4 ms·

> Let’s hope the Dem’s circular firing squad puts down its guns so they can quickly concentrate on winning the election with someone … probably Harris is the si

> Let’s hope the Dem’s circular firing squad puts down its guns so they can quickly concentrate on winning the election with someone … probably Harris is the simplest answer. On the contrary, the processes that anointed Hillary in 2016 and Biden round 2 in 2024 were exactly the kind of "well, it's this person's turn now" decisions that were bad, anti-democratic (lower-case d) choices previously. I'm not looking for a "circular firing squad" but neither do I think some sort of automatic anointment of Harris is what people want either.

notjoemama 2y ago
Part of it is a numbers game. She would get an incumbent bump over other potential candidates. There is hope, and I believe some data showing, she could energize the POC base. This is especially important now because polling was suggesting Trump was growing that area. Fundamentally though, name recognition ends up being meaningful in elections. I’m not advocating one way or another, just sharing why it seems to be an obvious choice for the party. If it helps, who I prefer isn’t being considered, probably because it’s not “their turn”.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Doesn't she lose bluecolar npoc without Joe?
  - RoyalHenOil 2y ago
    Maybe she should pick Joe as her running mate then. That would be hilarious.
klyrs 2y ago
> ...but neither do I think some sort of automatic anointment of Harris is what people want either. Regardless of what people want (and FWIW I agree that Hilary getting rammed down our throats was highly anti-democratic) at this stage of the game, Harris is the only person who can benefit from Biden's warchest. Barring somebody like Dwayne Johnson deciding to enter politics and stealing the show, Harris is the solitary candidate who is poised to hit the ground running with an adequate campaign today. And with so little time before the election, I think the only choice Democrats have today is to hold their noses and vote.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  There is less than 3.5 months, I’m not sure what people want. It is a very short time to run a new candidate. Unless they had some tricky campaign finance exception, it had to be Harris.
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  How was it anti-democratic for the person that was winning primary elections by wide margins being nominated?
  - kagakuninja 2y ago
    Many people are butt-hurt their guy didn't win and don't like her.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      Nah. She stole it, it was wrong, and if democrats had policed their own after that happened, they might be having an easier time batting down complaints of political persecution today.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I highly recommend reading https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b... by Donna Brazile. A summary also at https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-bo.... Hillary Clinton basically took control over the DNC through financial dealings that Brazile (who took over as head of the DNC after these dealings) characterized as "if not illegal, then at least unethical".
ajross 2y ago
> the processes that anointed [...] Biden round 2 in 2024 You think it's notably corrupt that... an incumbent president gets to run for re-election? You might argue this was a bad idea. You could argue it's counter to the way the campaign was presented in 2020. But it's hardly surprising; it's literally the way we've done things for hundreds of years!
jkestner 2y ago
That's literally what her elected job is.
- adharmad 2y ago
  Only if the sitting President resigns or is incapacitated. If there is a new election, then it is best if she earns her candidacy.
  - jkestner 2y ago
    And I’m saying she was already deemed worthy to replace Biden by the voters.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      That's quite the stretch. There are reasons we have primaries in the first place and don't just automatically anoint the VP as the the next presidential candidate. And let's stop with the pretense that their were any real choices in the Democratic primaries this year to begin with.
      - jkestner 2y ago
        It's true, the party machine continues to churn out party candidates, and the voters are not given much choice. I left that first item blank in the primary. But we all have this idea that our candidate will win in a perfect situation that the party will never give us, and while it's good to argue for choices, I'm skipping past the inevitable frustration. Harris was nowhere near my first choice, now or in 2020, but she is qualified. Realistically it's going to be her, whether we agree now or in a few weeks. I agree that it's best if she earns it, but "earn" looks like something different to everyone and to some, nothing will be enough because their preferred candidate didn't win.
csomar 2y ago
They'd rather lose the election than let someone with less seniority; and god forbid let any outsider into the circle. This happened with Hillary and will happen with Harris. It's the worst candidate to pick and a guaranteed loss against Trump. The Democrats have got it all going for them; both in absolute numbers of votes and also of financial support. Life is interesting...

notjoemama 2y ago

Part of it is a numbers game. She would get an incumbent bump over other potential candidates. There is hope, and I believe some data showing, she could energize the POC base. This is especially important now because polling was suggesting Trump was growing that area. Fundamentally though, name recognition ends up being meaningful in elections. I’m not advocating one way or another, just sharing why it seems to be an obvious choice for the party. If it helps, who I prefer isn’t being considered, probably because it’s not “their turn”.

ipaddr 2y ago
Doesn't she lose bluecolar npoc without Joe?
- RoyalHenOil 2y ago
  Maybe she should pick Joe as her running mate then. That would be hilarious.

klyrs 2y ago

> ...but neither do I think some sort of automatic anointment of Harris is what people want either. Regardless of what people want (and FWIW I agree that Hilary getting rammed down our throats was highly anti-democratic) at this stage of the game, Harris is the only person who can benefit from Biden's warchest. Barring somebody like Dwayne Johnson deciding to enter politics and stealing the show, Harris is the solitary candidate who is poised to hit the ground running with an adequate campaign today. And with so little time before the election, I think the only choice Democrats have today is to hold their noses and vote.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
There is less than 3.5 months, I’m not sure what people want. It is a very short time to run a new candidate. Unless they had some tricky campaign finance exception, it had to be Harris.
ericjmorey 2y ago
How was it anti-democratic for the person that was winning primary elections by wide margins being nominated?
- kagakuninja 2y ago
  Many people are butt-hurt their guy didn't win and don't like her.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    Nah. She stole it, it was wrong, and if democrats had policed their own after that happened, they might be having an easier time batting down complaints of political persecution today.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I highly recommend reading https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b... by Donna Brazile. A summary also at https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-bo.... Hillary Clinton basically took control over the DNC through financial dealings that Brazile (who took over as head of the DNC after these dealings) characterized as "if not illegal, then at least unethical".

ajross 2y ago

> the processes that anointed [...] Biden round 2 in 2024 You think it's notably corrupt that... an incumbent president gets to run for re-election? You might argue this was a bad idea. You could argue it's counter to the way the campaign was presented in 2020. But it's hardly surprising; it's literally the way we've done things for hundreds of years!

jkestner 2y ago

That's literally what her elected job is.

adharmad 2y ago
Only if the sitting President resigns or is incapacitated. If there is a new election, then it is best if she earns her candidacy.
- jkestner 2y ago
  And I’m saying she was already deemed worthy to replace Biden by the voters.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    That's quite the stretch. There are reasons we have primaries in the first place and don't just automatically anoint the VP as the the next presidential candidate. And let's stop with the pretense that their were any real choices in the Democratic primaries this year to begin with.
    - jkestner 2y ago
      It's true, the party machine continues to churn out party candidates, and the voters are not given much choice. I left that first item blank in the primary. But we all have this idea that our candidate will win in a perfect situation that the party will never give us, and while it's good to argue for choices, I'm skipping past the inevitable frustration. Harris was nowhere near my first choice, now or in 2020, but she is qualified. Realistically it's going to be her, whether we agree now or in a few weeks. I agree that it's best if she earns it, but "earn" looks like something different to everyone and to some, nothing will be enough because their preferred candidate didn't win.

csomar 2y ago

They'd rather lose the election than let someone with less seniority; and god forbid let any outsider into the circle. This happened with Hillary and will happen with Harris. It's the worst candidate to pick and a guaranteed loss against Trump. The Democrats have got it all going for them; both in absolute numbers of votes and also of financial support. Life is interesting...