• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately?

        I know republicans would attempt to block and/or complain about everything, but the reasonables- how would they react?

        Assuming the Republicans still hold the House, they would ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS!

        Sure, President Harris would still be a Democrat and control the Executive branch, but her new VP would be voted in by the House of Representatives. They’d try to put Trump in as VP. Having Trump (even as the junior in the Executive Branch) would give him access and power to spoil President Harris’s agenda.

        “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.” - source is The Constitution of the United States specifically the 25th Amendment

        Alternatively, again assuming Republicans keep the house, they could make Trump the Speaker of the House.

        “The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been, and as a member the speaker also represents their district and retains the right to vote.” source

        I hate these two possible scenarios of VP or Speaker.

        On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately?

        • leadore@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          No no. House doesn’t get to nominate/choose the VP. Harris would choose a VP then the House would have to vote to approve them or not, like the Senate does with SCOTUS nominees. So the worst a Repub-controlled House could do (and they would) is prevent her from filling the VP slot at all.

          That’s why: 1) very important Dems get the House back in this election. Biden may not hand it over immediately but it could happen at any time during the term. 2) It’s probably better to make her the nominee now so she can choose a VP to run with and avoid that issue.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Realistically, if Biden were re-elected then Democrats would almost certainly win the handful of seats needed to control the House.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think a Trump VP is inconceivable - if it came down to that Harris would likely just continuously nominate random democrats and leave the position vacant.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Or she could use the presidential immunity and make sure that Trump can’t be nominated in that position 🤷

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t think he’s capable of making up the difference.

      She has higher potential. But she could also do worse, which doesn’t really matter.

  • macarthur_park@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    5 months ago

    NYTimes reporting the call wasn’t anything exciting.

    Vice President Kamala Harris tried to buck up the Democratic Party’s biggest donors on Friday, telling about 300 of them that there was little to worry about in President Biden’s campaign.

    Ms. Harris spoke to the group at a time of extraordinary turmoil among Democrats, with many hoping that she will replace Mr. Biden as the party’s nominee. But several listeners said they found the meeting overall to be of little value and even, at times, condescending, believing that the message ignored donors’ legitimate concerns about the Biden-led ticket.

    Ms. Harris, of course, is in a delicate position: She must demonstrate loyalty to her boss but also be prepared to jump immediately to the top of the Democratic ticket if Mr. Biden were to withdraw.

    • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      But several listeners said they found the meeting overall to be of little value and even, at times, condescending…

      Yeah no shit. Harris bombed out of the 2020 run before Iowa because that’s just who she is. Got 0 rizz. Biden should have talked Abrams into being VP 4 years ago.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The NYT that has a personal vendetta against Biden for reasons that Biden stans can never articulate?

  • marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Why is everyone acting as if she’s an heir or something? All delegates to the convention have already been elected. If Biden steps down, they can vote for whoever, and Dem party rules state that the superdelegates can’t jump in until the 2nd vote if no one wins the first.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I heard somewhere that all the money raised for the Biden/Harris campaign would stay with Harris if she ran for president.

      I don’t know if that’s true, or what would happen to the money if they both drop out but I heard someone say that.

      • leadore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        From https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-07-19/what-happens-to-bidens-campaign-money-if-he-drops-out

        What Happens to Biden’s Campaign Money if He Drops Out?

        It depends on who the new Democratic nominee is, says Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center.

        The simplest option from a campaign finance standpoint would be to nominate Vice President Kamala Harris, because “if Harris remains on the ticket, as either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate, the new ticket would maintain access to all the funds in the campaign committee,” says Ghosh.

        This is “[b]ecause Biden and Vice President Harris share a campaign committee,” Ghosh says, as both names appear on Biden’s statement of candidacy and statement of organization to the Federal Election Commission.

        However, if a new Democratic ticket did not include Biden or Harris, then things would become “more complicated,” Ghosh said.

        Since $2,000 is the limit to transfer money between federal campaign committees per election cycle, Ghosh said, the Biden campaign couldn’t legally contribute all of its campaign money to a new candidate.

        Instead, “Biden’s campaign would have to offer to refund the money to donors, who could then contribute to the new candidate’s campaign,” or “transfer an unlimited amount to the DNC, which could then spend the money supporting the new presidential nominee, and up to $32.3 million of that spending could be coordinated with the new nominee,” said Ghosh.

      • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is absolutely not true. The DNC can do whatever the fuck they want with presidential campaign money. It’s a donation to a private organization. There’s no contract unless a big donor insists.

              • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                The best way to facilitate the spread of misinformation, THE critical war which humans are loosing at an increasingly fast rate, is to post the wrong answer on the internet. And, you got a low quality answer because it’s coming also with emotion.

                It’s a cute meme. But, you’re not serving yourself or the community as well as you could if you simply frame it as a question.

                As an example here’s what was missing from the higher quality answer you deserved:

                Donations can be made to candidates. But, the vast majority is made to the national committees, then allocated to presidential and down ballot campaigns. This is one way individual candidates are held ideologically hostage to the changing whims of corporations.

                In the future please just ask questions. We don’t need a community for that on Lemmy… yet.

                • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I couched my comment with the caveat that it was unsubstantiated and it then generated a lot of discussion. Your comment itself is unsubstantiated and really just makes you sound like a cob. Is money donated to a party theirs to use anyway they want? The answer appears to be kinda, maybe, but it depends.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why is everyone acting as if she’s an heir or something?

      Because these are Democrats, and no one expects them to have primaries anymore.

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    It’s been kind of maddening, seeing the discourse about her electability go from zero to hero. US politics makes no sense outside of corporate and wealthy circles. She is way more electable than Biden.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I wouldn’t listen to any network or pundit that flip flops that noticeably

      Where are you seeing that kind of drastic shift?

  • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    We should update our currency “enabling the worst of us”. We deserve what we get at this point.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yea, pretty much every election up here in Canada.

        I’m amazed that Americans think four months “is like literally no time”.

        It’d take an ad spend but the DNC could name recognition pretty much anyone at this point.

        • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The elections are short, but we’ve known the candidates a long time. De Dluca was elected leader shortly before the election and no one knew who he was and he totally tanked.

          *see, I even got his name wrong. Del Duca.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          You don’t elect a chief executive in Canada the way we do in the U.S.

          You can’t compare a parliamentary election to our constitutional presidential republic’s elections.

        • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          *4 weeks, bud

          The convention is in 4 weeks. Mail-in-ballots get sent out at the end of September.

          There’s a lot of misinformation being shared due to the lack of proper context. Yes, the election is in November but it’s not that simple

          Honestly, if we ever think something is simple, we should pretty much assume we don’t know wtf we’re talking about

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?

        To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

        Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.

        How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Its not, last time we did this Reagan won by a fucking landslide. I am very nervous but voting D.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.

          If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?

              • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                What I mean is this is probably a bad idea. We did something similar and it was bad. But go for it. I’m voting D no matter who.