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

[IwantToRetire]

Biden Drops Out of Presidential Race and Endorses Harris: Live Updates

After intense pressure from within his own party, President Biden said he was ending his campaign and backing Vice President Kamala Harris to run in his place. Ms. Harris said she would seek the nomination, adding: “Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/21/us/biden-drops-out-election

If she doesn’t think she can do that with her policies then that is also concerning.

So, speaking as a Democratic voter who is somewhat politically active, though I live in a heavily Democratic area (DC suburbs; Trump is a threat to a lot of people's jobs).

A lot of people were not convinced that Biden has dementia rather than just being old and tired. I have a child who stutters and several friends who are speech therapists and we all agreed that some of his issues were disfluencies rather than dementia. People don't know how to spot those unless they are familiar with them. The media also ran the story into the ground to the point of making many people angry at them instead of Biden. I know at least a dozen people who cancelled their New York Times subscriptions over it, and other outlets too.

There's no process for picking an alternative that would be any fairer. Americans don't want party insiders picking the candidate; it's not how it's been done here for a long time. Everyone in the Democratic Party is haunted by the contested convention of 1968 and how that election turned out, so no one wants it to go to that. Harris has a better claim to popular legitimacy than anyone else, since she at least got votes for being Vice-President. And say what you want about identity politics, but passing over a specific Black/Asian woman would look terrible.

Biden won in 2020 not because people loved him so much, but because people were tired of Trump and Covid mismanagement, and some of those people have amnesia now. A big part of winning is actually making sure the base actually votes in key states, not just chasing a small and elusive pool of swing voters. Kamala is absolutely animating Black women, who are the Democrats' most reliable voters. She's an Alpha Kappa Alpha from Howard and the entire Divine Nine have announced an effort to support her campaign. There was a lot of tiredness about Biden going around.

The Republicans got caught off guard by the announcement. Yesterday they were resorting to making fun of Harris for liking Venn diagrams.

Platform? Honestly we know roughly what it will be. Similar to Biden.

Thanks for the info - and non conspiritorial approach.

I did hear (on UK tv) of Biden's stutter being aggravated by tiredness and that his staff had arranged a stupidly busy week, which even for someone younger and fitter would have cause problems.

I am considerably younger but when I am tired often mix words.

The bit I dont get is why some, or was it just the media, were so intent of pushing this old man agenda.

Her policies are pretty similar to Biden's - everyone knows that. She won't go into minute detail until she's actually nominated.

Biden's cognitive impairment has been continuously reported on by right wing media since before the 2020 election. Most of the (left) mainstream media and the democratic party have been complicit in covering this up even as he has got progressively worse. "Sharp as a tack", they say. Harris has been actively participating in the cover up and continues to lie about his health. The debate revealed the truth to the American people: that the government has been lying to them and the media as well. It is no surprise they find this hard to accept. Some must be going through the stages of grief. Joe Biden looks like he is dying and it is a travesty how he is being propped up, dressed up and flown around to public appearances. Polls show the American people are unimpressed with Harris. Her word salad speeches are cringe worthy rather than inspiring. She doesn't seem to have demonstrated leadership skills either, despite being VP to a very sick president.

Don't even get me started on the right wing media. So truthful.

Questions over a coup should have been addressed through the courts and if found guilty should have banned him from political office.

In the US, courts don't have that authority. The Constitution sets out the requirements for a president. It does not bar felons.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March that states could not keep Mr. Trump off their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. . . .

The Constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. They must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizens and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
There are no limitations based on character or criminal record. While some states prohibit felons from running for state and local office, these laws do not apply to federal offices.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigation-conviction.html

I understand ppl wishing candidates didn't resort to name-calling, even if those names/descriptions are accurate. But I think it's a brilliant way to bring around many on the left who opposed her in 2020 bc she was a prosecutor (aka Copmala). They hated her then for going after criminals but now cheer when she directs her prosecutory zeal toward Trump. Suddenly, stopping the "bad guys" and protecting victims isn't so horrible. I'm in awe of how successful she's been at this so far.

FWIW, I think a lot of the anger about her being a successful prosecutor was misogynoir. Being a successful Attorney General (of California) would have been a lot more acceptable if she were a white man.

I note that all the people the pundits are putting forward for her VP are men.
Couldn’t have two women n a row, could we.

I've seen Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer on most of the lists. To be fair, most of those listed are governors of swing states that the Dems hope to carry: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (they almost have to win PA's 19 Electoral Votes to have any hope of winning), North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (not as necessary as PA but its 16 EV are the best prize among the states leaning Republican, Georgia's Governor Kemp is an R), Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (Minnesota, with 10 EV, is the most important state that is leaning D), and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona (AZ has 10 EVs and leans R, Kelly is a popular former astronaut and Navy pilot + is the husband of icon Gabby Giffords so might appeal nationally). None of the other swing states have D governors except Wisconsin (but also a man). I'm not sure why Newsom is on so many short lists. It is frustrating that there are so few female governors.

List of ratings for the Electoral College (Solid D - Solid R)
https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/presidential-race-ratings

Newsom is a 12th amendment problem because they're both from California. Even without that rule, no one would choose two candidates from California.

Gretchen Whitmer says she doesn't want it. The top choices are reportedly Andy Beshear (KY), Josh Shapiro, and Mark Kelly. Cooper's age is an issue. Beshear can't deliver Kentucky, but could help down ballot races there, and help elsewhere. He's also term limited, I believe. Shapiro is the best bet for delivering a swing state, but he has only been in office for two years. I used to live in Pennsylvania and my friends there are not ready for him to move on.

Good point. I know some people think Keir Starmer being Director of Public Prosecution means he was an agent of state repression. Not a widespread opinion judging by the UK election result. What are the Magas going to do : run ads saying ' bad Kamala! We hate law and order!' ?

On the age thing , I was tired watching these two ould fellas criss crossing the states in 2020 , shouting themselves hoarse in airports and stadiums. I couldn't do it and I was a mere stripling of 68. Trump is an incoherent mess but he does it with great energy . And he blathers incessantly, never pausing , like contestant on Just A Minute.

There is an argument that any other GOP candidate would have beaten Biden. But Trump was a hopeless president and made a mess of the Covid response. A president will usually get 2 terms even if they are just adequate , so that may be true. But if he couldn't beat Biden as the sitting president how have his chances v Harris improved? His last involvement in public life was instigating a coup against the clearly expressed wishes of his fellow Americans. And he hasn't got any younger or saner.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March that states could not keep Mr. Trump off their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. . . .

So the courts do have authority but ruled that he was not disqualified.

As for the felony, we were talking about an ‘attempted coup’ not false accounting that became a felony because it happened on a staged payment rather than a single payment which would not have been a felony. The case of false accounting is a well known public fact and votes will be cast with that in mind. It is also something that many many Americans think was a politically motivated prosecution. But really is this case of false accounting the worst there is to say about him? Hardly!

This is it. He's gone for a total ideologue as VP indicating the gloves are off and he won't be held back by anyone if he gets in. Harris and the Dems can offer moderation and safety, not a white-knuckle ride like Trump. And if the Reps want to argue she was 'too' tough on crime 15 years ago, well let them.

no, they'll argue she was soft on crime and contributed to San Francisco being a hellhole. I mean, they're arguing already that we have caravans of migrants crossing the border to commit crimes, despite the statistics saying otherwise. Facts are irrelevant there.

He's going to hate that she's getting so much attention as he's such an egomaniac. I think her speech yesterday was good - felt like 'showtime' and she's going to have to be entertaining to match him

Gov. Shapiro is well regarded, popular, and a rising star in the party. He could well be our first Jewish president in a few years. I don't think he will be the VP nominee choice because he can still help deliver the state by campaigning with Kamala Harris and remain as governor to build up his record and profile for a future run. My best guess is that it will be Mark Kelly. In choosing a senator, they have to pick one whose governor is a Dem because the governor appoints a replacement until an election is held. Arizona has a Democratic governor.

Just came back to post in solidarity with crazy (childless) cat ladies.

Of course we rule the world.

And of course man babies just dont want to admit it!

" ... The GOP wants to control every aspect of women's lives and their bodies. That’s why Harris' life choices and political success infuriate them ... " Quote from Rolling Stone which I haven't read for decades and didn't realise was still being published, which from memory was itself pretty much a lad's domain!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/24/jd-vance-comment-about-kamala-being-childless-cat-lady/

Yes, I understand. But none of the constitutional lawyers I've seen commenting on this (after the Supreme Court case) think that the courts can rule a candidate ineligible bc of a coup attempt. For one thing, that would go against separation of powers. As the articles I linked said, the qualifications are set out in the US Constitution and nothing there precludes someone attempting a coup from being elected. Most think that any limitation on who can run must be set out in the Constitution and nothing I have seen gives a court that power. Do you have anything that says a court has that power? I have not seen anything.

I think it was more about bad timing.

I suspect that being hard on crime may reflect something like her real viewpoint.

However, at the time she was seeking the presidential nomination, there was a huge group among Democrats who were on the bandwagon of defund the police, harm reduction, and supporting the withdrawal of policing from cities or around minor crimes.

And a lot of those people were among the Democrats most likely to vote for her on identity grounds.

She tried to pivot towards something more palatable to those people, but reasonably, they didn't really buy it, and it made her look like a panderer (because she was,) to everyone else.

@TempestTost

I agree about the bad timing. I thought about mentioning that as another factor. 2020 is when George Floyd was killed and the movement to defund the police was at its strongest.

Why do you say she was "hard on crime"? One of the few crimes I remember he being tough on was sex trafficking. As someone who was trafficked as a child (and the police never GAF), I am very appreciative of that. (I honestly cannot tell you how much it meant to me that someone in power was finally standing up for trafficked kids instead of treating us like disposable garbage that is not worth ppls' time.) She was also tough on guns, Medicare fraud, environmental harm, and privacy violations by Apple, Google, FB, etc. I may have overlooked some other areas.

I know that as the District Attorney in San Francisco, she created Back on Track, a first-of-its-kind reentry program for first-time nonviolent offenders aged 18–30. She was big on diversion when she thought that was workable. She opposed the death penalty and supported SF being a sanctuary city. She rarely prosecuted low level marijuana offenses and had a policy of not seeking prison time for such offenses. Why do you think she is hard on crime? (Genuine question bc I may be forgetting some things.)

One of the reasons that I don't think Kamala Harris was tough on crime as a prosecutor is that she opposed the death penalty, in part bc she thought that life imprisonment without parole is a better and more cost-effective punishment than the death penalty. She estimated that the cost savings could pay for a thousand additional police officers. Never seeking the death penalty was one of the things she ran on (along with tougher enforcement of domestic violence laws and more protection against gun violence). In 2004, a SF police officer was shot and killed. Harris refused to seek the death penalty, even though several powerful ppl pushed her to do so, including Sen Feinstein, Sen Boxer, former Governor Jerry Brown (then mayor of Oakland), and the SF Police Officers Association. For those unfamiliar w US politics, Sen Boxer was to the left of Bernie Sanders and Jerry Brown is also considered very progressive. She stood against powerful Dems to be true to her beliefs and keep her promise to voters even if some ppl called her soft on crime.

She also refused to enforce California's three strikes law unless the third offense was for a violent felony. (The law imposed a life sentence for almost any crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant had two prior convictions for crimes defined as serious or violent by the California Penal Code. In 2012, voters passed the Three Strikes Reform Act which eliminated life sentences for non-serious, non-violent crimes but that was 10 years after Harris refused to seek three strikes enhancement against defendants for a minor third crime.)

But she went after porn sites. sex trafficking, and domestic violence. That was unpopular with men on the left (as well as men on the right and some women). I think that led to a lot of woke bros trying to cancel her. She was an uppity b#tch trying to take away their toys and they weren't having it..

Ithink the perception was, at least for some, was that she was tough on crime, for example Articletps://www.reuters.com/world/us/prosecutor-harris-mixed-criminal-justice-reform-with-tough-on-crime-approach-2024-07-23/

Whether that's fair or not, for the anti-carceral types it was not on.

I wouldn't consider views on the death penalty to be definitive about someone being tough on crime.

I meant perceived/represented as tough on crime, she talks about it in her book - i.e. felony conviction rates rose f. 52% to 71%, gun crime convictions rose to 92% in the first five years she was in office. That's not to say she wasn't progressive eg with the Back on Track initiative.

52%/71%/92% of what? Of those charged? Of reported crimes?