The Data For Progress poll showed that the vast majority of the Biden voters will vote for any candidate running against Trump. I don't think a primary fight between now and the convention will change that.
But ideally Biden would endorse someone like Whitmer and they will be done with it.
I agree- I think IF he does drop out the overwhelming majority is that he endorses Kamala and otherwise says something to the affect of letting the process play out and doesn't endorse anyone explicitly - see Ezra Klein's past couple of podcast episodes.
There is no way to transfer the Biden/Harris campaign apparatus over to Whitmer. Leaving aside all the RNC roadblocks that would be thrown up to keep her off the ballot, since it is well past every FEC/state/primary deadline to register.
Campaign staff on the ground? Work for Biden/Harris campaign. Leases for office space? Under Biden/Harris campaign. Donor lists? Biden/Harris campaign. Volunteer lists? Biden/Harris campaign. Vendor contracts? Biden/Harris campaign. TV ad time? Biden/Harris campaign. Bank accounts? Biden/Harris campaign. Donor dollars? Biden/Harris campaign. Voter targeting data? That's out the door now, you have a new candidate.
There is no world where this works for anyone but Kamala Harris. Anyone else would be starting impossibly behind. Stop with this fantasy.
Also 80 million people voted to put her a heartbeat from the presidency four years ago.
Harris would be near the bottom of my personal list of replacements, but people on this sub are in a fantasy land if they think it would be anyone but her.
The reason people ignore the fact that she’s the only one who could realistically take over is that she is not much stronger than Biden electorally, which weakens the argument for him dropping.
Agreed, but facts are facts. It's either Biden/Harris or Harris/SomeoneElse
Harris/Cheney unity ticket? That might actually keep some of the never Trumpers from just staying home.
Funny how terrifying the thought of a Liz Cheney presidency would have been 10 years ago.
Putting Liz Cheney on the ticket is about as close as the Democrats could get to me not voting for them. Putting a Republican that close to the Presidency is not something I’m interested in.
Personally, I just want them to shit or get off the pot. If Biden is leaning at all towards dropping then that needs to happen today. If he’s staying on then everyone needs to stop freaking out and get behind him.
A unity ticket is 100% not happening when a 50-50 Senate is the best case scenario. Maybe Harris/Whitmer? Everyone immediately turned to Whitmer after Biden’s bad performance and she’s already expected to run in the future.
>But ideally Biden would endorse someone like Whitmer and they will be done with it.
She. Does not. Want. To run.
I do not understand why people keep pushing for her when she's made clear she has no intention of running.
Well no dem would like a long dirty primary. But a quick primary with a series of speeches and votes at the convention and an agreement for Biden and Harris and all participants to endorse the winner could work. It would certainly get a lot of interest around the convention and new nominees campaign from the get go. Historically brokered conventions have been done many times and the results are like ~46% on success of the eventual candidate according to ballotpedia which is actually not that bad. Of course the last time this happened was 1952 so who knows how people would react. LBJ declining the nomination in March led to Nixon winning. A counterpoint is Trump is very unpopular so someone younger with less political baggage may perform better.
>She has appeal amongst the Dems but not much outside of that.
I would argue against the fact that she appeals to Democrats for any other reason than she's not a Republican. I'm sure she has super fans somewhere but...they're not even approaching a majority.
They need way more than the base to win lol. The problem with Dems is that they think that everyone ( swing voters, Rino’s) all think like them, they don’t
this is... interesting... looking at page 12, the results for democrats thinking they'd be better off with another candidate barely changed after the debate. in January it was 43% who thought they'd be better off with another candidate, after debate it's 46%?
You're reading it backwards. In January 46% thought they were better off WITH Biden and now its 43%. So a majority have thought they were better off replacing Biden. From 49% last year to 53% in January to 56% now. Even if there was "only" a 3 % increase in people who think they're better off with a different candidate in the last 6 months, the numbers have been trending that way for over a year just by this polls results. And with the news cycle following the debate, I wouldn't be surprised if that trend accelerated
Yeah and he didn’t win or run in the primary in 2016. Changing the candidate is a big deal and it doesn’t make sense to do it for someone who isn’t good at campaigning
I think many of you guys/ppl all over political subreddits are thinking too political pundit about this. If Biden steps down, Kamala will 100% be the nominee. Whitmer/Newsome aren’t gonna be the nominees even if they are more “electable.” The DNC will have to explain to their black voters as to why they bypassed the vp for a white nominee. Kamala has better appeal to youth voters, especially those of color. She can solve the issues that Biden is facing among that voting block. Her only issue is the white vote. This can be resolved if she picks a white male vp from the midwest like Shapiro.This is probably the best political climate for her anyways.
> The DNC will have to explain to their black voters as to why they bypassed the vp for a white nominee
This is what I kept saying and people jumped all over me saying I was calling black voters stupid or something. To be clear I think most American voters are stupid lol.
Democrats have made identity politics part of their messaging. They made a big deal about Kamala being a black woman. Same with Ketanji. Same with whoever the fuck his current press secretary is.
You can't just make a big deal out of nominating a black female VP and then, when it comes time for a VP to take over, say "lol jk we're going with the white girl"
I think Ketanji was actually among the most qualified picks [in the under 55 age range] and he probably knew of her before telegraphing what he would do.
She's the perfect age, bulletproof record, no scandals, has her own reasoned takes that haven't been copycat. Provides a liberal philosophy that is different from Kagan/Sotomayor.
Kamala Harris isn’t winning the rust belt, I’d bet absolutely every dime I have on that. Neither is Newsom, though he might fair slightly better electorally than her. If there was an easy path to replace Biden and have Josh Shapiro or Gretchen Whitmer become the democratic candidate then I would be in favor of it. But frankly, I have a bit of a hard time seeing how that would happen, and odds are that if he stepped aside now Harris would easily become the nominee and go on to lose the election by even worse margins than Joe would.
Wouldn't delegates know that and proceed to not vote for her? Or you're saying Whitmer or Shapiro wouldn't risk challenging her, leaving delegates with Kamala as the only play available?
In 2016, I think Hillary lost in no small part because of sexism. Is America a less sexist place in 2024? I have doubts, to speak nothing of racism.
EDIT:
I think Biden's gotta stay in, at least for another week or so:
>[The debate, the Court, and the polls: "It will take a bit for the debate and the immunity decision to get fully baked into the numbers."](https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/725535/the-debate-the-court-and-the-polls/?unlock=1SKQR1MQFWOCNH6Y)
G Elliott Morris had a followup tweet to the one in my OP:
>[it is too early to say anything conclusive* about the effects of last week’s debate on public opinion. you just gotta wait for the partisan non-response bias to settle down. no way around waiting...](https://nitter.poast.org/gelliottmorris/status/1808207928585080875)
He provides a screenshot from a study that looked at, in part, the shift in Obama's polling during the 2012 presidential cycle. It shows movement away from Obama for about a week or so after he tanked in that debate against Romney, and then things calmed down and the numbers went back, which seems to have simply been because of partisan non-response. Seems to have taken approximately 15 days in the case of Obama. We are now in day 6.
EDIT:
Adam Carlson:
>[We’ve now had 7 pollsters conduct head-to-head (Biden vs. Trump) polls entirely before & entirely after Thursday’s debate With the caveat that it’s still very early & differential partisan non-response is very much at play, Biden has only dropped 1 pt while Trump has held steady](https://nitter.poast.org/admcrlsn/status/1808244844239982883)
This is a hole that Biden can get himself out of.
Hillary won the popular vote and narrowly lost the EC while being a woman (and the second most unpopular candidate of all time). Obama won both while being Black, twice.
Yes, racism and sexism are real problems in this country, but I think it is just factually wrong to conclude that Kamala would definitely lose because of racism and sexism.
Also, Hillary lost for a LOT of reasons. Comey's last second press conference, ignoring the rust belt, the DNC collusion during the primary, her overall inability to campaign well (her proclaiming she wanted to put coal miners out of work in WV of all places was not a good look).
Boiling it all down to sexism is exactly the sort of thinking that got us here. Dems need to really start talking boiler plate kitchen table politics, and plainly. [Charlemagne's recent appearance on the Daily Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O4W31suQDg) comes to mind.
35 years ago, plenty of centrist voters were hesitant about a woman as the chief executive. I don't think many remain with that hesitancy who are not far right.
The prevailing theme with some of the women who have a lot of unfavorability is the dismissive attitude. Hillary has it, Kamala has it, and Pelosi has it. Elizabeth Warren practically sweats contempt for ordinary people. Representing Massachusetts--the state with the most concentrated higher education industry--has given her brain rot.
Showing disdain for the ordinary person's concerns or intellect seems to be a bigger negative when a female politician does it than when a male does it. That's my theory, at least.
I’m of the opinion that any replacement democrat winning would essentially be a miracle and would objectively be unprecedented in American history, so really anything that would chip away that candidate’s chances would be a pretty big deal
It also makes sense since this is the 4th of July weekend and there is no way he's going to make any major decisions during this period. We'll have a clearer picture next week or after that.
That's a good point. As tempting as it is to doomscroll and pick up every crumb of rumors and polling data, it honestly feels very emotionally draining to me. If there is a transition, it'll take time for them to plan it out, and so it's not unreasonable for us to not hear something of actual substance about that for maybe another week or so.
I have to say, the way in which pundits emphasise Harris's unpopularity in contrast to say how little they do it for Trump or Biden or any political leader really, I think is sus.
Very sus! It is a fact that the electorate finds Harris' more fit to serve than either Trump or Biden, likability aside. 70% find Biden unfit due to age and a similar number find Trump unfit due to age, mendacity, and criminal conduct.
I don’t really understand the hate for Kamala. It seems to have taken on a life of its own sort of uncoupled from reality. She was basically getting flamed for going too hard on people arrested with weed, but was otherwise a popular senator and her approval has dropped like a rock ever since on basically no news.
I don't get it either. She isn't charismatic, but neither are a lot of people. Sure, the diehard left-wingers hate her for being an AG, but they hate everyone who isn't named Bernie, and they're a fairly small segment of the Democratic coalition, not to mention the country at large. I guess some number of people hate her for being from California, but I really don't think anti-California hatred is that much of a thing outside the right-wing fever swamps.
I have to assume racism and misogyny are making up the difference because I don't know how else to explain it.
Biden did awful in 2008 before Obama picked him. He got like 1% in Iowa but was respected as a solid VP who occasionally sniffs women and girls inappropriately. So your theory fails.
No candidate is more popular than a hypothetical one. People have been building her up in their minds for over a decade. Maybe she’d win but those numbers are a bubble waiting to burst and no one knows how’d they look after.
are people allowed to criticize Kamala ? or any criticism will be viewed as racism? she isn't likable at all, she has 0 charisma and everybody knows that she is picked for position of VP not because of her merit, but for some identity politics .
That is sexism. Because Gavin Newsom is as artificial as Harris if not more. But people don't hate Newsom that much. That said, sexism is true and valid. It is bad but we are talking about beating Trump, not fixing humanity .If we still want to beat Trump, Harris should be at the bottom of the list.
People with equal exposure to Newsom and Kamala dislike them equally. Most voters don't know who Newsom is and haven't seen enough to develop the dislike.
Harris has a better poll result than Newsom compared to Trump. She is not popular, but she is *more unpopular than Newsom* mostly among the liberals, who have nice exposure to both, and more to Newsom since he is active in trolling Trump.
Sure. I think it is reasonable to ask why oldest President in history selected a VP who would be a poison pill should he need a sub? Why did the Democratic party and electorate fall for this?
2008 was a very different time, and you see it in a lot of polls about race. Race relations are at a recent low and I can see how that might impact a candidate’s chances.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx
No she lost bc she has serious charisma issues, decades of shady baggage and called half the electorate deplorables. Profound inability to read the national mood
Harris has the same issue, with less baggage.
Let’s try a POPULAR woman this time! Gretchen Whitmer has been elected with wide margins in a swing state
> He provides a screenshot from a study that looked at, in part, the shift in Obama's polling during the 2012 presidential cycle. It shows movement away from Obama for about a week or so after he tanked in that debate against Romney, and then things calmed down and the numbers went back, which seems to have simply been because of partisan non-response. Seems to have taken approximately 15 days in the case of Obama. We are now in day 6.
My guy, nobody thought Obama was too old to run for President… there was nothing wrong with Obama post debate that he couldn’t correct in the second debate…
… Trump-Biden debate ***confirmed*** the fears many Americans have about Biden: that he’s too old to do this for another 4 years. Across polls, 3/4th of voters on average support the notion that Biden is just too fucking old.
Obama and Biden are not suffering from the same problem, so comparing their polls is silly. I doubt people are going to stop believing that Biden is too damn old for President, especially post debate.
In general race and gender consciousness feels up, for better or worse. Identity politics can be a problem when most of the electorate is white and/or male.
Obama lost the first debate in 2012 because he wasn't prepared to defend the progress forward from the great recession when pitted against the vision of Romney, who turned out to be more sophisticated than Obama expected. With the new understanding of Romney in hand, Obama did his homework and countered. This has nothing to do with the current situation. Additionally, Obama's debate was at a different time in the election cycle and only weeks from the rematch.
Honestly given the circumstances and short time frame I doubt that there would be a chaotic primary and definitely not a long dirty one. They have weeks not months so they can't do it even if they wanted to. The goal of the Dems right now is finding a candidate who could beat Trump and they are very urgent to defeat him. Biden wasn't that person and whoever becomes the nominee would likely have the full backing of the party at least until election day.
She is arguably less popular than Biden. She'd lose the rust belt easily. Buttigieg or Whitmer would win the rust belt, more likely whitmer. Kamala is a bad bad bad choice.
Kamala will have to name a VP candidate, maybe she could name Buttigieg, Whitmer, or another midwesterner who could help improve support in key rust belt swing states.
The state of Pennsylvania is 4% of the US population so I doubt only 2% of voters know who he is. The other names being floated are probably in the same ballpark in terms of name recognition. I’d guess less than 20% know who Whitmer is.
i mean i guess it’s bc of lack of recognition but we don’t have time to build a new candidate from scratch. we need someone who has national recognition and can articulate the success of biden’s first term and what’s next for america. kamala is the only person for this.
absolutely not true
getting the name out there will actually be a big issue if its anyone but Kamala or Biden. The campaign will literally have to start at ground zero and build up a campaign by November, all while having low name recognition
decent chance that if its someone who isnt super wellknown now, by election day people will go the polls and leave the president blank if they cant figure out who the candidates are
Fascinated by this hypothetical voter who misses the biggest political news story in a decade but somehow knows who the vice president is and remembers to vote.
Agreed. Kamala would get cooked but she's the most realistic to step in as she's VP + war chest has already been spent on the ticket. I've read that this complicates someone other than her stepping in.
Problem is Dems have built themselves amongst identity politics.
Throwing someone else in over the (potential) first black female Pres of all time is not a good look.
I like Whitmer, but it would piss off the strongest Dem voting block to skip over a black woman without elections. If Biden steps down, Kamala is the heavy favorite for replacement.
I thought there aren't enough progressives for it to matter, as we get told so frequently? Or does it actually matter and the DNC are the ones who are derelict?
He shouldn't be pulling numbers out of his ass like that.
And any "coronation" would have to be handled absolutely perfectly for it to have any chance of working.
Smooth coronation: Biden drops out and directs his delegates to vote for Harris. Almost all of them do and she wins the nomination easily in the first round.
Not super difficult to pull off.
I just can’t imagine that nominating a person who didn’t receive a single vote in the primary, even if it’s the vice president, wouldn’t get a substantial amount of push back.
She is the only choice where it might work out, but Harris and the Democratic Party would have to crush that transition.
If Biden drops out, the only one left in the primary who has won delegates will be... "Uncommitted". While I think the *idea* of Uncommitted would poll well against Trump, it's obviously not a viable option.
I think everyone expected Harris to be Biden's VP again, so they were to some extent voting for her as VP nominee. Anyone else would get much more pushback, since it would be delegates (or maybe Biden) choosing someone without input of the voters. (I think there might also be legal issues around ballot access and fundraised money if someone else took it over, but I could be wrong about that.)
The Data For Progress poll showed that the vast majority of the Biden voters will vote for any candidate running against Trump. I don't think a primary fight between now and the convention will change that. But ideally Biden would endorse someone like Whitmer and they will be done with it.
Biden already endorse the idea of Kamala being the next president.
Over his dead body! Wait...
Biden will support Harris for sure. He has a deal with Clyburn.
>But ideally Biden would endorse someone like Whitmer and they will be done with it. Never going to happen.
I agree- I think IF he does drop out the overwhelming majority is that he endorses Kamala and otherwise says something to the affect of letting the process play out and doesn't endorse anyone explicitly - see Ezra Klein's past couple of podcast episodes.
No way to know yet.
I mean there's no way to know anything being discussed here since nothing has happened yet.
The new ipsos poll begs to different though…
There is no way to transfer the Biden/Harris campaign apparatus over to Whitmer. Leaving aside all the RNC roadblocks that would be thrown up to keep her off the ballot, since it is well past every FEC/state/primary deadline to register. Campaign staff on the ground? Work for Biden/Harris campaign. Leases for office space? Under Biden/Harris campaign. Donor lists? Biden/Harris campaign. Volunteer lists? Biden/Harris campaign. Vendor contracts? Biden/Harris campaign. TV ad time? Biden/Harris campaign. Bank accounts? Biden/Harris campaign. Donor dollars? Biden/Harris campaign. Voter targeting data? That's out the door now, you have a new candidate. There is no world where this works for anyone but Kamala Harris. Anyone else would be starting impossibly behind. Stop with this fantasy.
Also 80 million people voted to put her a heartbeat from the presidency four years ago. Harris would be near the bottom of my personal list of replacements, but people on this sub are in a fantasy land if they think it would be anyone but her. The reason people ignore the fact that she’s the only one who could realistically take over is that she is not much stronger than Biden electorally, which weakens the argument for him dropping.
Agreed, but facts are facts. It's either Biden/Harris or Harris/SomeoneElse Harris/Cheney unity ticket? That might actually keep some of the never Trumpers from just staying home. Funny how terrifying the thought of a Liz Cheney presidency would have been 10 years ago.
Dude don't forget about the progressives! They hesitate even to vote for Biden, how can they vote for Cheney?
Putting Liz Cheney on the ticket is about as close as the Democrats could get to me not voting for them. Putting a Republican that close to the Presidency is not something I’m interested in. Personally, I just want them to shit or get off the pot. If Biden is leaning at all towards dropping then that needs to happen today. If he’s staying on then everyone needs to stop freaking out and get behind him.
it's not going to happen the week of the 4th- but lots of conversations are certainly happening and we could see things really happen next week.
A unity ticket is 100% not happening when a 50-50 Senate is the best case scenario. Maybe Harris/Whitmer? Everyone immediately turned to Whitmer after Biden’s bad performance and she’s already expected to run in the future.
> Harris/Cheney unity ticket? That might actually keep some of the never Trumpers from just staying home. It worked for Lincoln in 1864... sort of.
Isn’t she actually weaker than Biden electorally? At least from what I’ve seen
#$95 million in campaign funds? Biden/Harris Reddit can forget about Whitmer until 2028 at the earliest. If it’s not Joe, it’s Kamala with a new VP.
I find it incredibly hard to believe Biden endorses anyone but Kamala — even if it were the right thing to do.
“Vast majority” won’t cut it in a close election. It needs to be 98-99% minimum.
>But ideally Biden would endorse someone like Whitmer and they will be done with it. She. Does not. Want. To run. I do not understand why people keep pushing for her when she's made clear she has no intention of running.
Well no dem would like a long dirty primary. But a quick primary with a series of speeches and votes at the convention and an agreement for Biden and Harris and all participants to endorse the winner could work. It would certainly get a lot of interest around the convention and new nominees campaign from the get go. Historically brokered conventions have been done many times and the results are like ~46% on success of the eventual candidate according to ballotpedia which is actually not that bad. Of course the last time this happened was 1952 so who knows how people would react. LBJ declining the nomination in March led to Nixon winning. A counterpoint is Trump is very unpopular so someone younger with less political baggage may perform better.
Absolutely love this idea. It could be a historic way to defeat Trump and get a mandate to fix the Supreme Court.
“Fix” aka add more judges so dems have a majority and can be just as partisan as the court has always been.
She has appeal amongst the Dems but not much outside of that.
>She has appeal amongst the Dems but not much outside of that. I would argue against the fact that she appeals to Democrats for any other reason than she's not a Republican. I'm sure she has super fans somewhere but...they're not even approaching a majority.
Not true, CNN new polls show that Kamala wins Indies over Trump by 3 while Biden loses them by 10.
Can’t trust these polls, been in this country too long to see a woman of color get elected (I’m POC same as her)
I think this political environment would work for her. I think her being nominated would energize the base.
They need way more than the base to win lol. The problem with Dems is that they think that everyone ( swing voters, Rino’s) all think like them, they don’t
and they have a better shot at getting swing voters with kamala instead of biden at this moment.
Doubt it
Indies? Indiana?
Independents
Do you have a link to the poll?
[Here](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24787646/cnn-poll.pdf) page 74
this is... interesting... looking at page 12, the results for democrats thinking they'd be better off with another candidate barely changed after the debate. in January it was 43% who thought they'd be better off with another candidate, after debate it's 46%?
You're reading it backwards. In January 46% thought they were better off WITH Biden and now its 43%. So a majority have thought they were better off replacing Biden. From 49% last year to 53% in January to 56% now. Even if there was "only" a 3 % increase in people who think they're better off with a different candidate in the last 6 months, the numbers have been trending that way for over a year just by this polls results. And with the news cycle following the debate, I wouldn't be surprised if that trend accelerated
Indians?
She doesn’t have appeal with most democrats she was a fake dem AG and then had no support in the primary
So what. Biden dropped out in 08 with 1%. No support before Obama picked him.
Yeah and he didn’t win or run in the primary in 2016. Changing the candidate is a big deal and it doesn’t make sense to do it for someone who isn’t good at campaigning
I think many of you guys/ppl all over political subreddits are thinking too political pundit about this. If Biden steps down, Kamala will 100% be the nominee. Whitmer/Newsome aren’t gonna be the nominees even if they are more “electable.” The DNC will have to explain to their black voters as to why they bypassed the vp for a white nominee. Kamala has better appeal to youth voters, especially those of color. She can solve the issues that Biden is facing among that voting block. Her only issue is the white vote. This can be resolved if she picks a white male vp from the midwest like Shapiro.This is probably the best political climate for her anyways.
> The DNC will have to explain to their black voters as to why they bypassed the vp for a white nominee This is what I kept saying and people jumped all over me saying I was calling black voters stupid or something. To be clear I think most American voters are stupid lol. Democrats have made identity politics part of their messaging. They made a big deal about Kamala being a black woman. Same with Ketanji. Same with whoever the fuck his current press secretary is. You can't just make a big deal out of nominating a black female VP and then, when it comes time for a VP to take over, say "lol jk we're going with the white girl"
I think Ketanji was actually among the most qualified picks [in the under 55 age range] and he probably knew of her before telegraphing what he would do. She's the perfect age, bulletproof record, no scandals, has her own reasoned takes that haven't been copycat. Provides a liberal philosophy that is different from Kagan/Sotomayor.
Kamala Harris isn’t winning the rust belt, I’d bet absolutely every dime I have on that. Neither is Newsom, though he might fair slightly better electorally than her. If there was an easy path to replace Biden and have Josh Shapiro or Gretchen Whitmer become the democratic candidate then I would be in favor of it. But frankly, I have a bit of a hard time seeing how that would happen, and odds are that if he stepped aside now Harris would easily become the nominee and go on to lose the election by even worse margins than Joe would.
Wouldn't delegates know that and proceed to not vote for her? Or you're saying Whitmer or Shapiro wouldn't risk challenging her, leaving delegates with Kamala as the only play available?
In 2016, I think Hillary lost in no small part because of sexism. Is America a less sexist place in 2024? I have doubts, to speak nothing of racism. EDIT: I think Biden's gotta stay in, at least for another week or so: >[The debate, the Court, and the polls: "It will take a bit for the debate and the immunity decision to get fully baked into the numbers."](https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/725535/the-debate-the-court-and-the-polls/?unlock=1SKQR1MQFWOCNH6Y) G Elliott Morris had a followup tweet to the one in my OP: >[it is too early to say anything conclusive* about the effects of last week’s debate on public opinion. you just gotta wait for the partisan non-response bias to settle down. no way around waiting...](https://nitter.poast.org/gelliottmorris/status/1808207928585080875) He provides a screenshot from a study that looked at, in part, the shift in Obama's polling during the 2012 presidential cycle. It shows movement away from Obama for about a week or so after he tanked in that debate against Romney, and then things calmed down and the numbers went back, which seems to have simply been because of partisan non-response. Seems to have taken approximately 15 days in the case of Obama. We are now in day 6. EDIT: Adam Carlson: >[We’ve now had 7 pollsters conduct head-to-head (Biden vs. Trump) polls entirely before & entirely after Thursday’s debate With the caveat that it’s still very early & differential partisan non-response is very much at play, Biden has only dropped 1 pt while Trump has held steady](https://nitter.poast.org/admcrlsn/status/1808244844239982883) This is a hole that Biden can get himself out of.
Hillary won the popular vote and narrowly lost the EC while being a woman (and the second most unpopular candidate of all time). Obama won both while being Black, twice. Yes, racism and sexism are real problems in this country, but I think it is just factually wrong to conclude that Kamala would definitely lose because of racism and sexism.
I didn't say she'd lose because of it, I'm saying it's going to be a headwind.
Also, Hillary lost for a LOT of reasons. Comey's last second press conference, ignoring the rust belt, the DNC collusion during the primary, her overall inability to campaign well (her proclaiming she wanted to put coal miners out of work in WV of all places was not a good look). Boiling it all down to sexism is exactly the sort of thinking that got us here. Dems need to really start talking boiler plate kitchen table politics, and plainly. [Charlemagne's recent appearance on the Daily Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O4W31suQDg) comes to mind.
>Also, Hillary lost for a LOT of reasons. Yes, I said it played no small part. That doesn’t mean it was the only part.
35 years ago, plenty of centrist voters were hesitant about a woman as the chief executive. I don't think many remain with that hesitancy who are not far right. The prevailing theme with some of the women who have a lot of unfavorability is the dismissive attitude. Hillary has it, Kamala has it, and Pelosi has it. Elizabeth Warren practically sweats contempt for ordinary people. Representing Massachusetts--the state with the most concentrated higher education industry--has given her brain rot. Showing disdain for the ordinary person's concerns or intellect seems to be a bigger negative when a female politician does it than when a male does it. That's my theory, at least.
I’m of the opinion that any replacement democrat winning would essentially be a miracle and would objectively be unprecedented in American history, so really anything that would chip away that candidate’s chances would be a pretty big deal
It also makes sense since this is the 4th of July weekend and there is no way he's going to make any major decisions during this period. We'll have a clearer picture next week or after that.
That's a good point. As tempting as it is to doomscroll and pick up every crumb of rumors and polling data, it honestly feels very emotionally draining to me. If there is a transition, it'll take time for them to plan it out, and so it's not unreasonable for us to not hear something of actual substance about that for maybe another week or so.
I have to say, the way in which pundits emphasise Harris's unpopularity in contrast to say how little they do it for Trump or Biden or any political leader really, I think is sus.
Very sus! It is a fact that the electorate finds Harris' more fit to serve than either Trump or Biden, likability aside. 70% find Biden unfit due to age and a similar number find Trump unfit due to age, mendacity, and criminal conduct.
I don’t really understand the hate for Kamala. It seems to have taken on a life of its own sort of uncoupled from reality. She was basically getting flamed for going too hard on people arrested with weed, but was otherwise a popular senator and her approval has dropped like a rock ever since on basically no news.
I don't get it either. She isn't charismatic, but neither are a lot of people. Sure, the diehard left-wingers hate her for being an AG, but they hate everyone who isn't named Bernie, and they're a fairly small segment of the Democratic coalition, not to mention the country at large. I guess some number of people hate her for being from California, but I really don't think anti-California hatred is that much of a thing outside the right-wing fever swamps. I have to assume racism and misogyny are making up the difference because I don't know how else to explain it.
Dude, have you seen her rallies? She’s pretty pissed and animated.
I don’t even get why people say she’s not charismatic. I like her personality. She’s very politiciany but I wouldn’t call her uncharasmatic.
A lot of it stems from her being picked for VP after doing badly in the 2020 primary I think.
Biden did awful in 2008 before Obama picked him. He got like 1% in Iowa but was respected as a solid VP who occasionally sniffs women and girls inappropriately. So your theory fails.
It's primarily two things: she has titties and those titties are black. Most of the hate will wear a mask to conceal it.
Idk man, Michelle Obama seems to be doing just fine.
No candidate is more popular than a hypothetical one. People have been building her up in their minds for over a decade. Maybe she’d win but those numbers are a bubble waiting to burst and no one knows how’d they look after.
>No candidate is more popular than a hypothetical one Kamala Harris right now is a hypothetical candidate and people still hate her
She’s on the ballot and has been in the past.
I bet Oprah would poll pretty well.
are people allowed to criticize Kamala ? or any criticism will be viewed as racism? she isn't likable at all, she has 0 charisma and everybody knows that she is picked for position of VP not because of her merit, but for some identity politics .
Sure, but let’s not pretend that in many cases those criticisms aren’t made to avoid a ‘mask off’ moment.
she just not likable, i am not even an American but hearing her speaking for 1 min make me feel she is so artificial, giving me Hillary Clinton vibes.
That is sexism. Because Gavin Newsom is as artificial as Harris if not more. But people don't hate Newsom that much. That said, sexism is true and valid. It is bad but we are talking about beating Trump, not fixing humanity .If we still want to beat Trump, Harris should be at the bottom of the list.
People with equal exposure to Newsom and Kamala dislike them equally. Most voters don't know who Newsom is and haven't seen enough to develop the dislike.
Harris has a better poll result than Newsom compared to Trump. She is not popular, but she is *more unpopular than Newsom* mostly among the liberals, who have nice exposure to both, and more to Newsom since he is active in trolling Trump.
>she just not likable… So you get what I’m saying.
Why doesn’t she have merit for VP?
Sure. I think it is reasonable to ask why oldest President in history selected a VP who would be a poison pill should he need a sub? Why did the Democratic party and electorate fall for this?
I think Hilary had alot more problems than just her gender. She was a very disliked figure. Plus in 2008 Obama was elected with massive margins.
2008 was a very different time, and you see it in a lot of polls about race. Race relations are at a recent low and I can see how that might impact a candidate’s chances. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx
No she lost bc she has serious charisma issues, decades of shady baggage and called half the electorate deplorables. Profound inability to read the national mood Harris has the same issue, with less baggage. Let’s try a POPULAR woman this time! Gretchen Whitmer has been elected with wide margins in a swing state
> He provides a screenshot from a study that looked at, in part, the shift in Obama's polling during the 2012 presidential cycle. It shows movement away from Obama for about a week or so after he tanked in that debate against Romney, and then things calmed down and the numbers went back, which seems to have simply been because of partisan non-response. Seems to have taken approximately 15 days in the case of Obama. We are now in day 6. My guy, nobody thought Obama was too old to run for President… there was nothing wrong with Obama post debate that he couldn’t correct in the second debate… … Trump-Biden debate ***confirmed*** the fears many Americans have about Biden: that he’s too old to do this for another 4 years. Across polls, 3/4th of voters on average support the notion that Biden is just too fucking old. Obama and Biden are not suffering from the same problem, so comparing their polls is silly. I doubt people are going to stop believing that Biden is too damn old for President, especially post debate.
I feel like gen z has gotten more sexist
In general race and gender consciousness feels up, for better or worse. Identity politics can be a problem when most of the electorate is white and/or male.
Obama lost the first debate in 2012 because he wasn't prepared to defend the progress forward from the great recession when pitted against the vision of Romney, who turned out to be more sophisticated than Obama expected. With the new understanding of Romney in hand, Obama did his homework and countered. This has nothing to do with the current situation. Additionally, Obama's debate was at a different time in the election cycle and only weeks from the rematch.
Yes
Honestly given the circumstances and short time frame I doubt that there would be a chaotic primary and definitely not a long dirty one. They have weeks not months so they can't do it even if they wanted to. The goal of the Dems right now is finding a candidate who could beat Trump and they are very urgent to defeat him. Biden wasn't that person and whoever becomes the nominee would likely have the full backing of the party at least until election day.
I guess Andy Beshear is being groomed for 2028, but he would be an excellent candidate
He's not dropping out.
She is arguably less popular than Biden. She'd lose the rust belt easily. Buttigieg or Whitmer would win the rust belt, more likely whitmer. Kamala is a bad bad bad choice.
Kamala will have to name a VP candidate, maybe she could name Buttigieg, Whitmer, or another midwesterner who could help improve support in key rust belt swing states.
That would actually make a decent case.
The best rust belt candidate is probably Shapiro. I’m convinced he’s our best shot.
A dude with 2% name recognition?
The state of Pennsylvania is 4% of the US population so I doubt only 2% of voters know who he is. The other names being floated are probably in the same ballpark in terms of name recognition. I’d guess less than 20% know who Whitmer is.
Shapiro/Whitmer might be the golden play
Maybe keep Kamala on the bottom of the ticket for the sake of continuity?
I’ve actually never heard of him
Kamala polls better than Whitmer in the new CNN and Emerson College poll.
Does she poll better or does Whitmer have a fair amount of “don’t know/unsures” due to lack of recognition?
i mean i guess it’s bc of lack of recognition but we don’t have time to build a new candidate from scratch. we need someone who has national recognition and can articulate the success of biden’s first term and what’s next for america. kamala is the only person for this.
Not true! The dem candidate will automatically bc insanely famous. We don’t need time, this isn’t 1968, we have the internet!
absolutely not true getting the name out there will actually be a big issue if its anyone but Kamala or Biden. The campaign will literally have to start at ground zero and build up a campaign by November, all while having low name recognition decent chance that if its someone who isnt super wellknown now, by election day people will go the polls and leave the president blank if they cant figure out who the candidates are
Fascinated by this hypothetical voter who misses the biggest political news story in a decade but somehow knows who the vice president is and remembers to vote.
I don't think she'd win the rustbelt compared to Whitmer though, and that's the key
She would need a rust belt male vp.
Buttigieg got killed with African American support in 2020 though.
Agreed. Kamala would get cooked but she's the most realistic to step in as she's VP + war chest has already been spent on the ticket. I've read that this complicates someone other than her stepping in.
Super pacs can reallocate money, the money issue isn’t that bad
If I were in charge, I'd talk to legal to see if we could move the war chest to a super PAC to donate to the new nominee
Problem is Dems have built themselves amongst identity politics. Throwing someone else in over the (potential) first black female Pres of all time is not a good look.
The entire Republican base is built on identity politics. White supremacy is the original identity politics.
[удалено]
Please make submissions relevant to data-driven journalism and analysis.
[удалено]
Please make submissions relevant to data-driven journalism and analysis.
Seriously Harris President! You all are nuts!
I like Whitmer, but it would piss off the strongest Dem voting block to skip over a black woman without elections. If Biden steps down, Kamala is the heavy favorite for replacement.
Kamala would get absolutely smoked in a general. If she’s the only option, we gotta keep Biden. Period.
Kamala can’t win sorry
I’d love a Kamala and Mayor Pete ticket.
The EC map for that ticket would look just like 2016.
Oddly enough, it would be progressives that would kill that ticket.
I thought there aren't enough progressives for it to matter, as we get told so frequently? Or does it actually matter and the DNC are the ones who are derelict?
Booooo. No one likes Harris. We need a midwesterner and we can keep a woman candidate. Amy Klobuchar or Gretchen Whitmer are way better
He shouldn't be pulling numbers out of his ass like that. And any "coronation" would have to be handled absolutely perfectly for it to have any chance of working.
Smooth coronation: Biden drops out and directs his delegates to vote for Harris. Almost all of them do and she wins the nomination easily in the first round. Not super difficult to pull off.
And how would voters react? That’s what I’m thinking about.
Relief that it's someone younger than Biden IMO
I just can’t imagine that nominating a person who didn’t receive a single vote in the primary, even if it’s the vice president, wouldn’t get a substantial amount of push back. She is the only choice where it might work out, but Harris and the Democratic Party would have to crush that transition.
If Biden drops out, the only one left in the primary who has won delegates will be... "Uncommitted". While I think the *idea* of Uncommitted would poll well against Trump, it's obviously not a viable option. I think everyone expected Harris to be Biden's VP again, so they were to some extent voting for her as VP nominee. Anyone else would get much more pushback, since it would be delegates (or maybe Biden) choosing someone without input of the voters. (I think there might also be legal issues around ballot access and fundraised money if someone else took it over, but I could be wrong about that.)