73

Jamal Simmons, a former communications director for Kamala Harris, made an unlikely suggestion on CNN's "State of the Union" about how the vice president might still have a chance of becoming president in 2024. Simmons proposed that Biden could resign the presidency in the next 30 days, which would make Harris the president of the United States. Simmons argued that this move would keep Harris from having to oversee "her own defeat" when the presidential election is certified in the Senate, and "it would dominate the news at a point where Democrats have to learn" to grab the public's attention. However, there is no evidence that Biden would consider leaving office before the end of his term. Others have joked about Biden clearing a potential path for Harris, such as a co-host of "Pod Save America" saying that Jimmy Carter, who has been in hospice care for over a year, had said he was hanging on to vote for Harris. Simmons said that this would be a moment "to change the entire perspective of how Democrats operate," but not everyone on the panel was convinced, with one saying Simmons was "writing the new season of 'House of Cards.'"

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] sumguyonline@lemmy.world 76 points 4 days ago

And for their next trick, after being destroyed in the election by a literal traitor to the republic, they are going to tell 70 odd million voters to sod off by forcing kamala into office before Jan next year so trump is 48, and all his hats he's about to sell are wrong. Petty. But I'm impressed someone even recommended being this petty.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago

Honestly, fucking with trump’s bottom line amuses me.

So yeah. Do it!

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

This would only get him more money, it wouldn’t affect him negatively.

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

Yup, just like they insist that he won 2020, they'll still call him 47 regardless

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 3 points 4 days ago

Nah, they'll all buy 48 hats, and Trump will be another few millions richer. This is such a stupid idea on so many levels.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago

What would have been ever better is he resigned when it became obvious he lost his fucking marbles.

Or if the DNC didn't orchestrate everyone dropping 24 hrs before Super Tuesday and endorsing Biden to trick America into thinking anyone wanted Biden's old ass to begin with.

The only things we should be hearing from Kamala, her team, or the DNC is them begging for forgiveness in their resignation letters.

These people are fucking clownshoes and in 4 years they'll be running the campaign of the only other option again.

It'll probably be Kamala again, just even more conservative

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

It's either gonna be Newsom or Liz Cheney. Maybe Buttigieg again.

Progressives, if they intend to stay with the party, need to find their candidate as soon as possible. ONE candidate. We saw what happened in 2020.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Bold of you to assume we get a chance to vote in 4 years.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

i read a post somewhere on here last wednesday suggesting the same thing.

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 45 points 4 days ago

Who gives a shit if she’s president for a month. What a psycho Stan.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago

Someone was joking that it would ruin all the 47 Trump merch they had been made. Would be funny

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

I mean, Biden dropping out already caused a fuss with people who bought the "Don't let the old man win" merch because it suddenly changed from an anti-Biden slogan to an anti-Trump slogan

[-] kobra@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago

Would just double their sales when everyone buys new ones.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 4 days ago

It's a funny thought, but what would it actually do?

Funnel more wealth to Trump when they just shell out more cash for another round of merch?

Or would they just roll with it and talk about how petty and impotent Dems are?

Not to mention he would start claims that she took office with intent to not leave it. It would look very conspicuous to his base.

[-] Darorad@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

I support this because it's very funny (in a pathetic way)

[-] vga@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

She might have the balls and lawyer know-how to abuse the legal protections Trump placed on presidents. But it's all highly fantastical as Democrats lost the elections so obviously.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago
[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org -5 points 4 days ago

To get the first female president and show that a woman wouldn't press the nuclear button within 30 seconds of taking office.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 4 days ago

I don't think it really counts unless she's voted in or there's no choice. For the other... All of the sane people already know that, right?

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 2 points 4 days ago

Because it's so much better for women if the first female president ends up with a shorter term than Liz Truss, and only as a consolation prize. That'll definitely help the case of the next female candidate.

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Sounds like the perfect plan to have Trump change the law so no woman can hold a high office ever again. It'll blend in nicely with their proposal te not let women vote ever again.

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago

Both elections he's won have been against women. I think he will not ban women from office because he sees them as statistically weaker opponents against his successors.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Petty? Absolutely. Vindictive? Without question.

Fucking hilarious? 100%.

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

This is dumb, petty and counterproductive.

But a lot of conservatives were complaining that Harris had to know that Biden wasn't capable of the job and she should have activated the 25th amendment. But she didn't do that and when he did step aside to let her be the candidate these same people that were all about her kicking him out of office were now saying that this was a bloodless coup even though she was only running for pres instead of actually being president. Basically they were irked because she didn't do what they wanted and would have been upset if she did what they wanted. Damned if she did and damned if she didn't.

So if he steps down and she becomes president they get to be unhappy about it and claim the high ground both ways.

Really wish we had adults running things instead of transparently partisan idiots who don't hold any consistent core belief system.

[-] boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 days ago

I thought this is a an Onion at first.

[-] marduk@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago

Good luck, Jack!

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
73 points (91.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
2011 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS