Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.

The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.

“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You win it for Trump. I swear it feels like Dems want Trump to win by backstabbing Biden this late in the game.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope, gotta have a contrasting VP to spread the draw. Running AOC as VP would be like trump running Vance…just stupid. AOC is far more effective where she is anyway.

    • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read in another thread, and haven’t looked it up yet mind you, but apparently AOC is 1 year too young.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

        People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          My problem is not that it is misinformation, my problem is that Republicans could use it to gum up the elections in the courts.

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

            It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

            Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Until this year, there was nothing remotely questionable about whether or not it was legal for a president to commit crimes. And people like you told me similar things about how the court would rule there too.

              • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

                I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

                If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

                Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled.

                  What world is this? Because it’s not Earth in the year 2024.

                  Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Huh, didn’t know her birthday offhand. So she’ll be 35 by Jan 20, 2025? And she of course is a natural born US citizen who has lived in the US for the requisite number of years.

          Normally POTUS candidates pick VPs that in their minds shore up their perceived weak spots among voters to make them overall more electable. So who do you think Harris would do worst with and why would AOC draw that demographic in?

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I could see two strategies.

            Some leftist people who are hard core ACAB, for those AOC may be so appealing that they don’t mind voting for a prosecutor.

            However if they want to moderate concerns of sexists and racists, they would want to run some milquetoast white guy. While the full on sexist/racist is a lost cause, there are people who are more unconsciously racist/sexist they might think to get the vote of.

            I’m guessing they see the latter as the biggest risk to mitigate.

            • yrmp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              A former prosecutor selecting AOC also suggests a semblance of growth on the part of the prosecutor.

              Yes, she put away a lot of people on drug crimes and I’m sure other BS. The conservatives are already circulating memes with a collage of black faces she put in prison. As if they give a fuck about black people in any capacity outside of when it’s politically expedient. They’ll be in the camps with the rest of us if Trump wins.

              Someone like AOC diffuses some of the Israel and ACAB criticism. Or it could be turned to say AOC is a sellout, which I think is a hard argument to make. No one saying that should really be taken seriously given her record.

              In this political climate of violence, it’s basically also a giant “fuck you” to the right. You’ll get this centrist woman, or you’ll get this left leaning woman. It hints where a Kamala Harris admin is wanting to take the country in the future and could also serve to finally motivate the youth vote.

              AOC seems to understand realpolitik better than the many on the left, and I think she’ll eventually save us all. I know she probably won’t be on the ticket, but manifestation is a thing right?

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I will keep my overall prediction, that they don’t think they are at risk of losing the further left voter base, that they are more concerned about the more “up for grabs” voters that might vote either way. I think milquetoast straight white guy is the order of the day when they have a woman person of color running as the other half of the ticket.

                It’s not necessarily how it should be, but the strategy they will presumably use to address the reality of the electorate.

                • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, that is essentially how Biden ended up as VP.

                  And aside from the racial angle how Pence ended up as VP - a milquetoast, boring standard politician type to counterbalance Trump’s lunacy, someone hypothetically to be the adult in the room.

            • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah but I doubt subconsciously sexist/racist people would be willing to vote for Trump… They’re stuck with whomever the DNC runs

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            AOC is an actual progressive. I don’t know very much about Harris, and I’m going to vote for her regardless, but I’m not a big fan of law enforcement in general. I’m reading through her Wikipedia page, which seems to be the only non biased source I can find that goes over her LEO career.

            AOC is outspoken about issues that I care about, she seems to actually want something better for the working class. It’s hard to feel that a former state prosecutor has the best interest of the working class in mind.

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Besides the obvious magas and Republicans, who would never vote blue anyway, Kamala will be weakest with progressive young people. And I know people like to say there’s no use going after those people (now half the voting population!) because they don’t vote, but they actually DO vote when you give them someone worth voting for. Their numbers are also growing, while the centrist boomer population is declining.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought everyone was in agreement that really old candidates were not wanted?

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d love for him to be the vp running mate, and I love Bernie, but he’s the exact same age as Biden. He’s still sharp and awesome, but you can’t expect one 81 year old to have to quit, while putting in another 81 year old and think there’s a chance of him winning.

      • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would suck a dick for a Bernie presidency, but that would require the DNC to do some aggressive shit to appoint someone that they have blatantly fucked over multiple times.

  • PanArab@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    My Intention Is to Earn and Win This Nomination

    How? What concessions or promises will she offer to people who were turned off by Biden?

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      She was a kind, empathetic leader and was great at uniting the country in crisis… multiple times.

      Unfortunately she was distinctly average as a stable environment politician. Wouldn’t want her as PM now but would be great if we could hire her out on call when everything does hit the fan again.

      • TastyWheat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I worked at a Sydney airport shop years ago and she would come through our area from time to time. She was approachable, easy to talk to and despite having big spooky security guys around, was happy to just go shopping and wait for her flight.

        The Fijian PM at the time used to come through, crack jokes, run up a bill and then jokingly ask one of his security guys to buy all the stuff for him. He was a really funny bloke and he made our day.

        • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Jacinda Adern wasn’t just a good leader for New Zealand, she was a good leader for the world in the covid crisis. She’s the reason several of my elderly relatives are still alive. Under Boris Johnson, the UK policy was initially “herd immunity” which basically means wait till everyone gets infected and then those that survive will be immune and it’ll stop spreading and die out.

          They actually moved covid patients from hospitals into care homes, which seems stupid on the face of it, but was at least consistent in persuing the maximum death policy. The Conservatives had heard that non white people, poor people, people with preexisting health conditions (who cost a lot in the UK’s free health care system) and elderly people (who cost a lot in state pensions and state supported places in care homes) we’re worst affected. I think they saw whole scale death as a cost cutting measure and we’re never fans of ethnic minority folk or poor folk.

          Anyway, along comes Jacinda Adern and implements lockdowns and travel restrictions and it works and it’s seem as sensible, then the Scottish leader at the time, Nicola Sturgeon, does the lockdown thing and it’s seem as responsible and then a fortnight later, Boris Johnson does it for England and Wales. We might not have abandoned our death first policy of it weren’t for the international leadership of Jacinda Adern.

          Meanwhile, Boris copied another policy from abroad where you give vast sums of picnic money to drug companies to jump the queue on vaccines. This worked out well for us and was the best thing he ever did in his entire self-serving lying life. Of course he lied about it by claiming that being in the EU would have prevented it (it didn’t, and a few EU states went their own way on vaccines, facts never got in the way of what Boris wanted to say).

          The whole VIP lane for masks and gowns, if you didn’t hear about it was the most bold faced corruption enabling scheme the UK has done in my life. No tendering process, no checks, no process, you don’t even have to be in a related industry, just, and I’m not kidding or exaggerating at all, literally if your company was recommended by a conservative mp, they were in the VIP lane and the government would order as much equipment as your company claimed you could supply. Guess what happened!

          Anyway, I’ll always be grateful to Jacinda Adern. I credit her with not losing any close relatives to covid.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Does the New Zealand have a restricted 3 month official campaign period the way the UK does? A lot of Kiwi government shares similar structure with the British system.

      The US doesn’t, and normally campaigning spans a substantially longer period of time.

      kagis

      Yeah, this sounds like they do. Three months.

      https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/historical-events/2023-general-election/key-dates/

      Friday 14 July

      Regulated period for election advertising expenses begins

      Friday 13 October

      Regulated period ends. All election advertising must end. Signs must be taken down by midnight.

      Saturday 14 October

      Election day.

      https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2023/09/04/how-did-the-us-presidential-campaign-get-to-be-so-long/

      Four hundred and forty-four days prior to the 2024 presidential election, millions of Americans tuned into the first Republican primary debate. If this seems like a long time to contemplate the candidates, it is.

      By comparison, Canadian election campaigns average just 50 days. In France, candidates have just two weeks to campaign, while Japanese law restricts campaigns to a meager 12 days.

      You can argue whether the US should or shouldn’t restrict the campaigning period (though I’m almost certain that doing so would violate the First Amendment and thus require a new constitutional amendment permitting it to put into force).

      But the thing is, Trump doesn’t have that restriction, the American system doesn’t normally expect it, and Harris is going to be trying to run a British-length campaign with no lead time for prep in the American system when her opponent has no such restrictions. She is gonna have to hit the ground running.

      Also, American presidential campaign spending and fundraising is very large compared to the European levels I’ve seen. Dunno what things are like in New Zealand, but I remember that when Hillary ran against Trump in 2016, each campaign spent about a billion dollars.

      EDIT: I don’t know if this is directly comparable, because it sounds like Kiwi rules don’t have parties declare donations under $1,500 (and I don’t know if these aggregate figures include individual contributions that don’t have to be reported individually). I think so, because this is measuring spending, not donations. The Kiwi system is parliamentary rather than presidential and so the race for the executive is the same as the race for the legislature, whereas the spending above is only for the executive race in the US, excludes all legislative campaign spending. And I’m not clear on whether this includes donations to individuals, which apparently can differ from party donations, though the Westminster system is more party-centric than the American one, where candidates need to do a lot more of their fundraising and spending thenselves. But without my digging much more, some Kiwi numbers:

      https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350220141/labour-spent-1m-more-national-lose-2023-election

      Labour spent $1m more than National to lose the 2023 election

      The ACT Party spent more than National, declaring $2.77m in expenses. NZ First spent $1.51m on a campaign which returned them to Government alongside National and ACT, whereas the Green Party spent $1.33m on a campaign that achieved wins in key electorate seats.

      Also, those are Kiwibucks, not American dollars, so the USD numbers are only something like 60% of that. Accounting for that, if the numbers are comparable, that’d be the largest-spending Kiwi party doing $1.6 million USD compared to the US presidential campaigns alone doing about $1 billion.

      Harris has got to raise some – or all, not sure whether she can get funds from the Biden-Harris campaign warchest – of that in the time remaining, which means that she’s gotta convince people that she is who they want to be president enough to pitch into the war chest so that she can spend that to sell herself to the public. She has to build a campaign, plan to spend the money, and do so to target voters. Not much time to iterate doing that.

      And keep in mind that the first Republican presidential debate mentioned above, 444 days before the election, isn’t when those people started campaigning, and certainly isn’t when they started planning their campaign. It’s just an early milestone in the campaign. Harris is gonna have to pull all of this off in about three and a half months.

      The US presidential election is an awfully large and expensive marketing fight for voter minds.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lucky for her she also has a significant national and international threat as her opponent. She isn’t an unknown going in to try take 50% - she’s already got all the votes for those who see what Trump is.

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          she isn’t an unknown

          I mean, that’s true. But she’s a not-terribly-high-profile veep. The regular crowd has been campaigning for over a year. Hell, Trump served as President, and he’s got the visibility from that; he started campaigning for Trump-for-President like a decade ago.

          Yeah, okay, Harris ran for Senate and California Attorney General, maybe they can draw some material from those campaigns or something, though running for President and targeting specially the Midwest isn’t quite running to be a senator for California in terms of what material will work best, but they’re gonna have to start getting people to put together a lot of content and to get it out there.

          Harris has no campaign website, no volunteer network, no…like, I’m assuming that she has to be expecting to get at least a substantial chunk of the Biden-Harris campaign infrastructure, and hoping that Biden’s endorsement will result in his volunteers volunteering for her.

          checks

          It looks like Biden’s 2024 campaign website, joebiden.com, just redirects to ActBlue, a Democratic donations website, with a plain text message put up by him. They don’t even have a graphic, campaign logo, anything. Like, they didn’t have all this lined up and ready to go hot, or I expect that it would have redirected to a Harris campaign website.

          looks further

          They haven’t even taken down the old website’s content, just had the main page redirect.

          Well, this is gonna be a historic campaign, win or lose.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      She has less than 4 months and was completely invisible before. She is going to lose hard and this time we can really blame the Dems for betraying Biden this late in the race.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Biden was going to lose. Do you really think they’d go through all this if that wasn’t the reality of the situation?

      • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        About 30 seconds ago I felt a little smarter not knowing you exist, yet in so few words you’ve made yourself pretty thoroughly known.

        Four months is plenty of time. Biden will be backing her. The DNC has voting wolves ready to kick their asses. Bernie and AOC both supported Biden and are wise enough to support Harris, and others will follow their example. Back to point #2, and to reaaaally highlight something obscenely important:

        They listened.

        Take that in for a meager second. Now ask yourself if we could get those prideful fucks to back down, and also get an old lifetime politician to step aside in a historical move, do you understand what we could potentially do if we complained half as hard as you do when so much shit isn’t on the line?

        Oh, and give us an alternative that matches three things:

        1. Not invisible
        2. Likely to have larger support
        3. Not old asf

        I think you’ll find 3 to be rather important for a LOT of people right now.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I prolly agree with you, and you seem to have a good handle on the current political climate (thus an intelligent head on your shoulders), which is why I think it’s worth my time to suggest some introspection w/r/t your first sentence. Thanks for your consideration.

            • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              If only they had actual arguments instead of cute naivety. But hey, some americans just deserve project 2025.

              • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I notice you never answer my question. You sure responded to others, which is your right. Go on, give us an alternative that match the necessary criteria I listed. Here, I’ll make it easy:

                1. Not invisible
                2. Likely to have larger support
                3. Not old asf
          • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Before the Pandemic I would have agreed. However, because of people’s stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to facts, proof, and the science itself, people died. Many of them died through no fault of their own, or the fault of others, which is bad enough. However, many died because of those we gave too much leeway and understanding to. If being hopelessly polite and stretching my own patience to unimaginable lengths cause ANYONE to die, I may as well be a part of the cause of their death. Tolerance is no longer an option. Like it or not, there are lives at stake this time as well.

            I stood against the anti-vaccine and anti-mask fools. I am sure as hell going to stand against the people who in bad faith claim to be Democrats or left-leaning. Who claim to want what’s best. Who shout their claims that their way is the only way when it clearly leads us down a dark path. I will stand against them.

            Because it has to be done.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              The pandemic blew my mind as well.

              Is it more of our gut feel or is it an evidence-based position that kicking off a response with 10% ad hominem before getting into the meat begets better results than skipping the ad hom?

              • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Depends on what you’re replying to, really. Though honestly, some people are so hard and radically set in certain beliefs that I use it to spark conversation. Because you know the types I’m targeting rarely respond to reason. The goal then is to get them to respond at all.

                I know the playbook, you menial mentally mangled badly reconstructed sentient regressive bipedal sticks in the mud. I shall use it against you all! >:(

        • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol yeah what are Bernie and AOC supposed to do? Not support anyone and take on the backstabbers on their own? It is too late for any alternative. It was go with Biden who has a chance to win and beat Trump before or just giving Trump the win on the silver platter. Now I just hope Trump is so incompetent that there will be a next election or at least that he doesnt care about the rest of the world and only focusses on the US so at least we are safe. I hope the betraying Dems will realize their mistake and be deeply sorry for it.

        • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m saving this to use later, because it’s amazing, thank you, “About 30 seconds ago I felt a little smarter not knowing you exist”

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        and was completely invisible before.

        Only if you haven’t been paying attention.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The next debate should be hilarious. Someone with facts and speaking ability vs a windbag lie machine

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wonder if she convicted anyone of falsification of business records? It would be interesting if she mentioned that as one of her past accomplishments while on the stage with someone found guilty of 34 counts of that crime.

        • kronisk @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          So she should go on Twitter every fucking day and make jokes about how he’s too much of a coward to debate her. A narcissist can’t handle a bruised ego.

        • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh I quite think that he’d love to debate her! However his handlers will absolutely go bonkers trying to get him to shut up about it to keep that from happening.

  • rhacer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t think she stands a chance running as a VP. However, if President Biden were to invoke Article 25, and abdicate in favor of his VP. I honestly think she’d be a lock to win.

      • rhacer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think she gets a huge bounce if she’s the President thrust into a role she did not ask for or seek. It’s a pretty typical human reaction to cheer for people forced by circumstance into an unexpected role. I think she also gets four months to show that she’s Presidential material.

        So that’s the pragmatic part. I also believe that President Biden has shown he’s incapable of governing, and that we have rules regarding that situation. In fact that’s why we have the position of VP.

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          a role she did not ask for or seek.

          She sought it in 2019 (ran for the office) but dropped out early in the primaries.

        • zabadoh@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand your idea with your first paragraph, but it also ties Harris down to the White House instead of freeing her to campaign, and get her own name out there. If there are any events beyond her control, while she’s President, she would also be on the hook for those.

          Biden’s actually pretty good and he is, or at least his staff is, getting a lot of positive things done, as long as he’s off camera. That’s been true throughout his career.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol, im sure its just a coicidence that you are parroting the GOP by calling on Biden to resign the presidency right now.

      No, it would not strengthen her campaign if her running mate made the entirely unprecedented move of resigning in office for no stated reason. The procedural shitshow a GOP house would make the process would become the whole news cycle until the election.

      She is a much, much stronger canidate in her current role, being able to brag about every Biden/Harris accomplishment and not have any baggage of an active presidency, especially one that would be assumed in a ginned up shit show by her politcal opponents.

      • rhacer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You might want to actually go read Article 25 if you believe there would be a Republican controlled shit-show.

        Republicans have no say under section 1. President Biden says “I’m out” and Vice President Harris becomes President. Congress has no say, the Senate had no say, nobody has any say but the President and the Vice President.

        The President could give a reason, or he could choose not to do so.

        The only time Congress is involved is under Section 4.

        Section 1 covers everything from “Take this job and shove it” to “I’m tired and want to spend more time with my family”

        I repeat Congress has no say. There is no political debate. There is simply “I’m out, you’re in.”

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          First off, this congress will gin up a hearing on anything, then sue when it doesnt go their way. Second off, in this situation the house and senate has to approve the new VP. They 100% will make that an absolute clown show.

          Those circumstances are provided for in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 1967. Section 2 states:

          “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, it would not strengthen her campaign if her running mate made the entirely unprecedented move of resigning in office for no stated reason

        “Health reasons”. Maybe he checks into a hospital announces it from there.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay, so now you have an excuse. So this kicks off a living shitshow in the Republican controlled house as article 25 is invoked. You have a circus that lets Republicans go on and on and on, stalling as best they can, starting hearing, etc. The GOP gets endless media attention when they would otherwise be on the backfoot to all the energizing postive press the dems are about to get. The GOP gets to grandstand, they get to sue, maybe the supreme court weighs in, making it look like Democrats can’t handle the presidency.

          In what way is that a positive for the Harris campaign?

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        She can also campaign full time, unlike Biden who was also doing the job of president while he was campaigning

  • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trying to START a presidential campaign with less than 6 months is futile. We’re doomed. By this time next year we will be living in a Fascist Theocracy

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kamala Harris is probably the second-worst candidate behind Hillary Clinton that the Democrats could field against Trump. She’s disliked, she’s a hypocrite (look at her current ‘stance’ on legalizing marijuana compared to her previous record as a prosecutor where she ruined thousands of lives with criminal convictions for smoking wacky tobaccy), and a vote for Biden was going to be a de-facto vote for her regardless, because we know that if Biden was going to fall seriously ill or die during his second term, she’d take over the presidency.

    The Democrats have many better candidates to run. I hope they don’t make the mistake of backing Biden’s running mate.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who exactly do they have who’s “better”, who ALSO would agree to run, who ALSO doesn’t have a mountain of baggage saddled with them? I’ve seen Whitmer thrown around, but she’s had a serious smear campaign and a credible assassination attempt against her already. Beshear’s another, he said he isn’t going to accept even if the DNC nominates him. Sanders also gets tarred with the “but he’s old” brush, plus the GOP can run thousands of hours of “he’s a literall socialist”. AOC is also similarly divisive, and I don’t think she’d accept anyway.

      • Clbull@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, plenty of good candidates.

        Sanders would be a bad choice because he’s too old and while he’s certainly more compos mentis than Biden, he cannot escape that criticism. Michael Bloomberg would also be a similarly bad candidate for the same reason, plus also for running an incredibly expensive and half-assed campaign last time around.

        Ladbrokes currently have Michelle Obama as the second-favourite to win the Democrat nomination. She would actually be a great choice because it means Barack gets another four to eight years in the White House, albeit as the First Man. She also seems like a very sensible candidate in her own right.

        Alternatively, they could go the Reagan/Trump route and usher in a celebrity as their candidate. Someone like Oprah Winfrey, Taylor Swift, Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Fallon would be huge.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yang? Already flamed out once, and had very few specific policy goals beyond UBI.

          AOC? If she accepts, which I doubt, she’ll face challenges of “she’s too young” despite her being of-age by the inauguration, and would certainly see a federal or SCOTUS case trying to disqualify her. I could see BOEs in multiple states trying to boot her off the ballot because of it.

          Warren and Buttigieg both are saddled with lots of baggage - Warren’s already been tarred as a nut by mainstream media, and Buttigieg’s performance as Secretary of Transportation is…lackluster.

          Michelle Obama would be foolish - it would see the same challenges as Hilary in the “we’re building another dynasty” angle.

          Oprah is a poor choice, Taylor Swift, same. Colbert and Fallon would seriously be BAD choices.

        • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Taylor swift?! You’re proposing a literal billionaire as a more radical candidate than Harris?

          • Clbull@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            A literal billionaire with a sheepish following of mainly fangirls that could easily rival Trump’s supporter base.

    • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t have anyone better right now.

      At least now we don’t have to deal with Republicans attacking Biden for his age and we can turn that around on Trump.

      I could run a full list of pros and cons on the woman but at the end of the day we got an upgrade if this decision should have been made much earlier. Gotta always vote blue no matter who. Can’t let Republicans get in.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      enforcing laws that you don’t personally agree with and then advocating to change that law: hypocrisy, apparently

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure the DNC and it’s donors helped force this hand, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they field a different candidate.

    That being said, I’d actually like to see a non shill run who will actually fulfill his promises with legislation and not half ass executive orders that die after 5 seconds.

    They’ll never let Bernie in, but like cmon choose at least someone who can agree genocide is not good. Can’t believe we’re still scraping the bottom of the barrel for requirements here.

    • Podunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok. Fine… who would you pick?

      There is a reason for her being the transition cannidate. If you have better, please let the DNC know…

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I’d pick one of handful of progressive democrats the Dems have or Bernie but that ain’t happening. I’d at least pick Newsom.

        • Podunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ok. But fuck, if you have to have a cop out, waffle house excuse to say newsom, i have a hard time believing you. Newsome is hard for the fact that hes a “hard D” california govenor and you take a good hit in the swing states. Thats a real liability. Thats fair. Stand by it. Say that. “But Bernie” my ass. Bernie doesnt want it now.

          Dont say “oh no” and not have an honest opinion that you arent willing to put your nuts behind. Get on board, or gtfo.

          I swear. As a dem, and ill be honest, what pisses me off the most is that we are our own worst enemy. We waffle and push for a vauge replacement with no game plan, and bitch and moan when the answer given “just isnt quite what we want”.

          We could have had an honest to god game plan a year ago. But we didnt get our shit together. Thats on you, thats on me, and its sure as fuck on the DNC. But we dont have that option now.

          Fucks sake. Rant over. Sorry for being frustrated at a two word post and a half baked response. Fuck.

          • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bro what are you on about. Kamala came in dead last in the 2020 primary. She’s has a enormous amounts of baggage like jailing kids and parents for skipping school.

            She’s more right wing that Biden. Why would anyone vote for diet Republican when they can have the real thing.

            • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah yes, the supposedly left wing lemmy user who finds the time to write detailed paragraphs about how bad the more left wing candidate is but is suspiciously short and vague on criticism of the more right wing candidate. Here we go again.

              • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                The OP is about Harris. Trump is 10x worse than Harris but that’s like saying genocide, chattel slavery and mass deportation is better because our side had pride parades!

            • Podunk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your right. Shes not left enough… might as well vote for trump or skip.

              Seriously though. Are you paying attention? We dont get the perfect candidate now.dont shoot yourself in the foot. You’re already a locked in voter i assume. If trump was 50/50 with biden, what makes you think he loses with us nit picking? Shes right of biden? Guess who is more right from that. Hope for whitmere or aoc as vp if your feathers are that ruffled. Newsom if you really want. But kamala is the ticket and whining about it loses the election.

              • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bro you these moral ransom arguments are not going to work when the things you want people to compromise on are genocide and chattel slavery. It’s Hilary all over again.

  • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    After the debate and especially after the botched assassination attempt, I felt despair and a hopeless sense of certainty that our comrades in the USA would have to endure a Trump presidency and all of us around the world would suffer the consequences.

    I’m genuinely optimistic now. I think Harris can win.

    People who complain about her not being a socialist or how electoralism won’t change the system are missing the point. Those are true things, but the alternative is a fascistic climate change denier with the Sons of Jacob as his cabinet.

    The Americans are standing at a crossroads between an increasingly fragile status quo and tyranny. As much as I hate the status quo, I’m glad that the odds are now smiling far less at tyranny.