Will US Democrats support a WOC as their candidate or will they by pass Kamala Harris?

He reportedly has Covid doesn't he....perhaps it's become critical?

Republicans could quite well argue that they now have to start an entirely new campaign against Harris after spending $$$ against Biden

Yes, this sort of desparation. Though it's interesting to see what they're trying.

TBH I think they'd be cautious even attempting such an argument – not just because of its own lack of merit, but because it wouldn't interact well with Trump's sentencing (currently set for September). His conviction was for felony crimes, so could attract a jail sentence. This is an obstacle already known about, so any sauce for the goose would be sauce for the gander there.

[Edited because I realised it definitely was still relevant to your argument about Harris's nomination. I need two screens...]

Republicans have had to pivot their rhetoric on the hop from "Biden isn't fit to run for the next term" to "Biden is completely unfit right now", because they can't do anything else.

...which is precisely the hot question on US media right now, after Frank Biden's clusterfuck of an interview a few hours ago.

KH might end up having to invoke the 25th.

She also got a problem, which is by no means a small one, of legal challenge - Republicans could quite well argue that they now have to start an entirely new campaign against Harris after spending $$$ against Biden and, if it was known beforehand that Biden was never capable of second term, this amounts to fraud.

if they can bring these challenges in a number of states as some of them have just confirmed they will, then KH won't get on the State ballots in time.

Really is worst case scenario for the Dems and I wonder what happened in the last 24 - 48 hours to force this.

Ronald Reagan was an experienced politician by the time he became president.

As for DT, well I have no excuse for him becoming President without any experience 😂

For voters, the question isn't who is fit enough to be president today, 22 July 2024.

It's who will still be fit to be president on 19 January 2029.

(That's unless the ticket is essentially advertised as a "Vote Blair, get Blair then Brown" deal, as one of the UK elections was).

Republicans have had to pivot their rhetoric on the hop from "Biden isn't fit to run for the next term" to "Biden is completely unfit right now", because they can't do anything else.

Partly because that's the ground they've been working on for so long, and partly because of their own candidate's age and poor fitness.

It has been more than evident for well over a year that Biden has dementia. His condition has been rapidly accelerating before our very eyes. I simply cannot understand why he was kept in place? I had to assume that someone else was actually running the show.

Trump wasn’t an actor. He ran a large business empire (of disputed value)

And Trump?

What's weird to me is the announcement itself.

Always with an announcement of this magnitude one would expect the Pres to make a live statement from the WH.

But this was a statement on Twitter and it was so rushed that there's a glaring grammatical error in the final sentence.

Does JB even know he's dropped out? If not, who's in charge at the WH? And if it's KH, shouldn't she also now invoke the 25th amendment?

Ronald Regan became President.

Reagan was governor of California before he became president

Ronald Regan became President.

Donald Trump became President.

Why do you think it implausible.

I think it's worth pointing out that Harris could still run for VP with someone else for President. Equally if she does go for President then there's still a space for VP. So either way there will be someone else who gets picked and who that it is matters.

Theres actually a lot to be said for the idea of George Rooney on the ticket for VP for that reason because of the lack of time available.

Clooney, an actor with no political experience?! That has to be a joke suggestion surely?

It would be like Keir Starmer appointing Hugh Grant to office 😂

Sorry, yes, that's what meant. The funds might have to be returned as they were donated on a Biden/Harris ticket.

The main thing the Democrats need is someone who will do well in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (toss up states) and, to a slightly lesser extent, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Hampshire. So, from a D perspective: Philadelphia (somewhat Pittsburgh), Detroit, Milwaukee/Madison, Atlanta (somewhat Savannah), Research Triangle/Charlotte, Phoenix/Tuscon, Minneapolis/St Paul, and Las Vegas/Reno, They don't need to worry about most voters. Bc of the Electoral College, both parties can ignore most voters, even most swing voters.

There’s not really enough time for Kamala (or anyone) to prove themselves as President ahead of November so I don’t think it makes a difference

I think it's got to be Kamala because of the donors. George Soros has come out last night and endorsed Kamala - he control so much of the flow of funds into the Dems, that it has to be her.

She'll just have to pick a really good VP who as you say can reasonably distance themselves from the lies. Maybe Adam Schiff or Chuck Schumer?

Someone upthread mentioned Clooney which would be a flashy pick but would definitely distract from Kamala, which could only help the Dems at this point.

Interesting and very messy by the sounds of it. The issues with Biden have been obvious for such a long time - and denied and denied for such a long time too. If they did drop Harris, it would have to be for someone who wasn't involved in all those lies.

I would guess if you step up because the President has a stroke or heart attack then yes, assuming you are any good. But it you step up after the president was finally forced from office for a medical condition that was obvious to everyone but that you had been trying to hide then perhaps not.

As I understand it Kamala Harris has to run because of the rules around fundraising.

She doesn’t have to, but they might have to return the funding if she doesn’t. Though if funds were raised for a Biden/Harris ticket then the funders might say that it wasn’t given for a Harris/ANOther ticket and ask for it back?

Women are held to higher standards than men.

Hence why Trump's divorces and sexual conduct are overlooked.

You have to compare what is overlooked and tolerated in Trump's behaviour and consider whether that would be the case for any woman.

Indeed your point here is that Harris and Clinton's performance and personal manners is used when deciding whether they are suitable.

Yet these things are as rock bottom as it gets when it comes to Trump.

A Republican woman who wasn't whiter than white wouldn't ever make the nominations. They have to be wholesome - any hint of there being something perfect and it's fully used against them. Even Sarah Palin had issues when stuff came out about her daughter. She had to say her daughter would have the baby and marry the father (the daughter didn't in the end).

Don't forget as I say, there's different values systems at play here. A republican woman must be pure and wholesome. A democratic woman must be a good career woman with an excellent track record. Arguably men from their respective parties don't have to display the same qualities. And equally this issues have cross over. An American who is left leaning will not value a republican female candidate who is religious and does the whole pure thing unless they have the career track record. And an American who is right leaning will not value even an excellent democratic candidate as highly unless they have the right values and respect for religion. But the same can not be said for male candidates. There's less weight put on the problems with male candidates who have had affairs and don't have the best track record as long as they are perceived as 'good strong leaders'.

Again it comes back to the stereotypes of weak not being as strong and capable as leaders and having to demonstrate significantly more than a male candidate in the same position.

So I stand by what I said.

Would Harris stand a better chance if Biden stood down as president now and she was running as the incumbent president?

She just steps up. I think she then appoints her own VP. Elections continue are normal.

As I understand it Kamala Harris has to run because of the rules around fundraising. Funds raised so far were on a Biden/Harris ticket and those funds can only be allocated if either Biden or Harris run.

I think it's unlikely she'll win as from what I hear from US people I know she isn't very popular amongst Democrats, let alone swing voters.

I'm keeping my gingers crossed Trump has to stand down.

Thank you @Sloejelly. Would she just then be POTUS until the elections? They wouldn't/couldn't hold them sooner?

If Harris runs as vice with someone else who’s new for President do they get to keep the campaign funds?