• dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have to admit that at first I was concerned that switching candidates so close to the election would hurt the party. Im glad I was wrong.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 months ago

      The old rope-a-dope strategy. Put out an old feeble conservative democrat to lull the opponent into a false sense of security. Let the conservative opposition nominate a dog-eating couch-fucker as VP. Then yank the geriatric coot off stage and replace him with someone 30 years younger and normal looking who can string a full sentence together without drooling.

      Rock bottom expectations are fully exceeded. Right-wing oppo strategists are sent scrambling for a new messaging game. The median American voter fully forgets these two people were part of the same administration and excitedly claps at the jangling keys.

      Not since Reagan cut a deal with the Ayatollah of Iran has any presidential candidate so effortlessly hoodwinked their rivals. Truly a master class in winning elections. We hope.

    • MJKee9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is the first time the Democratic strategy hasn’t disappointed me in years. Nealy everyone is pushing in the same direction, and the messaging has been nearly flawless.

      • distantsounds@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        Everyone is pushing in the same direction because everything is continuing to slide to the right. People want policy from the left, not this neolib right-of-center crap

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Completely agreed. Since the 90’s, the primary lesson democrats have learned is to never cross Wall Street. This is evident in their policy to not implement serious reforms during their terms and then wringing their hands when republicans pull the rug even harder a few years later.

          It may give them money they need now, but they’ll find themselves beholden to the same masters as Republicans if they don’t shift back to real liberal ideals soon.

          I am very relieved that it looks like Donald won’t win, but I’m also not excited about a Kamala Harris presidency either.

    • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      I thought the idea might have been planted to subvert the democrats and push voters from the polls.

      Hopefully the energy behind the Harris campaign lead to her presidency and a more blue government.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think the opposition was trying for that strategy, but didn’t think the Dems would actually do it.

        I’m happy it’s working out for Democrats so far, and hope it continues.

    • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      Same. When it was announced I was literally like, “fuuuuuck”. But I’ve since change my tune and legit have a modicum of hope again.

    • FearfulSalad@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d like to think there is a strategist in her camp who urged Biden to stay in for as long as he did, and only swap out after the first debate, closer to the 3 month runway mark. And that strategist is just waiting until after the election to gloat publicly about the scheme.

      Now that’s a conspiracy theory I can get behind.

      • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve had a similar thought about it. The timing of him dropping out was near perfect in hindsight, right after the Republicans locked Trump and Vance in and taking all of the wind out of their sails right when they were eyeing the finish line. If someone planned that far in advance they’ll definitely deserve to gloat!

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    2 months ago

    Oh she did that for me practically on day one of announcing her candidacy.
    She is obviously intelligent and has very good political ideas.

    But something hit me recently, with George Bush it was said he was the kind of person people would like to have a beer with. Which was allegedly a big reason he won.
    But I certainly see that with Kamala Harris much more. Kamala Harris seems like such a genuinely nice person, who can also have a bit of fun.
    So Kamala if you find yourself in the neighborhood, feel free to pop in, my treat. 😀 🍺

      • bitchkat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        Walz is the first vp candidate that I think actually brings significant number of voters to the table. Perhaps I’m biased because he’s been an amazing governor.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes that’s what my wife (and many others) say, I just haven’t seen any interviews with him yet, I’ve just seen pictures of him on stage with Harris, and a video of him buying donuts.
        Everything I read about him is good though, so I believe you. I’ll take the chance and say he can come along too. 😋

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      otoh I like John Cleese’s line. He said he wanted a candidate so brilliant that he, Cleese, would be afraid to sit at the same table, lest he be proven a complete dunce.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          So what?

          I like Ed Koch’s take on different opinions. He said that if you liked him 51% of the time you should vote for hi. If you agreed with him 100% of the time you should see a psychiatrist.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think it’s more that today’s American politicians reel it in.

          Clinton was know as a policy wonk, and Obama would go from community organizing to the U. Chicago law school without missing a beat. Even George W. went to top schools.

          Harris could go toe to toe with the best minds out there; she tailored her responses to Donnie’s level.

        • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Harris is definitely no dummy.

          Neither was Biden, but he definitely lost some sharpness over the years.

    • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like to think that Biden not being sick would help him, and he’d mop the floor with Trump if they had a 2nd debate. I think Trump would just say I already debated him, I’m not doing it again because he “won” that one.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      We would be listening to a brand new raft of excuses for his second debate performance. Instead of watching Republicans make up conspiracies about bluetooth earrings.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    She’s certainly exceeded my expectations, and Trump has not met mine, either.

    I thought the GOP would have made more out of the lack of primary voting, and been prepared for Harris. The way they were pushing Biden out of the race, I thought for sure they had a strategy to capitalize on the chaos of switching candidates this late in the seasons.

    But Harris herded the kittens in the DNC, and came out swinging. Trump, meanwhile, was clearly unprepared for any of it. I’m very happy to have been completely wrong about it.

  • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “Harris’ popularity is astounding and could very well beat out Biden’s support in 2020… Now, to the polls. Both candidates are NECK AND NECK it’s gonna be a DEAD HEAT until November Trump could very possibly WIN OVER ALL THE SWING STATES.”

    • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s unfortunately not really a contradiction though, given the electoral college — I think Harris will obliterate Trump in the popular, but that’s sadly not what matters.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

        If The Superbowl had a roughly 1/5 chance of the winner being declared the loser because of a technicality, we would burn this shit to the ground. Yet, here we are with roughly 1/5 of all presidential elections being overturned by the EC.

        • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Right. But I think it’s a mischaracterization to represent the EC as a “technicality,” as it’s very central to the way voting in the USA works. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s stupid and should be abolished, but it’s very much ingrained in the voting system.

          I think I’d counter your example — keeping the sports theme — by saying it’s like the World Series: it doesn’t matter if there are three absolute blowouts, all the matters is who wins four games. So you could easily win the World Series, but have fewer total runs across seven games (game = EC votes, runs = popular).

          (Again, I think the EC should absolutely be abolished.)

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Tournament brackets don’t actually decide the most capable team, with NFL the teams that make it to the Superbowl being largely based on chance. A lot of the language around strategy is just being overly verbose about the literal mechanics of the game. Coaches mostly just try to keep their team “playing the game” (literally and figuratively) to give them the best chances of making it.

          It’s basically a big lottery machine powered by athletes, funded by ultra-rich team owners, and decided through arbitrary rules and procedures, and everyone wants to know who the winner will be because it’s entertaining to watch.

          But nobody burns anything to the ground, we just accept the rules, even though they aren’t really fair.

            • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Yep. And they had hammered out a deal on the border led by one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate until Trump had it killed.

              Even then, the decision comes down to the president who has veto power to decide whether the bill becomes law or not.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                the president who has veto power

                Congress can, and periodically does, override presidential vetoes. If you’ve got the most conservative Republicans in the Senate on board, it sounds like an override is in the cards.

                Past that, vetoes don’t create policy.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I put up a comment about it yesterday, but I’m predicting Oct 12- 16th for a pivot.

        Specifically, these debates mostly nothing At this point, if you were going for Trump, there is no debate performance that is going to change that. Likewise for Harris voters. As well, we’re just about past the point where voter registration is going to change anything. Just about the last 2 weeks of September and the state which matter won’t be accepting new registrations.

        So it’s down to people that are likely voters who are still withholding for some policy positions.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Realistically she’s got quite a few of those, but when given a bad but not fundamentally different from what one had before option, and a make everything far worse option, and a situation that makes trying to choose a third option an exercise in futility, the choice is a no-brainer.

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

        it’s probably around 1.5% of the vote she’s leaving on the table?

        Not an unsurmountable number, but easily closer than you would want to do in any kind of competitive election.

        Unforced error. At the end of the day, AIPAC doesn’t vote.

  • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    I remember that tons of people were super apprehensive to change the candidate with such little time left. I’m glad Biden’s campaign didn’t listen to that, because Kamala is way better in every way.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      I was one of those. And never knew much about Harris before so I was doubly apprehensive. But she really is a solid choice and what the world needs right now, namely someone who can beat Trump. And maybe, just maybe she might be a tiny slither more progressive than Uncle Joe too, but now I’m probably dreaming. I’ll settle for not getting the fascist again, though.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        And maybe, just maybe she might be a tiny slither more progressive than Uncle Joe too, but now I’m probably dreaming.

        Ironically (in light of your comment) her clear conservative lean really concerns me. She’s backtracked on literally every progressive stance she held in 2020. This is the reason for her “my values haven’t changed” soundbite. Yes, R is trying to paint her as a flipflopper. I’m not doing that, I think she leaned into the social impact of BLM and the pandemic in 2020, and is now back to her conservative self.

        She seems like a decent person, but unless this is all an act to get elected (and if it isn’t her statements during the runup to the 2020 election were) she’s just going to pull us to the right slower than Trump would.

        Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong. Let’s see what she does on healthcare, UBI, police reform, corporate greed (price gouging grocery stores anyone?), and marijuana legalization. We already know she’s not going to do anything differently than Biden on gaza, which is to say continue to support Israel unconditionally.

        100% better than trump, and I will vote for her without hesitation on that alone. But we still don’t have a President on the horizon who will do more than tolerate the progressive left in their party. At least that’s how I see it.

        And maybe, just maybe she might be a tiny slither more progressive than Uncle Joe too, but now I’m probably dreaming.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I remember lemmy’s centrists losing their fucking shit at the suggestion that Biden should step aside. And they’re the same people who scream “Russian bot!” at anyone who disagrees with them, especially from the left. Don’t revise history. Lemmy’s centrists were all-in on losing with Biden.

      • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        TIL I’m a Russian bot for showing valid concern. The fears that Biden dropping out could cause chaos for the Dems were not unfounded, but I was glad to be proven wrong.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      No one outside of the donor’s circle liked Biden.

      No one inside the donor’s circle liked Biden. That’s why his fundraising tanked out in those last months. Kamala’s surge in donations was in large part the mega-donor class sitting on their wallets until Biden was ushered off the ticket.

      He was a chump block to the progressives & the left

      He was a chump block to keep Bernie off the ticket in 2020. But there was no real risk of a Berniecrat running for office in 2024. The party has been moving steadily to the right since Carter and spent this primary cycle knocking out any half-decent progressive without a seven figure war chest.

      Now he’s just dead weight. Everyone is happy he’s gone.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      No need to imagine. It was barely a bit more than a month ago.

      And to be clear, those who are trying to beat people into submission in the issue of genocide were the same who tried to beat people into submission on the issue of Biden s ability to win. They where wrong them. They’re wrong now.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        The people who were shitting blood over how anyone who wants Biden to step down is a Russian agent will unfortunately learn absolutely nothing from these events.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well now the blue maga are shitting blood about how anyone who wants Kamala to have a more electable position on Israel Gaza is a Russian agent.

          Fascist apologists gonna fascist apologise.

  • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    She crushed the debate. She learned from the mistakes that Hillary made IMO and handled him like the child he is. The fact that she managed to hook him with the rallies was fantastic.

  • Hellsfire29@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Only because of identity politics, though. Old white guy vs a younger “black” female?

    Of course the polls would shift. *Vote blue no matter who" in full effect lol

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    She actually is exceeding expectations.

    Before getting the nod, the narrative was “everyone hates her”.

    I fully expected her numbers to be worse than Biden and while they’re currently dropping to Biden-ish levels, she’s doing better than anyone really expected.

    TBH - I still don’t believe she’ll beat Trump. I’d LIKE her to, but the numbers she’s putting up in Pennsylvania and Michigan aren’t encouraging.

    • Fosheze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I dont think people really started liking her. Biden just made himself that much more unlikable. When he stepped down Kamala got a massive swing because the DNC actually listened to us for once and made an actual fucking change. People saw hope for something better the first time in years.