If the Democrats could ever get to that choice it would be an autowin and an instant rejuvenation for the party.
If the Democrats could ever get to that choice it would be an autowin and an instant rejuvenation for the party.
Out of respect for a great woman/man! Not being disrespectful to important people is much more important than human rights or democracy.
I don’t think Harris guarantees a Trump win, even if she’s clearly a riskier pick than a more popular Democrat. And I don’t think she is a good pick. I feel like either party could win simply by putting up a younger and more competent candidate, but their internal politics prevented that. Harris, for all her focus-group flip-flops and questionable past, would be able to respond directly and forcefully to Trump while conveying a capability to do the job. For all the bad vibes Biden put off with his oldness and feebleness last night, in my opinion not effectively attacking Trump was the real loss.
And to be clear, I think she’s a terrible choice. She was a terrible choice when she was picked for VP and they’ve done nothing in four years to groom her as a successor, but I think the race is still tight and there’s so much potential for gain simply not being 80 that her risks don’t put us in a worse place. We’d be better with someone else, but I’m not sure the cost of passing over the black female VP when there’s no other clear leader to coronate would be worth what will already be a chaotic decision.
Or just anyone who’s not clued in. Trumpland will vote even if they know he’s lying. It’s the people that barely pay attention to politics that will hear a confident politician say something and assume it’s true.
Trump will be advertising.
It gets really interested if both happen simultaneously and we as a nation have to all just sit in awkward silence for 3 minutes wondering how we got here.
We’re there. Netanyahu referenced Amalek in his war speech, a story where god commanded the Jews to kill every last infant of an enemy nation. The deputy speaker in parliament explicitly said there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and it must be wiped off the face of the earth.
Around the same time Bowman had his own poll (the DMFI poll is effectively a pro-Latimer poll) with him up +1. Also weak for an incumbent, but there’s no reason to place the baseline at -17. AIPAC money almost certainly had a strong effect on the race, otherwise they wouldn’t have felt spending $14.5 million was a good use of their donation money. That’s fully half of all their expenditures reported thus far. The people with full time jobs focused on influencing US policy very much believe spending money influences elections.
He’s carrying on a tradition for the House leader to endorse and support (with varying levels of “support”) all House incumbents. It’s not an indication of policy agreement or friendship, it’s just if you’re an incumbent, he supports you.
Which is… fine. It’s probably good that the House leader isn’t supporting primary opponents to people in his caucus. But of course some support will be a lot more substantial than others. Pelosi (when she was leader) went to the mat for Henry Cuellar in his previous close primary against a progressive, but would just give perfunctory endorsements to progressive incumbents. When most people know you endorse based simply on incumbency, it’s not really much of an endorsement.
At his age the cold he supposedly had is a potential career ender. “He just had a cold that made him feeble” isn’t a great alternative explanation when you’re talking about an 81 year old.