this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
195 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3951 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I do think others would be stronger (I especially think Whitmer would be a strong candidate), but I think people underestimate just how weak Trump actually is as a candidate right now.

It just hasn't been capitalized on because Biden was a fucking mummy, but Trump is old and tried. His RNC speech was just exhausting to even watch, and he is falling asleep in most drawn out public appearances.

He's surrounded by yes men who peddle QAnon conspiracy theories and rambles on about things only his most loyal fan base even understand, playing the encore for his fans but leaving any independents or less politically engaged folks bewildered.

None of this was able to be capitalized on by an ailing and addled Biden, but as long as Harris can be halfway coached to focus on these points and juxtapose them, she'll be fine (even if I agree there could be much better options than a previous CA senator and law enforcement pick).

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Whitmer's one weakness is that she hasn't really been tested yet on the national stage....

.... which will be fixed once Harris picks her as her VP

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or when she still throws her hat into the ring if delegates are unpledged and people want a more healthy competition for the nomination.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Whitmer has already said she's not contending for the nomination, probably because Kamala already promised her a good job, either as VP or Secretary of Somethingorother

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

IIRC she and Newsom said they are not interested in being Harris's VP. Didn't see her saying she wasn't going to be looking for nomination, but open to seeing a source.

Edit: Ah, it's rumored that she said that: https://fortune.com/2024/07/21/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-kamala-harris-democratic-presidential-nomination-gavin-newsom/

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

It's cute that you think Americans would elect an administration with both a female president and vice president.