Do Democrats fall in behind Kamala Harris?

[Lanman87]

So far it is looking like a coronation of Kamala Harris as the Dem nominee. I wonder what the law is for this sort of thing. (update: apparently both Joe and Kamala's name are on the FEC paperwork so she can use the money already raised) Can one candidate just give their campaign funds to another if they decide to drop out of the race?

Will other democrats rise up and challenge her nomination and get enough delegates for force a brokered convention? (I doubt it)

Democrats are hoping everyone falls into line behind Harris. A protracted floor fight at the convention is never a good thing for the candidate.

The best thing that could happen for Trump at this point is that Democrats fight over the nomination, taking their time, energy, and money away from campaigning against him while making the democrats look out of control and divided.

Either way, it is a whole new ballgame. A lot can happen in 100 days.

We are living in strange times indeed.

 

[tango]

As people have said here and elsewhere in news articles the optics of rejecting the first black woman to appear at the top of a presidential ticket would be pretty bad for the party so obsessed with putting black women everywhere. It would have to be the ultimate indication that they want black women to have some power, just not too much power. To say Kamala can serve as vice president but not as president would be a pretty strong message that black women should know their place.

How she'll fare as a presidential candidate remains to be seen. Her 2020 candidacy was eminently forgettable until Biden decided his running mate had to be a black woman because, well, obviously, and she went from falling at the first hurdle to suddenly being the VP candidate. Given how widely it's been alleged that she's the insurance policy to keep Biden in the White House, because getting rid of him means President Harris becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see how the nation reacts to the prospect of voting for her.

On the flip side, she isn't Trump so that alone will ensure she gets a lot of votes.

 

[Lamb]

My Democrat friends on Facebook are already posting that they stand with Kamala. But then again, Democrats vote the party and not the person. They'd vote for a tick if it was running.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I miss Joe. I'm not too fond of his replacement.

 

[NewCreation435]

So far it is looking like a coronation of Kamala Harris as the Dem nominee. I wonder what the law is for this sort of thing. (update: apparently both Joe and Kamala's name are on the FEC paperwork so she can use the money already raised) Can one candidate just give their campaign funds to another if they decide to drop out of the race?

Will other democrats rise up and challenge her nomination and get enough delegates for force a brokered convention? (I doubt it)

Democrats are hoping everyone falls into line behind Harris. A protracted floor fight at the convention is never a good thing for the candidate.

The best thing that could happen for Trump at this point is that Democrats fight over the nomination, taking their time, energy, and money away from campaigning against him while making the democrats look out of control and divided.

Either way, it is a whole new ballgame. A lot can happen in 100 days.

We are living in strange times indeed.

I think it largely depends on what the poll numbers show. If Harris doesn't have a clear path to victory I could see someone else entering the race.

From what I have heard if Harris and Biden are both out of the race then the funds go to the Democrat party, but I could be wrong

 

[Forgiven1]

My Democrat friends on Facebook are already posting that they stand with Kamala. But then again, Democrats vote the party and not the person. They'd vote for a tick if it was running.

This is what I a seeing too.

 

[tango]

To borrow from what Josiah and others have said here and elsewhere, so much for democracy. The party endlessly claiming that their opponent is a threat to democracy fairly elected one candidate, then he pulled out and anointed his chosen successor and the rank and file members don't get a look in.

What great courage. The candidate who fell at the first hurdle is now a shoo-in. What could possibly go wrong? But hey, at least she's brown and not orange.

 

[tango]

If the establishment is so enthusiastic about Harris being president, and Biden is too old and worn out to run again, why doesn't Biden stand down and let the nation see how good a Harris presidency would be? She could take the reins for a few months before the election, it wouldn't affect her ability to serve two full terms if she so chose, and Biden could retire.

You'd almost be forgiven for thinking the powers behind the powers don't want the people to see what President Harris might actually look like.

 

[Albion]

If the establishment is so enthusiastic about Harris being president, and Biden is too old and worn out to run again, why doesn't Biden stand down and let the nation see how good a Harris presidency would be? She could take the reins for a few months before the election, it wouldn't affect her ability to serve two full terms if she so chose, and Biden could retire.

Reportedly, Biden was outraged at being leveraged out of the race by party leaders, so agreeing to end his candidacy with some fake support for Kamala was about as much as his ego could take. Asking him to also resign from the presidency was more than he'd agree to.

In addition, he kept up the fiction, upon making his announcement, that his motivation for ending his campaign was that he'd come to the realization that it was time to pass the torch, blah blah blah, to a new generation. To then also resign as president would have suggested that he couldn't handle the job anymore. Whether true or false, that is something he had been telling the world was not true.

 

[tango]

Reportedly, Biden was outraged at being leveraged out of the race by party leaders, so agreeing to end his candidacy with some fake support for Kamala was about as much as his ego could take. Asking him to also resign from the presidency was more than he'd agree to.

In addition, he kept up the fiction, upon making his announcement, that his motivation for ending his campaign was that he'd come to the realization that it was time to pass the torch, blah blah blah, to a new generation. To then also resign as president would have suggested that he couldn't handle the job anymore. Whether true or false, that is something he had been telling the world was not true.

I can believe all of this. It still rings hollow when you've got an old man who is clearly struggling with just about everything, allegedly having a lot of faith in his anointed successor but refusing to give her the chance to demonstrate just how good she is.

 

[Josiah]

It doesn't seem Harris is polling any better than Biden.

Getting a more liberal, female, half Black replacement doesn't seem to have done any good. I think the LIBERALS are more excited about her (being more liberal, a woman, half Black) and this may help turn-out by them on election day. But so far, it doesn't seem to be moving the needle. Democrats will vote for the Democrat no matter what. The "fight" is with the independents and she hasn't appealed to them any better than Biden did.


.

 

[Albion]

Her choice of Vice-President probably won't help her much either. But if he's as far left as the media says, the pair of them can easily be painted as extremists.

Whether or not Trump is going to concentrate on that is anyone's guess. If he continues to campaign by making sarcastic remarks and rambling, overly longwinded speeches rather than "laying it on the line" what the Biden-Kamala administration did wrong and that Kamala and Tim Walz will do more of the same or worse, he will diminish his chances.

 

[Josiah]

Whether or not Trump is going to concentrate on that is anyone's guess. If he continues to campaign by making sarcastic remarks and rambling, overly longwinded speeches rather than "laying it on the line" what the Biden-Kamala administration did wrong and that Kamala and Tim Walz will do more of the same or worse, he will diminish his chances.

Agreed.

Trump's inclination to name-call and to make shocking statements (like "Russia can do what it wants with NATO countries") then he will diminish his chances. But Trump is Trump; he will do what he does.


.

 

[tango]

Curious. I wonder to what extent the more liberal wing will vote along identity lines, and to what extent the DEI brigade would vote blue regardless of who was on the ticket and thereby negate any perceived benefits from box ticking.

As always it seems there's a reasonable block on both sides who vote straight party tickets regardless of who is standing, and who may not even know or care what their chosen party even stands for. It's hard to see Trump or Harris having any meaningful support among moderate voters who would usually vote for the other side, so it's just about which has more appeal to independent and floating voters, and whether either of them is sufficiently unappealing that the moderates on their own side stay home.

 

[Albion]

Apparently so. The contest this year has been described as being one that pits socialism against patriotism, with the future of the American form of government at stake.

When the sides are so sharply opposed to each other, it's hard to appreciate how any moderate or Independent voter looking on would have trouble deciding which way to vote. Or that something like the mannerisms or gender of one of the candidates or the fine points of some single piece of legislation, etc. would be allowed by those voters to make all the difference.

 

[tango]

Apparently so. The contest this year has been described as being one that pits socialism against patriotism, with the future of the American form of government at stake.

I'm not a fan of socialism in principle but I'm not sure that socialism and patriotism have to be mutually exclusive. Scandinavian countries seem to work well, such that people from there are often proud of their country and their way of doing things. But then there are the basket cases like Venezuela that people are leaving in their droves. I suppose that socialism, like capitalism, has different approaches that offer different levels of success and it's not as simple as "socialism good" or "socialism bad".

When the sides are so sharply opposed to each other, it's hard to appreciate how any moderate or Independent voter looking on would have trouble deciding which way to vote. Or that something like the mannerisms or gender of one of the candidates or the fine points of some single piece of legislation, etc. would be allowed by those voters to make all the difference.

When moderate voters on both sides dislike their own party's candidate it is hard to see which way an independent voter might lean. When moderate Democrats are uncertain about Harris it's hard to imagine a moderate Republican finding anything much to like about her, and likewise when moderate Republicans are uncertain about Trump it's hard to imagine a moderate Democrat finding anything much to like about him. An independent voter ends up having to choose the lesser of two evils, which never seems like a good way to select a leader for the next four years.

I agree that independent voters probably wouldn't be swung by appeals to race and gender, or by the finer details of specific legislation. It ends up being a question of whether you'd rather have a government that is too far left for comfort or a government that is too far right for comfort.

 

[Albion]

I'm not a fan of socialism in principle but I'm not sure that socialism and patriotism have to be mutually exclusive. Scandinavian countries seem to work well, such that people from there are often proud of their country and their way of doing things. But then there are the basket cases like Venezuela that people are leaving in their droves. I suppose that socialism, like capitalism, has different approaches that offer different levels of success and it's not as simple as "socialism good" or "socialism bad".

Then, if you wish, we could substitute "the Venezuelan system" for the word I used.

When moderate voters on both sides dislike their own party's candidate it is hard to see which way an independent voter might lean. When moderate Democrats are uncertain about Harris it's hard to imagine a moderate Republican finding anything much to like about her, and likewise when moderate Republicans are uncertain about Trump it's hard to imagine a moderate Democrat finding anything much to like about him.

Well, as I was saying, the contrast is stark if we really take a look at it and are not misled or distracted by a few characteristics that are associated with the candidates of either party.

An independent voter ends up having to choose the lesser of two evils, which never seems like a good way to select a leader for the next four years.

When the contrast was much milder, for example, Clinton vs. Bush or Ford vs. Carter, that point would be correct, I agree.

However, what I was addressing was the very sharp difference between the two tickets this year.

A moderate ought not to be in doubt, unless he's voting on the basis of some triviality like one of the candidate being the home-state favorite or which one is going to raise the retirement age for Social Security benefits.

 

[Albion]

Getting back to the main question about Democrats falling into line (or not) behind Kamala...

I would imagine that most will do so, except perhaps for those who are wise to the kind of claims that she and her people are using. But how many are in which category is hard to say.

For instance, Trump did not advocate drinking bleach or call the Neo-Nazis at Charlottesville "very good people," and he has not advocated making all abortions at any stage of development be illegal or prohibit everyone from belonging to a labor union.

I'd say that to campaign on pure fiction shows a certain weakness of the candidate using such tactics instead of either lauding what has already been accomplished or, if not that, proposing some wonderful new ventures.