I’d vote for Harris in a heartbeat
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
27 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
586 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But you were already going to vote, right?
The problem is that we need a candidate that draws in people that either weren't going to vote or would vote for someone else instead.
i think in this case, it's not so much that Harris will persuade voters, but more that Harris will energize at least some of the likely dem voters that were leaning towards just staying home on Election Day.
I think people are underestimating the enticement of having a woman president for the first time, because Clinton lost the EC. But that doesn’t mean that energy isn’t there, especially after losing Roe.
Fair but I think that at this point, most people either already decided to vote for or against Trump. I can’t imagine anyone being on the fence about that megalomaniac.
There are other people I would prefer to see as the first woman President, given her history of not being the greatest towards her constituents wishes (I grew up close to Oakland). That said, I've been fully expecting her to be, partly because I wasn't 100% certain Biden would make it, although Mrs. Feinsteinn had recently passed so I was a bit more upset about the age of our politicians at the time.
In addition to all that, she is a far better alternative than our two current options, if only due to the fact that she may be able to increase voter turnout, even if it's despite her not-so-great history for policy. I was even hoping that Biden would step down for 2nd term and have her run in his place... You know, to avoid exactly what is happening right now. Like hell, Biden is only 9 years younger than Feinsteinn. Doesn't he want to actually have some time in retirement, unlike her? Does he just want to die in politics?
Actually, that probably explains a lot. Do all these politicians just want to die at work? Mitch McConnell is freaking 82.
Don't these people have hobbies? Grandchildr- ah who am I kidding, they don't do their jobs unless it's to prevent something good from happening. And I bet Mitch McConnel hates his grandchildren. I just have a feeling about it, don't ask me why.
Like hell, Biden is only 9 years younger than Feinsteinn. Doesn't he want to actually have some time in retirement, unlike her? Does he just want to die in politics?
I think for Biden it's personal. He gave years of his life to the US Senate, some of that is time he'll never get back with his kids.
His oldest son also served in the military for this country and died.
Say what you want about Biden, I think the man genuinely cares, and Trump hits him at his core. If it was e.g. a Jeb Bush running, I think Biden wouldn't have run in 2020 let alone now. I think he wants to retire but he wants to make sure Trump is twice defeated first. He wants Trumpism to die and he feels he's the best chance we've got to stop it.
Oh definitely, of all people I think I understand why Biden does it the most. I think you're pretty spot on, with Biden if not saying this outright himself has definitely alluded to it in some of his comments.
Even if I don't agree with it, I can understand it. I just sort of wish he wasn't being so stubborn about it.
To another end, I feel like Biden is of the era where he is used to the incumbent President running again. That's just what we do. Obama did it. Bush Did it. Clinton did it. Reagan did it. Nixon did it. Johnson did it. Eisenhower did it. Truman did it. Roosevelt did it. That is almost every single President from Biden's lifetime. If I'm not mistaken, there would be 4 Presidents who did not go for/win their second term from 1941 through 2017? Kennedy, Ford, Carter, and H.W. Bush. Kennedy almost certainly would have, unless some of his shenanigans were to come out (seems doubtful).
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if part of his whole reasoning was in part also due to it just being what you do as a President. You run again, it's just what you do?
"I'd vote for Harris for a heartbeat"
Fixed it for you.
Most people with a heartbeat would be better than the alternative, and maybe a few without.
Honestly, I prefer Biden to her. Haris’s historical political positions are questionable at best to me personally and I don’t trust her in the slightest to implement progressive policies or challenge corporate power. She has co-signed a lot of letters, and sponsored a few bills that sounded good, but never when there was a real chance of them passing, and I’ve seen very little from her that would convince me that was anything but performative.
I’m not crazy about Biden and I think he gave up far to much on a lot of the bills he managed to get through, not to mention that his foreign policy had been a mixed bag, to say the least. But, I’d still rather him be in charge of things.
This is my biggest reservation about the whole replace Biden thing. Suddenly the party is worried about Biden’s electability now? Not when they could have run primaries and had voter input? To me it feels like they always wanted to pick another candidate, but they didn’t want to run a public primary campaign. Perhaps it’s because they wanted to give the right wing propaganda machine less time to demonize the chosen candidate, or maybe insiders at the party were worried the voters in primaries might choose someone they didn’t approve of.
The first seems… I dunno, somewhat reasonable? The second ticks me off though. This all stinks, especially because most of the left of the party is still voicing support for keeping biden. If the party wants to replace Biden with Harris’s they should have had a primary about it, and not just slipped it in last moment.
you make excellent points. it's funny, many of these are reasons i didn't vote for Clinton in 2016. I wrote in Bernie bc I felt very frustrated with the primary process and the superdelegates thing. It's also the reason why I wasn't at all interested in Harris in the 2020 primaries. But now, i don't even care why they change it or who they choose, i will vote Dem in November no matter what. I agree 100% with everything you said. It's just strange to consider how much the situation has changed over the past 4 and 8 years.
It's better to think about the general election as the place to vote for your party. You get your chance to vote for individual candidates in the primaries. I know that isn't the case for incumbents, but that's where the decisions should be made.
If people thought about elections this way, we wouldn't be in this mess where Democrats are always outnumbered by Republicans in the election booth, even though they outnumber them when counting registered voters.
I became impressed with Harris during the Impeachment hearings. She was smart, a bit sarcastic, and got as far as she could given the situation. Lots of other people basically wasted their time, but she was stellar.
I think she got a raw deal by getting stuck with 'immigration duty' since that's been an issue for decades and only getting more histrionic, so the deck was loaded against her.
Yeah, I hear complaints that she shoulda/coulda done more in California, but the very few examples I've given a look seemed like reasonable can't-please-everyone issues. Perhaps I need to get more educated, but there's only so much time in the day.
I don’t care much for good personality in politicians, plenty of politicians with great personalities have gone on to do awful things, plenty with awful personalities have done great things. I care far more about the issues they campaign on and policies they’ve pushed through in the past.
Haris seemed to drop and pick up policy positions during the 2020 primary purely based on what her team thought would advance polling numbers. Which makes me skeptical of any claimed positions without concrete evidence of commitment.
It wasn't her personality as much as her ability to cut through BS. She exhibited a skill. A quick search turned up this example: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-shut-down-again-221300388.html
I’ve seen Harris put out plenty of her own BS. equivocating and avoiding question she doesn’t want to answer. Again, I want to see real commitment to policy I care about. Not showpersonship, Fingerspitzengefühl or rhetorical capability.
If the choice becomes Harris or Trump, will you stay home or will you vote? For which?
I will vote for Harris in that case, but I will not be happy about it. I’d rather be voting for Biden, my mind could be changed on Harris, but she has not earned that yet. After the threat of trump is off the table, the party has a lot of work to do if they want my support and Participation again beyond that.
Dear God Please No. Anyone but her, Hillary, or Klobuchar. I don't recall knowing anything about this Mark Kelly dude prior to a few days ago, but that in itself might as well be a goddamn Medal of Honor next to what I know of them.
Hell, I voted Bush over John Kerry in '04, and while I still don't care for the "turn in your guns for healthcare" strategy they lost with then and earlier with Gore, I can pinch my nose and vote for that quicker than seeing half my neighbors, family, and friends deported, dragged off to internment/conversion camps, or just plain killed.