2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[garbon]

Last thought I think this idea that they find the 'right' candidate is all a bunch of bull. That's no an objective reality until you see if they won or lost.

[Jacob]

Sheilbh, I don't follow... Biden had a hard time articulating himself to a bunch of Democratic representatives and this is going to dog Harris? How?

The line for anything related to Biden being old is:

"Yes, Biden is old and shouldn't run for president. This is an argument from the past. He isn't running. Speaking of senile, Trump is senile and unfit for office. This matters today."

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, I don't follow... Biden had a hard time articulating himself to a bunch of Democratic representatives and this is going to dog Harris? How?

The line for anything related to Biden being old is:

"Yes, Biden is old and shouldn't run for president. This is an argument from the past. He isn't running. Speaking of senile, Trump is senile and unfit for office. This matters today."

Democrats have been saying about how sharp and in command Biden is in private and it's just the odd bad moment - and anyway he's always fluffed words and made gaffes. The debate made that line unsustainable.

There's now this story which is basically that he was visibly incapable of running a meeting of fellow Democrats. If there's more of that to come or if senior Democrats were, in private, been talking about whether Biden's fit to run again, then I think you have to assume it will come out. And the natural next questions will be when did you know, what signs did you see is he/was he capable of serving as President, who was making decisions for him etc.

All of those, I think, are particularly pertinent and high risk for his VP (perhaps unfairly as my understanding is they weren't really that close). That isn't a question from the past - it clarifies down to did you know the President was in no state to serve and did you cover it up?

I think lots of Democrats online are talking about Biden as a hero and it's a great moral gesture to step down. I'm not sure that's how the wider public will receive it (though it's the right thing to do) or that it will provide a neat end to the story.

Edit: And as I say it might not happen - but it feels like something they should at least kick the tires on. Let things settle down - look at some polls. Even if they ultimately decide to crown Harris, I don't think there's any need to make that decision in the emotional high of the first 24 hours.

[Tamas]

Maybe you guys are not used to this because you haven't head Trump around nearly as long as I have seen Orban around, but... it doesn't matter. you remove Harris because she was close to Biden and nominate some other senator/congressmen, well they were still in the same party the same legislature weren't they? How DARE they keep Biden's condition secret from the American People?

I get the argument Sheilbh but you are trying to have them prepare for a contest against an opponent having at least cursory links to truth and at least with some holds barred. But that's not Trump and his cult.

What the Democrat candidate needs to show is being better at leading the country than Trump and having less negative impact on people's lives than Trump. The first one should be easy for anyone less demented than poor Biden. The second one may be more tricky with all the crap about immigration, transgered children and other vile nonsense that's gonna be brought up by Trump but it's not like there's a candidate out there against which he and his team won't try those things. And who would it work less against? The gay guy? The Jew?

The way I see it the choice is clear. A capable but not at all exciting normal person, or Trump. Honestly if Trump wins maybe that's what the US deserves.

[garbon]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4786610-harris-breaks-fundraising-record/

Harris breaks 24-hour fundraising record after Biden drops out

Vice President Harris raised $81 million in the first 24 hours after President Biden stepped aside and endorsed her as the Democratic nominee, her campaign said, touting it as the highest 24-hour fundraising haul of any presidential candidate in history.

"The historic outpouring of support for Vice President Harris represents exactly the kind of grassroots energy and enthusiasm that wins elections," campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said in a statement. "Already, we are seeing a broad and diverse coalition come together to support our critical work of talking to the voters that will decide this election."

The campaign said it brought in more than 888,000 contributions from individual grassroots donors, 60 percent of whom had not donated before in the 2024 cycle. Roughly 43,000 donors have signed up to give weekly to the campaign.

And the campaign saw its rapid response social media account, which was rebranded from "Biden HQ" to "Kamala HQ" double its following overnight.

...

[Josquius]

The big impression I get is not even about the dem convincing people they're better than Trump.
That's a given for anyone who cares about such things.
The challenge is getting people to care enough to actually vote.
I do have my fingers crossed on Harris that she could draw out black and Asian voters (heard today apparently swingy Virginia has a lot of Indians whet this could matter?).
Also a woman candidate seems very good considering how much of a kicking the republicans got over the abortion shit and their general Gilead hints of late.

[Jacob]

All of those, I think, are particularly pertinent and high risk for his VP (perhaps unfairly as my understanding is they weren't really that close). That isn't a question from the past - it clarifies down to did you know the President was in no state to serve and did you cover it up?

Ah I see what you're saying.

I guess I disagree as I don't think those kind of questions are going to resonate particularly, nor do I think they'll stick particularly to Harris as opposed to the Democrats in general - and therefore they'll seem either as sore-loserism or as partisan rhetoric.

I think the sore-loserism is going to subside fairly quickly, and as partisan rhetoric goes "you knew your guy was old and senile, why didn't you say anything" is not particularly juice. One because Trump is old and senile, two because it's in the past, and three because there's no clear narrative about what anyone should've done. It's too complicated and nuanced to really sell, and it's a "whatif" from the past with a clear line to more impactful and still relevant "whatif"s about Trump.

I mean, go ahead and kick the tires and whatnot - but I don't think it's something that has legs.

I guess we'll see.

[Jacob]

So yeah... I was against Biden stepping down, mostly because I don't like changing horses midstream and fear of backlash and all that. But now I'm cautiously optimistic about Harris.

I guess we'll see soon enough.

[crazy canuck]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4786610-harris-breaks-fundraising-record/

Harris breaks 24-hour fundraising record after Biden drops out

Vice President Harris raised $81 million in the first 24 hours after President Biden stepped aside and endorsed her as the Democratic nominee, her campaign said, touting it as the highest 24-hour fundraising haul of any presidential candidate in history.

"The historic outpouring of support for Vice President Harris represents exactly the kind of grassroots energy and enthusiasm that wins elections," campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said in a statement. "Already, we are seeing a broad and diverse coalition come together to support our critical work of talking to the voters that will decide this election."

The campaign said it brought in more than 888,000 contributions from individual grassroots donors, 60 percent of whom had not donated before in the 2024 cycle. Roughly 43,000 donors have signed up to give weekly to the campaign.

And the campaign saw its rapid response social media account, which was rebranded from "Biden HQ" to "Kamala HQ" double its following overnight.

...

That should end the discussion

[Sheilbh]

I guess I disagree as I don't think those kind of questions are going to resonate particularly, nor do I think they'll stick particularly to Harris as opposed to the Democrats in general - and therefore they'll seem either as sore-loserism or as partisan rhetoric.

I think the sore-loserism is going to subside fairly quickly, and as partisan rhetoric goes "you knew your guy was old and senile, why didn't you say anything" is not particularly juice. One because Trump is old and senile, two because it's in the past, and three because there's no clear narrative about what anyone should've done. It's too complicated and nuanced to really sell, and it's a "whatif" from the past with a clear line to more impactful and still relevant "whatif"s about Trump.

Maybe - as I say it's only a risk and the other possible risks (not checking how she'll perform in a campaign or if it might resonate more to have someone a bit distant from Biden's administration) may also not be anything. My view is the same as Obama's - there's no need to rush in an emotional state when everyone's feeling massive relief that a really bad decision has been unwound - I still haven't really seen an argument for why the decision needs to be made now.

And on the VP risk specifically I'm not sure it comes across as partisan. Biden's age didn't become an issue because of GOP talking points making something out of whole cloth, but because it was an issue and people could see it on stage (and if anything it was the Democrats saying there's nothing to see here). But I also don't think it's complicated, I think it's very human and something anyone who has ever had an elderly relative will recognise and understand. That's partly why I think it could resonate way beyond partisan boundaries - as Biden's debate performance did.

Similarly on attacking Trump for age - I think that's open now. But I think for many non-partisan people it will come across as tricksy, given the Democrats were one week saying Biden was sharp and on top of the detail etc.

I mean, go ahead and kick the tires and whatnot - but I don't think it's something that has legs.

I guess we'll see.

I think you could be right. I think they are rallying so it won't happen. And I don't know on balance which is right.

But I think it could be a mistake - and I think Obama was right to call for a process rather than immediately endorse. This just feels very endorphin-driven decision making - everyone feeling massive relief (because they may have avoided the damage caused by their previous catastrophic decision).

[crazy canuck]

Why do you think this is just an emotional decision?   The VP seems objectively the obvious person. 

[garbon]

Also disingenuous to say you haven't seen anyone argue why there shouldn't be "a process".

[garbon]

Why do you think this is just an emotional decision?   The VP seems objectively the obvious person. 

The dispassionate Obama didn't agree.

[Sheilbh]

Also disingenuous to say you haven't seen anyone argue why there shouldn't be "a process".

What is the positive case? All I've seen is that she is the VP and avoids limbo or division - none of those are arguments for why Harris is the best candidate and I feel that should be the question given the stakes. And I think coming up with some form of expedited process ahead of the convention would be a good way of flushing out those positive reasons (and risks). It could be the right choice - but actively make the choice not just by default.

I can't see a single good reason for making this decision in 24 hours beyond "well we have".

Why do you think this is just an emotional decision?  The VP seems objectively the obvious person.

And may well be objectively the best person for it - it's worth taking a moment and maybe having a process to work out who is best placed.

But from the Atlantic: "Democrats' prevailing mood since Sunday has been overwhelming relief, as if the entire party just passed a kidney stone". All of the reporting talks about feelings of overwhelming relief, joy, excitement - and that fundraising chart. It's very up and down.

Getting this wrong matters more than a few weeks of "division" before the convention.

[The Minsky Moment]

Why do you think this is just an emotional decision?   The VP seems objectively the obvious person. 

I don't see what that follows. Most of the delegates were pledged to vote for her as VP not as President. With Biden out, my understanding is that the delegates are free to act in accordance with their own judgment.

As a practical matter, I agree that Biden's endorsement gave her immediate momentum out the gate. If someone else wants to contest, they really needed to have said something by now. AP is now reporting Pelosi is backing her and she has support from a majority of the delegates.  If that's true, it is pretty much over.