336
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
336 points (83.9% liked)
politics
19082 readers
3677 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think most people are voting D or R at this point.
I don't think that those who are not voting that way are more likely to vote for a brown woman than an old white man.
I think Kamala is the only real option, as I don't think it is above board to transfer the campaign finances off to some other candidate, to get the word out etc.
Lastly, I think a last minute change (while would Ideally be my choice) would ultimately be challenged legally by the Republicans and it's ultimately go to the SCOTUS...
It is frustrating and sad but Biden might be our best bet... Unless there's finances available for any possible new candidacy. But again that switch will create legal challenges.
There's less barriers than you may think. For one the nominating convention hasn't happened yet. The only state that was a potential barrier was Ohio, and they made a change so the final candidate can be submitted after there too. If dems nominate someone else at their convention, that person should be able to be on all the ballots nationwide. The convention is where the candidate is actually picked, not the caucuses or primaries.
The money currently in the campaign itself could be transitioned into a PAC. And yes while technically PACS aren't supposed to coordinate with candidates, we all know that line barely even exists anymore. And some big donors are apparently already building up new funds to be given to a new candidate if that occurs.
I'm not certain a new candidate will guarantee a win, but I don't think a politician known for making gaffes for decades now is going to suddenly stop in their old age. And every single misstep will create another flurry of speculation about his cognition, and suck all the air out of the room for the rest of the race. I don't personally care, if Biden is elected and can't cut it anymore cognitively than Harris takes over and it's still miles better than Trump.
But I worry all of this will just drive down engagement and turn out and make things harder and harder until election day. And it's clearly been demonstrated no matter how horrific trump acts or what terrible policies he promises or how badly his policies will hurt his own supporters, they aren't budging no matter what. If a majority of democrats and that slim amount of independent and undecided voters want Biden out of the race based on all of this, I think the best chance to make sure they show up for the polls on election day and vote blue is that they're given what they want.
Right, the PAC thing then gets brought to the SCOTUS, and do we wanna risk that?
If George Clooney gets a few billionare buddies to chip in 50M a head to put someone to the front it could work financially, but then who are we even getting?
The situation is dire. I don't know that there's a clear solution. All I know is how I'll vote regardless.
I'm unclear why you think the PAC thing would go to scotus. That's a routine thing. Like who would be sueing exactly, for what reason, and with what standing?
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/s-happens-candidates-leftover-money-rcna57340
The money could be donated to a PAC or a political party, so it could also all be given to the DNC. It just can't be used for personal use. It could get a little thorny if someone besides Harris was picked though and Harris didn't want the money to go to help democrats for some reason, but that seems unlikely.
And yes I'm voting for whatever Democrat is on the ballet, I just want whatever gives the best chance of keeping Trump out and helping down ballot democrats in congress who will be needed for any chance of enacting any major changes.