She has the same negatives as Biden wrt inflation and the border; minus her age; plus her gender/race/color. And her record as California AG and Senator were nothing to brag about. It’s the bolded part that makes her a remotely plausible alternative.
Not sure if it was mentioned already, but even if Biden were to be replaced now, have some states already gone past the registration deadline for a new candidate to be on the ballot?
I would love for it to be Jeff Jackson but he doesn’t have the recognition needed for a national run of any kind. He doesn’t have the experience either. But thinking about him debating Trump is funny to imagine.
How is that even possible? There isn’t an official nominee until the convention.
You’d think this would be easily-found information. Granted it’s fifty different answers, but what I’m finding is about primaries, or about write-in candidates.
The jist seems to be that there aren’t deadlines for a major-party candidate, for the general election, in any state that occur before each party’s convention.
ETA: what Loach said makes obvious sense.
I wonder how many posters concerned with name recognition had heard of Barack Obama before he ran for president?
He had at least as much name recognition by summer 2004 as AOC or John Fetterman have today.
As many have said, skipping over Kamala Harris would cause problems. At the same time, her chances against Trump (at least as far as we can tell from the polling mentioned by Tfletch1) are not encouraging. The Newsweek article, dated 28 June 2024, has:
Arguably this isn’t her fault. But we can’t count on a majority of voters doing the research to learn that it’s not her fault.
Ideally, Harris would volunteer to remain VP and give a convincing reason for that. I’m not saying that this is likely, but it would be ideal. Then bring in someone else in the top spot.
Let’s say, though, that Harris would not be willing to stay VP–that she wasn’t convinced that this would be the only way to defeat Trump.
In that situation, you need a new VP who will really capture the voting public’s attention. And it should be a white male, because…there are too many Dems who say they’d vote for a woman, but really don’t want to. You need someone, er, manly enough to overcome this reluctance.
I nominate Mark Cuban. He’s got name recognition. He’s demonstrated an interest in politics, and is basically centrist (another requirement if we want to beat Trump).
And most of all: he’s ACTUALLY a successful businessman.
He’d be a tremendously effective advocate against Donald.
The previously-linked Newsweek article:
Untrue – there was a dustup earlier this year due to an Ohio law that would have required Democrats to certify Biden as their nominee by a date prior to the Democratic National Convention (wasn’t an issue for the GOP because the RNC is earlier). Previously the state had always waived the requirement for both parties, but the Republican Secretary of State announced he was going to be a hard ass about it. It took a special session of the legislature to fix it.
I put little stock into hypothetical polls done previously “what if it was the Long Ranger vs Trump.” That doesn’t approximate what a voter in the booth will do.
Kamala isn’t my #1. But she has national name recognition, has been working the donor base, can access all the Biden/Harris funding. She’s 59, and a woman that can be personal and already shown to be hardcore on abortion rights, and the Supreme take over of the US. And can flip the whole age thing from a perceived Republican advantage to a complete liability.
Honestly, while she has national name recognition and some baggage, a Madison ave marketing spin over the next 5 months doesn’t seem a stretch.
And Kamala can get under The Donalds skin. Bait him incessantly into a debate, where ex fed prosecutor would fact check and eviscerate him. Or just call him a pussy for refusing to debate a black/Indian woman.
The key is to coalesce around Kamala, and hit the message of abortion, supremes, and a senile dictator.
Kevin Drum:
. It’s hard to overstate just how long and how intensely Fox News and others have been demonizing her. By now even moderate Republicans are fully convinced that Harris is dangerously incompetent, ultra-liberal, and scary. Most of them are petrified at the prospect of her becoming president.
Michelle Obama OTOH constantly receives backhanded praise by Fox News, because they know she won’t run and it insulates them (and by extension their viewers) from the miasma of racism surrounding their commentary. Michelle Obama has a professional background and of course exposure to the pressure cooker that is the White House, but has never held elective office or led more than a handful workers. There’s no clear reason to support her, other than to signal that of course your views aren’t racially charged.
Am I missing anything?
It’s long been a right wing conspiracy theory that the democrats would do a bait and switch and somehow get Michelle in the White House. Because her husband is actually still running things of course.
…I think it goes without saying how bad things are when out of millions of people, there is literally nobody out there that is a stand-out obvious choice.
If we were to go with protocol, I’d go with Harris. But I don’t think she would win. For the best chance of winning? I’d go with Newson. He’s exactly the type of bland centrist that the Democrat machine could get behind. But even then, I think the odds would still favour Trump. I’d want a progressive candidate, but I can’t think of a single true progressive that wouldn’t probably lose in a landslide.
But I’d throw it back to the Americans here. If you were to focus just on the swing states, who would be the person with the most gravitas to win those over? Who could win Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?
In the 2017 NZ general election, the Labour Party was well behind in the polls, and seeing the writing on the wall, the then leader of the Labour Party stood down seven weeks before the election. Jacinda Ardern took over the leadership, turned the polls around and ended up winning the election. So its possible a new candidate could shake things up. But Ardern had a lot of buzz around her at the time. Are there any Ardern’s or Obama’s out there waiting in the wings? Actual inspiring candidates that could win the election on sheer presence alone? With no skeletons in the closet?
It has to be Kamala though, right? If it isn’t her, then you’re saying you’ve made a mistake picking her to be President if Joe wakes up dead one day.
No it isn’t. It would be saying: “Here’s someone that could beat Trump in an election. Unfortunately, we recognize how deeply racism and mysoginy run through this country.”
If we are to address the OP, we need to consider legal mechanics. For example, it’s pointless to consider candidates that, however popular, have no chance of receiving the nomination.
NYT: " Could Democrats Replace Biden at the Top of the Presidential Ticket? … The short answer is yes — assuming Mr. Biden decides on his own to step aside. But if Mr. Biden decides not to step aside, the short answer is probably no."
Mr. Biden has the power to leave the race and release all the pledged delegates he has accumulated — 3,894 of 3,937 committed so far, according to a tally by The Associated Press — during his march to the nomination. If he were to do so, those delegates would be free to vote for whomever they chose. That would lead to an open convention, a rarity in modern American politics.
The convention is on August 19th. Kamala Harris wouldn’t be a guaranteed winner. It would be up to Biden’s delegates. NYT:
In addition to Ms. Harris, there is Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan; Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania; Gov. Gavin Newsom of California; Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois; and Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky. Also worth mentioning are Pete Buttigieg, the secretary of transportation; Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.
If the US were a normal country, election season would be much shorter and party insiders would decide on whom their party’s candidate would be. But since 1972 Americans have become rather attached to the primary process. I don’t see how this games out.
There are lots of plausible and even charismatic candidates, except that they would all be tainted by the irregularity of dropping the candidate in July, then having the replacement decided upon in a smoke filled room. The US attachment to the primary system is very weird, but it’s still substantial. For one thing, anybody except Harris would seem to have come out of left field to some extent, given the usual interminable length of the US election season.
I’ve asserted that if Biden goes down, it’s Kamala or bust. But frankly I’m not 100% sure of that: I’m honestly not clear on the intensity of Kamala’s fan base.
No one thinks that a good veep pick is the same as picking the absolute best person for the job among the millions who meet the constitutional requirements. The latter is impossible.
Many voters, who now are a bit critical of her, would give Harris a fresh look, in event that Joe swallows his ambitions for the sake of his country. I think Harris-Shapiro would make a strong ticket. But all the plausible choices have strengths and weaknesses. If someone other than Kamala wins on the second or third convention ballot, I’m not going to get upset.
The process for picking Kamala Harris, or an alternative, without primaries, is one that has been used many times in American history. My answer to the thread question is, now, tonight, Harris, but I’m not afraid of the process that might result in another name. I think leading Democrats, now mentioned as possibilities, would be respectful to each other, and post in that spirit.
Many state have faithless elector laws that require the EVs to be cast for who won the state’s vote. Let’s say the election occurs and Biden wins some of those particular EVs. What happens if he says afterwards - but before January 6th, “I don’t want to be President. Cast them for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.” (she is eligible). You can’t treat it like EVs for someone who’s dead can you? And those states cannot change the laws after the election to deal with it.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that campaign-finance laws also mean that it would be hard to transfer Biden’s huge war chest to another candidate (except for maybe Kamala, who is on the same ticket as he.) It’s not like Biden could just give $400 million to Newsom or Pritzker and say, “Here, take this, I won’t be using it.”
I’m pretty clear on the intensity of those who would oppose her.
IO know this means nothing to anyone on here but as a data point: I will never vote for Biden and I cannot vote for Trump, but I would vote for Kamala in a heartbeat.