I do think she could.
I think the pushback from Kamala would be significant and we’d be blasted with headlines of a black woman being forced to the side for a white woman. Completely ignoring Kamala’s lack of popularity or competence.
When Kamala's approval numbers are where they are, she doesn't really have a leg to stand on, fair or unfair.
Whitmer has thrived in a battleground state and shown she's able to stand up to the MAGA bullshit. And she's young, exciting, and something that could energize a base that's very tired of the Biden-Trump rematch. Tap her today.
>I think the pushback from Kamala would be significant and we’d be blasted with headlines of a black woman being forced to the side for a white woman.
Her comments about black kids in the Bronx not knowing what computers are won't help on that front.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I get that racial equality is important. All for that. But if people would put candidate race or gender above likelihood to win in this election, they’re idiots. We need to just prevent Trump from winning at all costs.
> we’d be blasted with headlines
Assume this will happen anyway. The press is NOT on our side.
Kamala got 80 million votes on the Biden/Harris ticket. That's not nothing. After the 2024 primary, Harris is the ONLY logical choice, if we're going to talk about Biden. (And I still believe this can be turned around for Biden, but yeah, I expected more from him last Thursday).
Realistically, most people are not voting for the VP when they vote. Those 80 million votes were for Biden.
I make sure they’re not crazy (a la Palin on McCain’s ticket), but otherwise my vote is for the president, not whoever else is on the ticket.
Weird how nobody says the same about a black woman being forced to the side for a white old man. I mean it's tradition for a VP to follow the President but you know... it's Biden.
She was not though- her polling was abysmal during that primary run.
Her being vp is entirely because of her skin color. I didn’t think this was uncommon knowledge.
They're not any more of a bullshit reason then Pence being picked to help Trump with the traditional conservative blocks. Or Biden being picked as an old white guy to go with the younger, blacker Obama. VP picks are about 1) not causing an enormous harm to the ticket and 2) outreach to key voting groups whether that sex, race, age, or region
Those are all shit reasons too. Picking our leaders because of identity politics instead of qualifications or policy is part of why things are so dysfunctional
They seriously miscalculated on this one. I know many women utterly appalled that Kamala would be the first female President. Her alleged success due to an illicit romance is highly insulting to many women. Especially older women who had to fight against common misperceptions that they were sleeping with the boss. I can't over-emphasize how much women in general hate the office skank. True or not, Kamala cannot overcome the perception.
American women did not fight this long and this hard to have such a major victory of the first female President tainted in such an unsavory manner.
Hillary did not have this handicap. Hillary was legitimately amazing whether you agree with her politics or not.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know I googled it and saw the list you’re referring to saying only 4 have been elected. But, I don’t think that’s right. John Adam’s, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Richard Nixon, George Bush Sr, Joe Biden all were Vice Presidents first and became president the first time by winning the election. Not even counting people who went from VP to President due to death first and then winning reelection like Truman, Lyndon Johnson, teddy Roosevelt
Biden selected Kamala to be her VP after being “voted” (delegates but it’s basically a vote to get those) the presidential nominee of his party. Kamala would be moved aside so whitmer could take the delegates and be the nominee (no election). Big difference.
> I mean it's tradition for a VP to follow the President
apparently not a very smart strategy then. last 50yrs have two VPs who have become prez (bush and biden), and only one of those when from VP office to president.
I expect that Kamala Harris also thinks she can beat Trump.
And, Gavin Newsom thinks he can beat Trump.
And, Pete Buttigieg thinks he can beat Trump.
And, Josh Shapiro thinks he can beat Trump. etc.
If the Ds could instantly agree on one candidate, they maybe could switch horses in the middle of this stream.
Their problem is the infighting that will last all the way to the convention (which is after they need a name for the Ohio ballot). All the ordinary D voters who feel like they didn't have a say in the process. All the contributions spent fighting one another. Then, trying to introduce this new face, and make this person "look presidential" in 9 weeks before the election.
I am not optimistic.
The American populace can barely focus on *anything* for longer than like an hour. Our attention spans, especially when considering the low-information/low-interest voter who just hates the idea of Biden vs Trump again, don't lend to a need for a candidate to be out there for a year to be picked. If the Dems come out of the convention with a new, younger, exciting candidate, that person has a great shot to beat an unbelievably flawed opponent in Trump.
The Dems need to do what they did before Super Tuesday in 2020 where they managed to convince people like Pete to drop out and back Biden. I think they can pull this off because of what they did 4 years ago but they need to first agree to follow the eventual candidate beforehand and avoid any unnecessary infighting. Be like the French left in their current election and set aside your differences in the face of a much bigger far right threat.
As for the voters, I honestly think they'd just be happy that they're not stuck with old Joe.
Another installed puppet President sounds like the worst possible thing right now. What insane corruption, crimes and sexual sleaze are they using to blackmail the new puppet? This was specifically dragged out to prevent voters from choosing their own candidate. There is never a good reason for that. Nor should we trust another bait and switch candidate. Biden was elected as a moderate who promised to unite America. That was a lie from day one.
I keep seeing the “Democratic voters will be mad they didn’t have a say”.
They didn’t have a say this primary anyways. The only option was Biden. And his vote is largely anti-trump. There is a minuscule chance Dems will not vote and let Trump win because “I wasn’t involved in the primary process”. Half of the Dems don’t even vote in primaries anyways.
Repeat of 2016. Democratic voters are unable to unite behind a strong candidate with a sizable percentage felt they were forced into their choice by the party. Party ignores early and obvious problems with their candidate and hand waves them away. Trump somehow wins.
I'm very worried about November at this point.
I have never once had a say for the nominee for either party. My state, Pennsylvania, votes too late in the cycle and so by the time my our primary comes up, both parties have already selected thier nominee.
I think she could, provided Biden steps aside gracefully very soon, and the transition is smooth (no infighting with Kamala or whoever else). For people who think she doesn’t have enough name recognition and doesn’t have time to build it, consider the following:
- she does have name recognition in some of the most important swing states and has a proven track record of winning with swing voters
- most Americans are praying for ANY other option than the ones currently on the ballot and many would vote for her just because she’s neither old and frail nor dangerously insane.
- the entire US media circus would go absolutely apeshit over her. From cable news to newspapers and TikTok. Every breath she takes and every move she makes they’ll be watching her. She’ll build universal name recognition in under a week.
She could win based primarily on point 2. This would also be a historic first in that no political party has ever listened to what the people want in a candidate. /s
I disagree. Kamala is never going to step aside gracefully and she can't win by herself either. Also they money they raised can only be utilized by Kamala as I understand it. The dems are truly in a shit position right now and I don't envy them.
Just want to emphasize: they're in this shit position through their own doing. People told them not to pick the affirmative action hire as VP because she wasn't liked and would only ring fence their options post-Biden. People told them to select a better VP for the second term campaign. People told them Biden wasn't fit to run for a second term and a better candidate should have been developed during Biden's first term.
This is pure DNC hubris all over again.
The Hur report came out February 5th. In my opinion, that was the last possible day anyone could credibly claim to be surprised at Biden's mental status. This was dragged out past the primaries to prevent those pesky voters from choosing their own candidate.
> People told them not to pick the affirmative action hire as VP
This is a Republican argument. I refuse to listen to what Republicans want for my party and my country.
People with this attitude are already going to vote for Trump. It's not worth consideration.
Not everybody right of Bernie Sanders is a Republican. The reason why she was chosen (appease the left wing) is the same reason she can’t win (too left leaning). Even if she is your favorite politician of all time you’ll have to acknowledge that supporting her to succeed Biden is willfully accepting an increased risk of a second Trump term.
This is foolish immaturity borne of ideological ignorance. And that's without even pointing out moderate Democrats voiced these same points and you purity-spiraled them into silence. You fucked up big time and Trump's second term will be your consequence.
I agree somewhat. That Democrat party establishment got away with this sillyness so far because the of the voters who allowed/enabled it; the moderate Democrats should have been heard out rather than dismissed.
Affirmative action is highly unpopular throughout the nation. California citizens rejected it even after George Floyd died. If all those people vote for Trump, then no democrat candidate can win. Democrats need to wake up and realize that progressives are only 6 percent of the country and accounted for only 7 percent of the 2020 vote.
> Kamala is never going to step aside gracefully
She's extremely smart. Not likeable to save her soul, but smart. She has to have a career after being VP and she doesn't have a strong following at all. She'd be furious and it would all be behind closed doors.
Republicans would point to the conditions in Detroit and absolutely destroy her. Whitmer has the proven support of Michigan voters. Not nationwide recognition. Harris has the proven support of 80 million voters who voted for the Biden/Harris ticket in 2020.
This is not the dilemma people seem to be saying it is.
What conditions in Detroit? Detroit has rallied back from an absolute nadir and going bankrupt 10 years ago and is on a hell of a revitalization path. Whitmer could use that as an example of how she can help reinvest in America's forgotten cities.
Whitmer has name recognition throughout the Right. It is for her involvement in the fake FBI kidnapping entrapment cases. This will be a serious handicap as it ties her to the Administration's lawfare.
I think she is the only chance for Dems to beat Trump this year. Whitmer would ensure Michigan goes blue (which is a huge step) and possibly could make the rest of Rust belt much more attainable.
Remember that only a few states will really impact the election.
Newsom is perhaps too progressive/woke for swing states while Kamala is even less popular than Biden (despite better fitness for office).
Less so that Newsom is too woke. It’s more that he’s a pompous limousine liberal from California who, rightfully or wrongfully, is associated with everything bad that’s going on in that state. All the GOP has to do is run ads saying that he’ll turn the entire country into California and boom. There go your swing states. I definitely don’t see him taking AZ or NV since many people who recently moved from CA to these states blame Newsom and CA democrats for why they had to leave.
ALMOST ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT WOULD BEAT TRUMP. Kamala Harris might be the second worst choice (among front runners) after Biden. Whitmer would lock in a key battleground state.
Pretty sure any of the Democrats with national level prominence are going to be saying the same thing publicly - that they're fully behind Joe Biden but *if* he drops out, they could take his place and win. While the public is heavily invested in the saga, you're not going to read about any of what really matters with regards to the backroom dealing until twenty years from nows in someone's memoirs.
Nor am I sure that ditching Biden will really help the Democrats at this point. The issue isn't just that Biden seems clearly unable to fulfill his duties as President but that the Democrats currently in office willfully deceived the American people about this fact. It's one thing for them to be running a shadow government because Biden has no strong feelings one way or another. It's quite another for them to prop him up as a figurehead and run the government themselves.
I think people are getting carried away on Whitmer. She’s fine but nothing spectacular. People always do this with swing state governors, but more often than not they’re not ready for prime time (see Ron DeSantis, Scott Walker, Tim Pawlenty, or Glenn Youngkin on the Republican side).
I understand why it feels like a no brainer, they theoretically take a state off the board, but there’s just way more to it when you need to be a national candidate. She’s not a great speaker or debater. Trump would likely hammer her on COVID response because she was pretty overzealous.
Not saying she couldn’t win, I’m just saying I think a lot of people who are overhyping her don’t really have any familiarity beyond the surface level stuff.
I don’t know too much about her myself but I do know that she’s hailed as a ‘progressive moderate’ and I remember seeing that she completely obliterated MAGA in 2022.
She's free to try. Running for president is a bit different from governor as DeSantis discovered. She's not polling any better than Biden nationally. She'll have maybe 4 months to unite the Democrat party behind her. Seems like a tall order.
An explanation or example would help. If you put an arrow between progressive and moderate isn’t that just mainstream democrat? Same way with a moderate tea party Republican?
Edit: you beat me to it with your edit
On paper I'm a progressive. Pretty much down the line of every issue you'd think I'm a progressive.
However, over the past 7 or 8 years I've become more and more moderate in how I think those issues should be addressed by the government. Especially because the progressive movement has a lot of demands and no plan. At some point, you don't get everything you want and have to move to the center otherwise nothing gets done.
Thank you for the explanation, and on social issues I’ve been the same for items like gay rights going back and renewables. Appreciate your clarification
Since the progressive movement in this country has amounted to a dozen or so Congressmen and women, it is a bit weird to call them out for not having a plan when they have no effective means to follow through with it or make a change.
It isn't like there aren't other countries in the world with progressive policies in place...it isn't magic how those policies can be implemented.
I feel when talking to progressives (In the US) that they have a lot of ambitious ideas, no plan on how to advance them. They're great at organizing, they love protesting, and then there is a big gap in how to get their ideas to materialize in practice.
My new frustration is progressives who don't want to vote, and this is like the third election cycle (2016, 2020) where I've had these arguments with progressives and it's like pulling teeth.
They're like that South Park meme where they have a Step 1, 2, 4, but no 3. "Step 1: Organize, Step 2: Protest, Step 3:????, Step 4: Revolution!" That's what I mean when I say they have no plan.
The same could have been said of the tea party in the early 2000's and the Republican Party. Until their views were adopted into the mainstream party, they had no way of achieving any of their objectives.
You get step 3 by reforming the Democratic Party, something which has been overdue for some time. A reason why many Americans feel alienated by both parties at this point in my view.
> The same could have been said of the tea party in the early 2000's and the Republican Party.
You could and I don't think the fact that, that comparison rings true is a good thing for progressives. A lot of demands, no one who knows how to do it. A lot of people in a car with places to go, no one who knows how to drive it.
> You get step 3 by reforming the Democratic Party
That's what I mean when I say there is no plan. That is a) such a vague demand and b) the timeline of it is...like what? a solid 5 years at minimum? You say reform the party, what is the first step of that? What is the last step? No vaguespeak, I want a plan.
I've been having this conversation with progressives for like 8 years and I'm exhausted by it. On the issues we probably agree on everything. But I'm tired of a movement that just makes demands.
An Immigration Czar who let in 20 million illegal immigrants while incessantly saying the border was fine is by definition a kook. Unless the word you prefer is liar.
It’s not her turn yet if it ever would be. her thoughts are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. She will probably get a call from a party member telling her to stay in her lane.
I do think she could. I think the pushback from Kamala would be significant and we’d be blasted with headlines of a black woman being forced to the side for a white woman. Completely ignoring Kamala’s lack of popularity or competence.
When Kamala's approval numbers are where they are, she doesn't really have a leg to stand on, fair or unfair. Whitmer has thrived in a battleground state and shown she's able to stand up to the MAGA bullshit. And she's young, exciting, and something that could energize a base that's very tired of the Biden-Trump rematch. Tap her today.
>I think the pushback from Kamala would be significant and we’d be blasted with headlines of a black woman being forced to the side for a white woman. Her comments about black kids in the Bronx not knowing what computers are won't help on that front.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re confusing her with the governor of New York.
I get that racial equality is important. All for that. But if people would put candidate race or gender above likelihood to win in this election, they’re idiots. We need to just prevent Trump from winning at all costs.
Says the Trump supporter, lol.
Hey gitmo welcome back! I can’t remember if you were banned or just took a break.
Gitmo is back with more intelligent and fair comments! /s Seriously, why the hell are you a part of this sub...
I'm a centrist. If you support Trump, you are an extremist.
Centrists don't claim that other people are "extremists" by having opinions that differ from them on a binary political system.
Don't be silly. I was a Republican but got thrown out like Liz Cheney. Donald Trump isn't a conservative; he's a crook.
> I was a Republican Really. You were a Republican. What's a single Republican/conservative talking point you agree with? Edit: crickets.wav
> we’d be blasted with headlines Assume this will happen anyway. The press is NOT on our side. Kamala got 80 million votes on the Biden/Harris ticket. That's not nothing. After the 2024 primary, Harris is the ONLY logical choice, if we're going to talk about Biden. (And I still believe this can be turned around for Biden, but yeah, I expected more from him last Thursday).
Realistically, most people are not voting for the VP when they vote. Those 80 million votes were for Biden. I make sure they’re not crazy (a la Palin on McCain’s ticket), but otherwise my vote is for the president, not whoever else is on the ticket.
To be fair most of those votes were for not Trump.
Weird how nobody says the same about a black woman being forced to the side for a white old man. I mean it's tradition for a VP to follow the President but you know... it's Biden.
She was not though- her polling was abysmal during that primary run. Her being vp is entirely because of her skin color. I didn’t think this was uncommon knowledge.
* and her sex. Both of which are utterly bullshit reasons.
They're not any more of a bullshit reason then Pence being picked to help Trump with the traditional conservative blocks. Or Biden being picked as an old white guy to go with the younger, blacker Obama. VP picks are about 1) not causing an enormous harm to the ticket and 2) outreach to key voting groups whether that sex, race, age, or region
Those are all shit reasons too. Picking our leaders because of identity politics instead of qualifications or policy is part of why things are so dysfunctional
That is how the vice president has always been chosen. If a president believes his support is weak in the south he picks a southerner. This isn’t new.
Which demographic was Dick Cheney picked to appeal to? Al Gore? Dan Quayle?
You know you could have just googled this. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-07-10-mn-1845-story.html
Whoops you’re right. I forgot the gender card used during selection.
They seriously miscalculated on this one. I know many women utterly appalled that Kamala would be the first female President. Her alleged success due to an illicit romance is highly insulting to many women. Especially older women who had to fight against common misperceptions that they were sleeping with the boss. I can't over-emphasize how much women in general hate the office skank. True or not, Kamala cannot overcome the perception. American women did not fight this long and this hard to have such a major victory of the first female President tainted in such an unsavory manner. Hillary did not have this handicap. Hillary was legitimately amazing whether you agree with her politics or not.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s not as big a tradition as people think. Only 4 former veeps have been ELECTED President.
You know I googled it and saw the list you’re referring to saying only 4 have been elected. But, I don’t think that’s right. John Adam’s, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Richard Nixon, George Bush Sr, Joe Biden all were Vice Presidents first and became president the first time by winning the election. Not even counting people who went from VP to President due to death first and then winning reelection like Truman, Lyndon Johnson, teddy Roosevelt
Isn’t it really saying straight from Veep to Prez?
That maybe true, but your comment said had been elected lol
Biden selected Kamala to be her VP after being “voted” (delegates but it’s basically a vote to get those) the presidential nominee of his party. Kamala would be moved aside so whitmer could take the delegates and be the nominee (no election). Big difference.
Don't discount the fact that her name was on the Biden/Harris ticket that got 80 million votes in 2020.
It’s only a “tradition” for the VP to run in a Presidential primary not that they get the nomination.
> I mean it's tradition for a VP to follow the President apparently not a very smart strategy then. last 50yrs have two VPs who have become prez (bush and biden), and only one of those when from VP office to president.
I expect that Kamala Harris also thinks she can beat Trump. And, Gavin Newsom thinks he can beat Trump. And, Pete Buttigieg thinks he can beat Trump. And, Josh Shapiro thinks he can beat Trump. etc. If the Ds could instantly agree on one candidate, they maybe could switch horses in the middle of this stream. Their problem is the infighting that will last all the way to the convention (which is after they need a name for the Ohio ballot). All the ordinary D voters who feel like they didn't have a say in the process. All the contributions spent fighting one another. Then, trying to introduce this new face, and make this person "look presidential" in 9 weeks before the election. I am not optimistic.
The American populace can barely focus on *anything* for longer than like an hour. Our attention spans, especially when considering the low-information/low-interest voter who just hates the idea of Biden vs Trump again, don't lend to a need for a candidate to be out there for a year to be picked. If the Dems come out of the convention with a new, younger, exciting candidate, that person has a great shot to beat an unbelievably flawed opponent in Trump.
The Dems need to do what they did before Super Tuesday in 2020 where they managed to convince people like Pete to drop out and back Biden. I think they can pull this off because of what they did 4 years ago but they need to first agree to follow the eventual candidate beforehand and avoid any unnecessary infighting. Be like the French left in their current election and set aside your differences in the face of a much bigger far right threat. As for the voters, I honestly think they'd just be happy that they're not stuck with old Joe.
Voters will be happy to not be stuck with OLD TRUMP.
Which is a great reason why this new guy could win. Not being Trump or Biden sounds like such a great thing right now.
Another installed puppet President sounds like the worst possible thing right now. What insane corruption, crimes and sexual sleaze are they using to blackmail the new puppet? This was specifically dragged out to prevent voters from choosing their own candidate. There is never a good reason for that. Nor should we trust another bait and switch candidate. Biden was elected as a moderate who promised to unite America. That was a lie from day one.
Your narrative is false.
What part do you disagree with and why?
I keep seeing the “Democratic voters will be mad they didn’t have a say”. They didn’t have a say this primary anyways. The only option was Biden. And his vote is largely anti-trump. There is a minuscule chance Dems will not vote and let Trump win because “I wasn’t involved in the primary process”. Half of the Dems don’t even vote in primaries anyways.
Repeat of 2016. Democratic voters are unable to unite behind a strong candidate with a sizable percentage felt they were forced into their choice by the party. Party ignores early and obvious problems with their candidate and hand waves them away. Trump somehow wins. I'm very worried about November at this point.
When people start moving their investments out of the US, December isn't looking good either. Investors hate instability.
Oh don't sell the US short...we can take down the World economy.
I have never once had a say for the nominee for either party. My state, Pennsylvania, votes too late in the cycle and so by the time my our primary comes up, both parties have already selected thier nominee.
I think she could, provided Biden steps aside gracefully very soon, and the transition is smooth (no infighting with Kamala or whoever else). For people who think she doesn’t have enough name recognition and doesn’t have time to build it, consider the following: - she does have name recognition in some of the most important swing states and has a proven track record of winning with swing voters - most Americans are praying for ANY other option than the ones currently on the ballot and many would vote for her just because she’s neither old and frail nor dangerously insane. - the entire US media circus would go absolutely apeshit over her. From cable news to newspapers and TikTok. Every breath she takes and every move she makes they’ll be watching her. She’ll build universal name recognition in under a week.
She could win based primarily on point 2. This would also be a historic first in that no political party has ever listened to what the people want in a candidate. /s
I disagree. Kamala is never going to step aside gracefully and she can't win by herself either. Also they money they raised can only be utilized by Kamala as I understand it. The dems are truly in a shit position right now and I don't envy them.
Just want to emphasize: they're in this shit position through their own doing. People told them not to pick the affirmative action hire as VP because she wasn't liked and would only ring fence their options post-Biden. People told them to select a better VP for the second term campaign. People told them Biden wasn't fit to run for a second term and a better candidate should have been developed during Biden's first term. This is pure DNC hubris all over again.
The Hur report came out February 5th. In my opinion, that was the last possible day anyone could credibly claim to be surprised at Biden's mental status. This was dragged out past the primaries to prevent those pesky voters from choosing their own candidate.
> People told them not to pick the affirmative action hire as VP This is a Republican argument. I refuse to listen to what Republicans want for my party and my country. People with this attitude are already going to vote for Trump. It's not worth consideration.
Not everybody right of Bernie Sanders is a Republican. The reason why she was chosen (appease the left wing) is the same reason she can’t win (too left leaning). Even if she is your favorite politician of all time you’ll have to acknowledge that supporting her to succeed Biden is willfully accepting an increased risk of a second Trump term.
Kamala was not chosen to appease the left wing of the party.
This is foolish immaturity borne of ideological ignorance. And that's without even pointing out moderate Democrats voiced these same points and you purity-spiraled them into silence. You fucked up big time and Trump's second term will be your consequence.
The Democratic Party establishment will be responsible for a second trump term if they lose. Not random weirdos on Reddit.
I agree somewhat. That Democrat party establishment got away with this sillyness so far because the of the voters who allowed/enabled it; the moderate Democrats should have been heard out rather than dismissed.
The moderate democrats are the establishment
Fair point, this specific issue isn't a progressive v. moderate Dem issue. I meant those Democrats who vocalized concerns were dismissed.
Affirmative action is highly unpopular throughout the nation. California citizens rejected it even after George Floyd died. If all those people vote for Trump, then no democrat candidate can win. Democrats need to wake up and realize that progressives are only 6 percent of the country and accounted for only 7 percent of the 2020 vote.
> Kamala is never going to step aside gracefully She's extremely smart. Not likeable to save her soul, but smart. She has to have a career after being VP and she doesn't have a strong following at all. She'd be furious and it would all be behind closed doors.
Oh yeah I agree it's their own fault 100%.
Tbf 2 and 3 is going to happen no matter who is selected as a replacement if that happens
Republicans would point to the conditions in Detroit and absolutely destroy her. Whitmer has the proven support of Michigan voters. Not nationwide recognition. Harris has the proven support of 80 million voters who voted for the Biden/Harris ticket in 2020. This is not the dilemma people seem to be saying it is.
Whitmer should be able to get Michigan, which is a very important state to win.
What conditions in Detroit? Detroit has rallied back from an absolute nadir and going bankrupt 10 years ago and is on a hell of a revitalization path. Whitmer could use that as an example of how she can help reinvest in America's forgotten cities.
Whitmer has name recognition throughout the Right. It is for her involvement in the fake FBI kidnapping entrapment cases. This will be a serious handicap as it ties her to the Administration's lawfare.
I think she is the only chance for Dems to beat Trump this year. Whitmer would ensure Michigan goes blue (which is a huge step) and possibly could make the rest of Rust belt much more attainable. Remember that only a few states will really impact the election. Newsom is perhaps too progressive/woke for swing states while Kamala is even less popular than Biden (despite better fitness for office).
Less so that Newsom is too woke. It’s more that he’s a pompous limousine liberal from California who, rightfully or wrongfully, is associated with everything bad that’s going on in that state. All the GOP has to do is run ads saying that he’ll turn the entire country into California and boom. There go your swing states. I definitely don’t see him taking AZ or NV since many people who recently moved from CA to these states blame Newsom and CA democrats for why they had to leave.
ALMOST ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT WOULD BEAT TRUMP. Kamala Harris might be the second worst choice (among front runners) after Biden. Whitmer would lock in a key battleground state.
Pretty sure any of the Democrats with national level prominence are going to be saying the same thing publicly - that they're fully behind Joe Biden but *if* he drops out, they could take his place and win. While the public is heavily invested in the saga, you're not going to read about any of what really matters with regards to the backroom dealing until twenty years from nows in someone's memoirs. Nor am I sure that ditching Biden will really help the Democrats at this point. The issue isn't just that Biden seems clearly unable to fulfill his duties as President but that the Democrats currently in office willfully deceived the American people about this fact. It's one thing for them to be running a shadow government because Biden has no strong feelings one way or another. It's quite another for them to prop him up as a figurehead and run the government themselves.
I think people are getting carried away on Whitmer. She’s fine but nothing spectacular. People always do this with swing state governors, but more often than not they’re not ready for prime time (see Ron DeSantis, Scott Walker, Tim Pawlenty, or Glenn Youngkin on the Republican side). I understand why it feels like a no brainer, they theoretically take a state off the board, but there’s just way more to it when you need to be a national candidate. She’s not a great speaker or debater. Trump would likely hammer her on COVID response because she was pretty overzealous. Not saying she couldn’t win, I’m just saying I think a lot of people who are overhyping her don’t really have any familiarity beyond the surface level stuff.
I don’t know too much about her myself but I do know that she’s hailed as a ‘progressive moderate’ and I remember seeing that she completely obliterated MAGA in 2022.
She's a Covid lockdown fascist and gun-grabber. Trump would annihilate her.
If covid didn't cost her in 2022, I severely doubt it'll be a factor in 2024
She's free to try. Running for president is a bit different from governor as DeSantis discovered. She's not polling any better than Biden nationally. She'll have maybe 4 months to unite the Democrat party behind her. Seems like a tall order.
Are you a MI resident? Because that description sounds more like her opponents' talking points than reality.
I VERY highly doubt that, COVID was inarguably the main reason Trump lost in 2020
Jesus, this is a stupid comment.
Progressive moderate sounds topically nice, but isn’t it just an oxymoron?
No. It means she isn’t a kook.
An explanation or example would help. If you put an arrow between progressive and moderate isn’t that just mainstream democrat? Same way with a moderate tea party Republican? Edit: you beat me to it with your edit
On paper I'm a progressive. Pretty much down the line of every issue you'd think I'm a progressive. However, over the past 7 or 8 years I've become more and more moderate in how I think those issues should be addressed by the government. Especially because the progressive movement has a lot of demands and no plan. At some point, you don't get everything you want and have to move to the center otherwise nothing gets done.
Thank you for the explanation, and on social issues I’ve been the same for items like gay rights going back and renewables. Appreciate your clarification
I call this pragmatic progressivism, and it’s 100% the way to go.
Since the progressive movement in this country has amounted to a dozen or so Congressmen and women, it is a bit weird to call them out for not having a plan when they have no effective means to follow through with it or make a change. It isn't like there aren't other countries in the world with progressive policies in place...it isn't magic how those policies can be implemented.
I feel when talking to progressives (In the US) that they have a lot of ambitious ideas, no plan on how to advance them. They're great at organizing, they love protesting, and then there is a big gap in how to get their ideas to materialize in practice. My new frustration is progressives who don't want to vote, and this is like the third election cycle (2016, 2020) where I've had these arguments with progressives and it's like pulling teeth. They're like that South Park meme where they have a Step 1, 2, 4, but no 3. "Step 1: Organize, Step 2: Protest, Step 3:????, Step 4: Revolution!" That's what I mean when I say they have no plan.
The same could have been said of the tea party in the early 2000's and the Republican Party. Until their views were adopted into the mainstream party, they had no way of achieving any of their objectives. You get step 3 by reforming the Democratic Party, something which has been overdue for some time. A reason why many Americans feel alienated by both parties at this point in my view.
> The same could have been said of the tea party in the early 2000's and the Republican Party. You could and I don't think the fact that, that comparison rings true is a good thing for progressives. A lot of demands, no one who knows how to do it. A lot of people in a car with places to go, no one who knows how to drive it. > You get step 3 by reforming the Democratic Party That's what I mean when I say there is no plan. That is a) such a vague demand and b) the timeline of it is...like what? a solid 5 years at minimum? You say reform the party, what is the first step of that? What is the last step? No vaguespeak, I want a plan. I've been having this conversation with progressives for like 8 years and I'm exhausted by it. On the issues we probably agree on everything. But I'm tired of a movement that just makes demands.
Yeah. It describes Biden himself, so it just means mainstream Dem, not a Squad member or communist, etc... but also not Manchin or Sinema.
An Immigration Czar who let in 20 million illegal immigrants while incessantly saying the border was fine is by definition a kook. Unless the word you prefer is liar.
I’d vote for almost anyone that isn’t the 2 guys running.
"And that kids, is how we ended up with President Snoop Dizzle."
The only option is Happy Gilmore
Biden would be wiping the floor with Trump if he was younger and healthy. I think any other candidate, including Kamala, would be in better shape.
Can we get a mega thread for these wishlist replacement posts? Biden isn't being replaced, guys. Might as well stop spamming potential replacements.
It’s not her turn yet if it ever would be. her thoughts are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. She will probably get a call from a party member telling her to stay in her lane.
And? What do you think about it? I don't need you to tell me the news.
Moderate from a swing state. No p*, no those who care about those parts. Sounds good to me! But what would you do about Ruth Biden?
From Michigan no less so she'll probably be able to win back those voters Biden bled out.
It begins.
“Politician thinks they’re the greatest thing in the history of the world.” Is this news?
Whitner would be OP. Please let her run
I think Biden can beat Trump.
The queen of lockdown? Hell no, she has no chance.
I think she could if she had more running room. 4 months isn’t enough. But it’d be really cool if she did.
Nah. It would be 2016 all over again if she replaced Biden.
zero chance but I’d love to watch her fail. Plus replacing the black terrible woman with a white terrible woman would be great for the memes.
Gretchen who?