clue what middle steps are included to achieve that outcome but you must know something I don’t. Regardless I have no worries about my family but I appreciate the concern!

    • callouscomic@lemm.eeEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      She wasn’t anyone’s top 4 even in 2020. Between what they did before Super Tuesday then, and now this, this isn’t democracy. This is DNC controlling what happens to prevent something like Bernie. People aren’t getting choice and primaries are pointless.

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        8·
        2 months ago

        People could have voted for someone other than Biden in the primaries. That was always an option. Just because the incumbent was running again didn’t mean the voters HAD to vote for him.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          Quick poll

          Please up vote if you had a chance (I did, that’s 1)

          Please down vote if you didn’t get a chance to vote for someone else in the primary

          • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
            3·
            2 months ago

            Voted for Marianne Williamson who had already withdrawn because A) she was the only other choice on the ballot and B) She is actually great in interviews. Dont agree with some of her conclusions but you can tell she is studied on political theory…

            Dont think that really counts. The primary was yet another illusion of choice by the DNC who has proven they will make backdoor moves to nominate whoever they want since the days of Debbie Wasserman shultz and hillary

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            3·
            2 months ago

            I will never understand why we don’t just force Super Tuesday on all 50 states. My dipshit of a state is the week after and I hate it

            • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              2 months ago

              I really think it’s there’s a few lobbies that keeps our election cycles so goddamn long. They need the horserace and the controversy for as long as possible to get ratings. News organizations, election consultants, advertisers, etc.

              France had two elections within weeks of each other. Britain called a snap election and got it done in under two months. These things can be done quickly and efficiently, but nobody wants to run afoul of two groups required to get re-elected, so they keep us slogging through the mudslinging.

            • xapr@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              From my understanding, the reason for this is to give candidates with less funds and less name recognition an opportunity to bubble up. Imagine that if the primary consisted of all states at the same time, candidates would need to campaign nationally, or only in the most populous states, either of which would cost tons of money. This would make it so that only candidates already starting off with massive campaign funds would have any chance.

              One possible alternative approach would be to start with the smallest states (either by population or by area), one at a time, and ramp up to multiple largest states at the end of the primary cycle. This would give candidates a viable way to ramp up their campaign funds and name recognition. The only problem with this approach would be that the smallest states tend to be very white, so perhaps some adjustments would need to be made to make it more representative of the demographics of the country as a whole from the beginning.

          • limelight79@lemm.ee
            2·
            2 months ago

            I didn’t, but I’m registered independent, so I don’t vote in the party primaries in my state.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        This is DNC controlling what happens to prevent something like Bernie.

        I’ve gradually come around to “they’d rather see Trump than someone like Bernie” despite snorting at it the first few times I heard it suggested.

        Bernie is too old now honestly. I’d vote for him, but I don’t think he’d win. At least where he is he can push for what’s right.

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 months ago

      She has also gotten close to $100M in funding just in the last 24 hours. From small donators.

      That’s a record of some sort

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      I believe she’s more progressive

      Convince me brother. I think we just sentenced ourselves to 8 years of “we’ll still move to the right, just more slowly than Trump.” Yes I’m going to vote for her, but would have loved for someone actually progressive to have a chance prior to 2032. If you run the calculus differently, tell me how.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        She’s Pro-Weed legalization, Pro-Medicare for All, and Pro-PRO Act. By all measures, she’s significantly more left wing than Obama, so I don’t exactly know how she could be “moving us to the right” at all.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Because sometimes people change their views because of personal growth and other times they say they have changed them for political expediency, which is the viewpoint considered by the article I linked. You are aware she was a prosecutor who made a career out of locking people up, right?

          Edit: Not in the branch of discussion I thought we were, I had not linked the article here. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/kamala-cop-record/596758/

          Edit 2: The most relevant bit:

          I can forgive a politician a vote on a crime bill that looks ill-conceived two decades later, or a too-slow evolution toward marijuana legalization, or even a principled belief in the death penalty, something I adamantly oppose. I find it far harder to forgive fighting to keep a man in jail in the face of strong evidence of innocence, running a team of prosecutors that withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys, and utterly failing as the state’s top prosecutor to rein in glaringly corrupt district attorneys and law enforcement.

          At best, Harris displayed a pattern of striking ignorance about scandalous misconduct in hierarchies that she oversaw. And she is now asking the public to place her atop a bigger, more complicated, more powerful hierarchy, where abuses and unaccountable officials would do even more to subvert liberty and justice for all.

      • qqq@programming.dev
        27·
        2 months ago

        Going to be interesting to see fox news shift gears into full-time demonization of her.

        • petrol_sniff_king
          22·
          2 months ago

          I’m sure they’ll find their footing eventually, but so far it’s been pretty piss poor. Aimless. I think it legit never occurred to them this could happen.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            24·
            2 months ago

            They were always piss poor about Obama, because there wasn’t any ammunition to work with

            The biggest grievance about her has been that she was overly hard on criminals, and that would backfire on them if they echoed that sentiment to the right wing base. It can piss off leftists though, so astroturfing leftist Internet folks while trying to not say it too loud so people on the right won’t hear it seems to be the game.

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              13·
              2 months ago

              It does seem like the concern trolls have very quickly moved on from repeating that Biden is too old ad nauseum to Harris convicted too many criminals.

              I think the best thing anyone can do in this day and age is educate themselves on trolling/astroturfing tactics. Once you do they stand out and it makes their goal of dividing and astroturfing significantly more difficult. It also makes them waste their time if no one takes their bait, which is good for everyone.

          • elbucho@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            Which is hilarious, since Biden is old as fuck, and has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. You’d think they’d already have a contingency plan in place in case he kicked the bucket while in office with all of the hate talking points for Harris.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        15·
        2 months ago

        I wonder if the ‘Black’ part means less to the republican party than her being a pretty competent woman. I can see Harris pulling a LOT of single issue woman voters over the abortion rights issue. And that scares the republican party. It would kill the down ticket vote as well.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      26·
      2 months ago

      Party of law and order is running a convicted felon.

      Dems are running a DA.

      Wtaf?

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      21·
      2 months ago

      ooooh never thought about that. people dislike that she’s a prosecutor so i don’t know if she should use this at all but it’s still kinda awesome

      • joenforcer@midwest.social
        22·
        2 months ago

        The “soft on crime” line is completely broken, though. They can’t use it against her because the response is how she built a career around holding felons like Donald Trump accountable, and nothing else. There is zero comeback.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          14·
          2 months ago

          good point. funny how the “tough on crime” people are supporting a convicted felon. of course as with all of their issues it’s just code for bigotry.

          they don’t care about crime, they want to oppress black people.

          they don’t care about the sanctity of marriage or family, they want to oppress gay people.

          they don’t care about the welfare of babies, they want to oppress women.

          and as an obvious part of that of course they never cared about women’s safety in public places or women’s sports, they just want to oppress trans people.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          she built a career around holding felons like Donald Trump accountable

          I hope she gets a chance to say something like that to his face in a debate

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        19·
        2 months ago

        She already has, talked about she was a prosecutor who took down sex predators and scam colleges, both of which are Trump.

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    152·
    2 months ago

    Now we just need to get Trump to step down. Then we can have a less insane election.

    He really should. He has no business running.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      105·
      2 months ago

      Even if the assassin had finished the job, his cult would prop his corpse up and wait for him to come back to life.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 months ago

      Now we just need to get Trump to step down. Then we can have a less insane election.

      If that hands the GOP nomination to Vance, then Vance would completely destroy any of the Democrats who the Dem establishment could possibly let run. This was obvious on watching about a minute of Vance’s VP acceptance speech on the news. Dems should be careful what they ask for.

      • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
        24·
        2 months ago

        As an ohioian, I can assure you no one gives a shit about vance and he stands for nothing. He’s a Muppet who says what he’s told to say

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        2 months ago

        then Vance would completely destroy any of the Democrats who the Dem establishment could possibly let run.

        Well…

        In February, during an episode of Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Vance said that he cared more about the security of the US southern border than the Russian troop build-up near Ukraine. “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” Vance said.

        ““Indigenous Peoples’ Day” is a fake holiday created to sow division. Of course Joe Biden is the first president to pay it any attention.”

        “I am as pro life as anyone, and I want to save as many babies as possible. This is not about moral legitimacy but political reality.”

        “There are dozens of people who protested on J6 who haven’t even been charged with a crime yet are being mistreated in DC prisons. A friend suggested the below link if you’re able to support them.”

        Vance said that Trump should “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat” in the US government and “replace them with our people.” If the courts attempt to stop this, Vance says, Trump should simply ignore the law. “You stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it,” he declares. The President Jackson quote is likely apocryphal, but the history is real. Vance is referring to an 1832 case, Worcester v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US government needed to respect Native legal rights to land ownership. Jackson ignored the ruling, and continued a policy of allowing whites to take what belonged to Natives. The end result was the ethnic cleansing of about 60,000 Natives — an event we now call the Trail of Tears.

        Yeah, Democrats will sure have a tough time with him…

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          3·
          2 months ago

          Well, maybe you’re right, I had basically never heard of Vance until Trump picked him. But his acceptance speech was written to eat the Democrats’ lunch, since they weren’t willing to eat it themselves. And that stuff you quoted will delight Trump supporters, and maybe not bother too many Democrats.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        14·
        2 months ago

        Oh I thought he was a huge liability being absolutely full of baggage. Insane things he’s said, including that trump is America’s Hitler (mind you that’s only insane to cultists)

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      59·
      2 months ago

      The next debate should be hilarious. Someone with facts and speaking ability vs a windbag lie machine

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      She has less than 4 months and was completely invisible before. She is going to lose hard and this time we can really blame the Dems for betraying Biden this late in the race.

      • Xanis@lemmy.world
        29·
        2 months ago

        About 30 seconds ago I felt a little smarter not knowing you exist, yet in so few words you’ve made yourself pretty thoroughly known.

        Four months is plenty of time. Biden will be backing her. The DNC has voting wolves ready to kick their asses. Bernie and AOC both supported Biden and are wise enough to support Harris, and others will follow their example. Back to point #2, and to reaaaally highlight something obscenely important:

        They listened.

        Take that in for a meager second. Now ask yourself if we could get those prideful fucks to back down, and also get an old lifetime politician to step aside in a historical move, do you understand what we could potentially do if we complained half as hard as you do when so much shit isn’t on the line?

        Oh, and give us an alternative that matches three things:

        1. Not invisible
        2. Likely to have larger support
        3. Not old asf

        I think you’ll find 3 to be rather important for a LOT of people right now.

        • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
          8·
          2 months ago

          I’m saving this to use later, because it’s amazing, thank you, “About 30 seconds ago I felt a little smarter not knowing you exist”

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          I prolly agree with you, and you seem to have a good handle on the current political climate (thus an intelligent head on your shoulders), which is why I think it’s worth my time to suggest some introspection w/r/t your first sentence. Thanks for your consideration.

            • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              If only they had actual arguments instead of cute naivety. But hey, some americans just deserve project 2025.

              • Xanis@lemmy.world
                4·
                2 months ago

                I notice you never answered my question. You sure responded to others, which is your right. Go on, give us an alternative that match the necessary criteria I listed. Here, I’ll make it easy:

                1. Not invisible
                2. Likely to have larger support
                3. Not old asf
          • Xanis@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 months ago

            Before the Pandemic I would have agreed. However, because of people’s stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to facts, proof, and the science itself, people died. Many of them died through no fault of their own, or the fault of others, which is bad enough. However, many died because of those we gave too much leeway and understanding to. If being hopelessly polite and stretching my own patience to unimaginable lengths cause ANYONE to die, I may as well be a part of the cause of their death. Tolerance is no longer an option. Like it or not, there are lives at stake this time as well.

            I stood against the anti-vaccine and anti-mask fools. I am sure as hell going to stand against the people who in bad faith claim to be Democrats or left-leaning. Who claim to want what’s best. Who shout their claims that their way is the only way when it clearly leads us down a dark path. I will stand against them.

            Because it has to be done.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              The pandemic blew my mind as well.

              Is it more of our gut feel or is it an evidence-based position that kicking off a response with 10% ad hominem before getting into the meat begets better results than skipping the ad hom?

              • Xanis@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 months ago

                Depends on what you’re replying to, really. Though honestly, some people are so hard and radically set in certain beliefs that I use it to spark conversation. Because you know the types I’m targeting rarely respond to reason. The goal then is to get them to respond at all.

                I know the playbook, you menial mentally mangled badly reconstructed sentient regressive bipedal sticks in the mud. I shall use it against you all! >:(

              • petrol_sniff_king
                1·
                2 months ago

                Keep in mind while answering this question that your goal while arguing in front of an audience is to fend off ideas and not (necessarily) to convince the other person.

        • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Lol yeah what are Bernie and AOC supposed to do? Not support anyone and take on the backstabbers on their own? It is too late for any alternative. It was go with Biden who has a chance to win and beat Trump before or just giving Trump the win on the silver platter. Now I just hope Trump is so incompetent that there will be a next election or at least that he doesnt care about the rest of the world and only focusses on the US so at least we are safe. I hope the betraying Dems will realize their mistake and be deeply sorry for it.

            • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              I actually wasnt. I thought he was too old to run in the first place but always said its too late now to change.

          • Xanis@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 months ago

            I disagree. Biden slowly eroded his chance. Key moments were the beginning of his reelection campaign, the debate, and the failed assassination attempt on Trump. Because this election period is all about image, Biden hasn’t been able to keep up despite his intelligence and his strong and generally positive policies and record so far. In any other election year he’d be fine. At this moment he’s missed his chances to come back stronger than before. If his team and the DNC ran PR for a large corporation we’d be laughing them off of Twitter. They bumbled and through their combined negligence Trump has gained a stronger foothold with specifically the Right.

            I’ll explain a little more: When you are in a position of leadership there is a default level of trust you should strive to maintain, and trust is very difficult to gain back. So…

            1. Biden should have not sought reelection. However, because he did he should have come out and said that he believes he is best equipped to beat Trump. That if it became clear he wasn’t going to be able to that he would step aside for the best of this Nation and the people who put their trust in him. Boom. A leader who tells us straight and reinforces that he’s here for all of us.

            2. Not sought any debate. It was always lose-lose without a monumental performance. Trump looks like normal Trump and ANY fumble lowers Biden’s image. Had he had that showing 12 years ago people would have laughed it off and he’d recover and probably do okay. That isn’t this timeline. Rather than going Dark Brandon and really leaning into his strengths, injecting caffeine straight into his bloodstream, and take a couple weeks of back-to-back calls, speeches, and talkshows with hard questions where he doesn’t back down, he just…let it simmer. Recovery chance critically missed.

            3. The attempt on Trump’s life. This secured Biden in Trump’s shadow. Not because he lost any voters in particular, it likely didn’t shift the narrative and expectations. What happened is because Biden didn’t have a strong reelection foundation, despite great strides while in office, he allowed Trump to essentially camp out on his front lawn. Trump is a show man, which idiots mistake for charisma. Biden has moments of great leadership and a clarity which makes people want to follow him…at times. He lacks that spark which makes people want to follow consistently.

            This leaves us with three options:

            1. Keep Biden in and hope his name is enough to pull him back up, or something happens and all but guarantees a win.

            2. Find someone people want to follow and have them be in the constant spotlight for the next four months. I can think of maybe four people who have the charisma and political clout to make this work. None of them have volunteered.

            3. Nominate an individual who can make strong arguments against every position Trump takes and who will have historical significance if made President. This leads us to Harris. She is not particularly charismatic. Far as I’ve been able to tell, she CAN argue like a mofo. Charisma inspires confidence because it inspires hope, or at least grants the hopeless a direction. Lacking that doesn’t mean you can’t lead, it does mean you need to be stronger in other areas, and more importantly it means you only have to lead better than the other guy. This means Harris’s team needs a good writer for the moments where she needs to puff out her chest and square her shoulders, and also need to give her room to work her Prosecutor magic when needed.

            So far as my information goes, this is where we’re at. Dems need to play hard ball, which might be the most worrisome thing of it all.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        14·
        2 months ago

        Biden was going to lose. Do you really think they’d go through all this if that wasn’t the reality of the situation?

      • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        and was completely invisible before.

        Only if you haven’t been paying attention.

  • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
    50·
    2 months ago

    After the debate and especially after the botched assassination attempt, I felt despair and a hopeless sense of certainty that our comrades in the USA would have to endure a Trump presidency and all of us around the world would suffer the consequences.

    I’m genuinely optimistic now. I think Harris can win.

    People who complain about her not being a socialist or how electoralism won’t change the system are missing the point. Those are true things, but the alternative is a fascistic climate change denier with the Sons of Jacob as his cabinet.

    The Americans are standing at a crossroads between an increasingly fragile status quo and tyranny. As much as I hate the status quo, I’m glad that the odds are now smiling far less at tyranny.

      • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        Now who can argue with that? I think we’re all indebted to Gabby Johnson rambling lunatic for clearly stating what needed to be said. I’m particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

  • JCreazy@midwest.socialEnglish
    46·
    2 months ago

    Fuck it, I’ll vote for her if not for the mere fact that I would get a lot of entertainment seeing people complain how our president is a black woman.

  • Freefall@lemmy.world
    42·
    2 months ago

    Fine. Whatever. No go on the offensive HARD before the Regressives can recover from the change! GOGOGO

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      21·
      2 months ago

      Nope, gotta have a contrasting VP to spread the draw. Running AOC as VP would be like trump running Vance…just stupid. AOC is far more effective where she is anyway.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        2·
        2 months ago

        I very much am hoping that Gretchen Whitmer gets picked for VP. Trump picked Vance to draw in the Midwest votes, Gretch could easily kick him in the balls if picked

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 months ago

          As much as that would be a neat historic thing, and probably a good pairing, the Midwest can be as backwater as the South and would lean Fighter Pilot over Two Women, unfortunately. Can’t take risks chasing achievements when we need to play the game to win…and the harder trump fails, the better. I want him to see the entire country reject him in a landslide before he slips into the torment and constant fear of full blown dementia for the rest of his miserable days.

    • Drunemeton@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      Read in another thread, and haven’t looked it up yet mind you, but apparently AOC is 1 year too young.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        48·
        2 months ago

        AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

        People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          Huh, didn’t know her birthday offhand. So she’ll be 35 by Jan 20, 2025? And she of course is a natural born US citizen who has lived in the US for the requisite number of years.

          Normally POTUS candidates pick VPs that in their minds shore up their perceived weak spots among voters to make them overall more electable. So who do you think Harris would do worst with and why would AOC draw that demographic in?

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
            7·
            2 months ago

            AOC is an actual progressive. I don’t know very much about Harris, and I’m going to vote for her regardless, but I’m not a big fan of law enforcement in general. I’m reading through her Wikipedia page, which seems to be the only non biased source I can find that goes over her LEO career.

            AOC is outspoken about issues that I care about, she seems to actually want something better for the working class. It’s hard to feel that a former state prosecutor has the best interest of the working class in mind.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            4·
            2 months ago

            I could see two strategies.

            Some leftist people who are hard core ACAB, for those AOC may be so appealing that they don’t mind voting for a prosecutor.

            However if they want to moderate concerns of sexists and racists, they would want to run some milquetoast white guy. While the full on sexist/racist is a lost cause, there are people who are more unconsciously racist/sexist they might think to get the vote of.

            I’m guessing they see the latter as the biggest risk to mitigate.

            • yrmp@lemmy.world
              5·
              2 months ago

              A former prosecutor selecting AOC also suggests a semblance of growth on the part of the prosecutor.

              Yes, she put away a lot of people on drug crimes and I’m sure other BS. The conservatives are already circulating memes with a collage of black faces she put in prison. As if they give a fuck about black people in any capacity outside of when it’s politically expedient. They’ll be in the camps with the rest of us if Trump wins.

              Someone like AOC diffuses some of the Israel and ACAB criticism. Or it could be turned to say AOC is a sellout, which I think is a hard argument to make. No one saying that should really be taken seriously given her record.

              In this political climate of violence, it’s basically also a giant “fuck you” to the right. You’ll get this centrist woman, or you’ll get this left leaning woman. It hints where a Kamala Harris admin is wanting to take the country in the future and could also serve to finally motivate the youth vote.

              AOC seems to understand realpolitik better than the many on the left, and I think she’ll eventually save us all. I know she probably won’t be on the ticket, but manifestation is a thing right?

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                3·
                2 months ago

                I will keep my overall prediction, that they don’t think they are at risk of losing the further left voter base, that they are more concerned about the more “up for grabs” voters that might vote either way. I think milquetoast straight white guy is the order of the day when they have a woman person of color running as the other half of the ticket.

                It’s not necessarily how it should be, but the strategy they will presumably use to address the reality of the electorate.

                • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  I mean, that is essentially how Biden ended up as VP.

                  And aside from the racial angle how Pence ended up as VP - a milquetoast, boring standard politician type to counterbalance Trump’s lunacy, someone hypothetically to be the adult in the room.

            • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
              2·
              2 months ago

              Yeah but I doubt subconsciously sexist/racist people would be willing to vote for Trump… They’re stuck with whomever the DNC runs

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            4·
            2 months ago

            Besides the obvious magas and Republicans, who would never vote blue anyway, Kamala will be weakest with progressive young people. And I know people like to say there’s no use going after those people (now half the voting population!) because they don’t vote, but they actually DO vote when you give them someone worth voting for. Their numbers are also growing, while the centrist boomer population is declining.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          3·
          2 months ago

          My problem is not that it is misinformation, my problem is that Republicans could use it to gum up the elections in the courts.

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            7·
            2 months ago

            The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

            It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

            Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              4·
              2 months ago

              Until this year, there was nothing remotely questionable about whether or not it was legal for a president to commit crimes. And people like you told me similar things about how the court would rule there too.

              • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                5·
                2 months ago

                I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

                I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

                If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

                Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled.

                  What world is this? Because it’s not Earth in the year 2024.

                  Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    30·
    2 months ago

    Didn’t like her in the primaries, still don’t like her now but honestly she’s the best shot Democrats have now. I’m just so pissed off that Democrats and Biden waited this long and now have to scramble like this.

    It’s absolutely infuriating at this level of incompetence.

  • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    2 months ago

    I’m pretty sure the DNC and it’s donors helped force this hand, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they field a different candidate.

    That being said, I’d actually like to see a non shill run who will actually fulfill his promises with legislation and not half ass executive orders that die after 5 seconds.

    They’ll never let Bernie in, but like cmon choose at least someone who can agree genocide is not good. Can’t believe we’re still scraping the bottom of the barrel for requirements here.

    • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
      27·
      2 months ago

      After all the shit they gave Biden about his age, do you think Bernie, who’s even older, would be a good idea?

      • Sarothazrom@lemmy.world
        16·
        2 months ago

        The American public isn’t yet ready for AOC in executive office, as great a she would be. Her time is yet to come.

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          3·
          2 months ago

          Yeah I don’t totally disagree there… This would be a great time to force it though… If it was someone like Romney rather than Trump then a lot of centrist Dem/Reps would probably shift to him, but with Trump, I don’t think they’ll do that, at least not enough to matter… They’ll take anyone other than Trump. So AOC doesn’t cost us all that many votes from the center (under these particular circumstances) but she WOULD bring in millions of young progressive votes that will probably just stay home or vote 3rd party if there’s no progressive for them to vote for.

          • Sarothazrom@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 months ago

            True, but there’s also a VERY loud dissent against her on the right, which they would be happy to run with in their ads up to the election. The right - and the sponsors behind them (Russia, chiefly) - ate experts at loudly dispersing disinformation with their rhetoric (see: anti-vaxers, everything about trump, etc), and having AOC in the spotlight would give them a lot of ammo in the form of ThE rAdIcAl LiBeRaLs “talking over the executive office” etc. I just don’t trust that the milquetoast voting public wouldn’t buy into that loud rhetoric enough to not siphon more votes than they would gain. Unless that’s too pessimistic of me?

            • retrospectology@lemmy.world
              5·
              2 months ago

              People need to stop reflexively posturing defensively.

              The right is a known quantity at this point. They aren’t growing their support by any significant margin. The reason they’re a threat is because Dems keep choosing candidates that don’t inspire turnout.

              AOC, were she to get maneuvered into a political position where she had some institutional support to a presidential shot, absolutely would drive turn out. I’d imagine in similar levels to Obama.

              People on the left need to stop worrying themselves with what the right thinks of how the Dem party is run or how the right would respond to a candidate. Flinching and hesitating because of what the right might think is how Dems lose elections.

              • Sarothazrom@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 months ago

                That’s a really good point. Perhaps I am thinking too defensively. If someone as progressively strong as her does run, it will give them the excuse to ramp up their attacks on her, but also ramp up our attacks on them.

            • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
              2·
              2 months ago

              Just to clarify I meant AOC as running mate to Kamala… In case that wasn’t clear. However, I think the more the magas run their bs the more the left will recognize whoever they’re attacking as legitimate. I don’t know why people worry what the right is going to say. They’re going to spread their crap anyway. The young progressive left is larger than the center left at this point… Give them someone worth showing up for and they will, and then it won’t matter what the Republicans do. Especially with Trump as the nominee… No one is moving blue to red while he’s running… Maybe fewer centrist reds will move to blue but the young progressives will far outnumber whatever reds decide Trump is better than Kamala/AOC

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          9·
          2 months ago

          No one who was going to vote for Biden is about to vote for Trump just because Kamala is a black woman… Stop worrying what the Republicans are going to think… They were going to think that about any “lib”, and it doesn’t matter because they were never going to vote for a Dem. The only people we need to worry about are the young progressives who still have no one to vote FOR and might stay home because of it… Throw AOC on the ticket and a lot of them will get excited enough to show up.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        8·
        2 months ago

        I think they’ll err on the side of appeasing people who are on some level uncomfortable with minorities and women and run some generic straight white man.

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          4·
          2 months ago

          Yep probably… But that’s the wrong move… Those people aren’t about to switch to Trump just because they’re uncomfortable with a black woman… Trump is just too much of a Trump you know? Like if it was Romney running as R… Then yeah, but Trump is different. The people who “always vote” are going to vote blue no matter who… It’s the young progressives that need to be swayed to vote at all. And there are significantly more young people who could be swayed to show up than there are centrists who might switch to Trump instead of a black woman.

        • XtallllEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          I know Biden is Free after January, and he has experience being vice president.

      • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        AOC would be a good VP or Speaker pick, but for president I think we’d need someone with more broad appeal.

        I think Mark Kelly or Newsom would be able to capture enough votes.

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          2·
          2 months ago

          Honestly I think a Newsom/AOC ticket would do even better than Kamala/AOC… Just have to have someone actually progressive on there to get the young progressive left excited enough to show up

    • Facebones@reddthat.com
      4·
      2 months ago

      I think Newsom could beat Trump. He has a track record of fighting for progressive (by dem standards anyway) shit and is used to telling Republicans to fuck off.

      • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Through a horrific series of events I watched him debate with Desantos on Fox News. I was fairly impressed with the job he did. I still have no idea why Desantos agreed to debate him lol.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        I doubt they can keep it private now that a black (Asian?) woman is running. Someone will say the quiet part out loud and on record.

    • numberfour002@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      Accidentally? Could be years or decades. “Accidentally”, it’s probably already happened multiple times, let’s be honest.

    • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
      58·
      2 months ago

      This is such a quintessential American question. Never in my life have I had to donate my hard earned money to a political candidate, it is such a strange concept to me.

      • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
        40·
        2 months ago

        Yeah I was reading the comments in another thread and multiple people were talking about donating money to the democrat candidate

        They’re giving money to politicians? Are they fucking insane?

        Another article I was reading was about how one of their politicians has managed a 700% markup on her investment portfolio in the last decade and nobody was actually calling for this woman to be fucking jailed for insider trading, it was just “Oh yep, they’re corrupt and that’s how it is”

        Then they want to donate money? 😂 Fuck me

        • SSJMarx@lemm.eeEnglish
          8·
          2 months ago

          It’s been so corrupt for so long that we all just accept it. If we were studying ourselves from the outside, we might conclude that bribery is an openly accepted aspect of the American political system, comparable to how it was in the Roman one.

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        It’s not like I’m dying to hand my money over to someone who’s probably a millionaire. But, you see, I really really really hate Trump.

    • VanillaBean@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      2 months ago

      Doubtful that anyone else could get as much steam as her at this point. And the endorsement from so many have already rolled in, including POTUS. Though she might have to go through the formal nomination process, it’s clear he’s passing the torch to her. They broke the record for donations this year today alone!

    • ashok36@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 months ago

      No. Based on the fundraising today, a preference cascade is occurring and she’ll have the entire party behind her by mid week.

      • ImADifferentBirdEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        It already seems like a done deal to me.

        I questioned the idea of Biden dropping out via press release on a Sunday afternoon, but so far it has proven to be a masterstroke. They took advantage of a lull in the news cycle to completely control the narrative and present a united front in place of all the infighting we had just a day before.