Kamala Harris Holds Emergency Call With Dem Donors
2 years ago by return2ozma to c/news
Oh, to be a fly on that wall. I'm sure I'd love it.
I disagree.
There are millions of voters who, for reasons I will never understand, are still undecided. At some point, fighting over your candidate doesn't inspire outsiders as to your party's vision for governance. You'll never sell a message of "We're the party that will defeat fascism!" if half your efforts are spent essentially rehashing the primary. Seriously, the Dems right now look like a low budget version of Spartacus.
Biden, whether through serious belief or the obstinance that comes from advanced age, is not going to step aside. Continuing to publicly fight that, rather than unite behind a single party-wide message, only makes the Dems look weak.
And no, I'm not saying Biden shouldn't step aside or that he is the best candidate. But party unity is the key to defeating the GOP and if Biden won't withdraw, we work with that.
Seriously! 4 weeks of plenty of time
I mean, we Americans are certainly well-known for our quick critical-thinking skills, our ability to be reasonable and of course our willingness to compromise for the greater good.
Hell, the day before the election is just as good - especially if you don't actually care about winning and/or enacting critical policies/legislation we need
Such as?
Gods I cannot wait for her to lose, she’s a POS through and through
I find that in general when people say shit like this, without elaborating, they generally don't have a solid idea why they think that. Is that the case for you or do you have actual reasons for saying this?
Not OP here and I'll vote for her in the election 100% but the concerns I've seen raised most often are:
She was a cop and her history reflects the history of being a cop. Being a prosecutor means that you're pressuring innocent people into jail time plea deals and using cops to back up your arguments all the time. She's the epitome of back the blue.
That makes her a great choice against the "Law and Order" fascist felon at least.
... but the concerns I’ve seen raised most often are:
Concern, singular. It's the same issue over and over again, and especially in Harris' case... I mean both Clintons were once opposed to gay marriage, which is a real deal breaker for me. I didn't hold that one single issue against Hillary, I looked at the totality of her neo-liberal/con background before deciding I couldn't support her.
And... Joe Biden and just about every other congress critter has a terrible history of police support too. You know what? That's the price they pay for getting votes. I don't agree with it, I think it stinks as much as pigs in general, but it's a price I'm willing to accept to get everything else and not get a Republican administration.
I'm looking for reasons that make Harris unelectable. TBH, her background throwing people in jail for minor drug offenses ups her appeal with a lot of voters.
She began on a progressive platform with a side of identity politics. She sold out her progressive platform during the campaign to position herself for, then secure the VP nomination.
But, we don't need specifics to be certain any given US federal politician is absolute trash. They're all elected on corporate money.
Ideologically, she’s a corporate shill that incarcerated thousands of people for minor posessions and then claimed to be against such policies while never offering any amnesty or apology. Politically I have major disagreeances with both parties platforms. Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme.
Also, to everyone that keeps trying to gaslight America. EVERYONE HATES HARRIS, SHE WILL DRIVE AWAY ON THE FENCE VOTERS AND YOUNGER APATHETIC VOTERS.
The unfortunate truth is that that's not an option. We get either a Republican, or a slightly better Republican. We need to put in a lot of groundwork to open the doors for any other options, and we're just not there yet.
They’re all pieces of shit, you don’t come to lead a political party without being one. But we’ve still got to pick which is the least smelly piece of shit of the bunch.
enlight me on the reasons for this conclusion, idk much about her
Ideologically, she’s a corporate shill that incarcerated thousands of people for minor posessions and then claimed to be against such policies while never offering any amnesty or apology. Politically I have major disagreeances with both parties platforms. Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme.
Also, to everyone that keeps trying to gaslight America. EVERYONE HATES HARRIS, SHE WILL DRIVE AWAY ON THE FENCE VOTERS AND YOUNGER APATHETIC VOTERS.
Ah, so you sorta tried to answer this question. But it boils down to "because things", mainly. Or rather ONE thing exactly. I'd bet that is the sum total of your actual knowledge of Harris' history.
Like take this sentence: "Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme."
What? What does that actually mean?
I think Biden has a better chance than her, and if he's voted in she's the back up anyways.
On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately?
I know republicans would attempt to block and/or complain about everything, but the reasonables- how would they react?
Assuming the Republicans still hold the House, they would ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS!
Sure, President Harris would still be a Democrat and control the Executive branch, but her new VP would be voted in by the House of Representatives. They'd try to put Trump in as VP. Having Trump (even as the junior in the Executive Branch) would give him access and power to spoil President Harris's agenda.
"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." - source is The Constitution of the United States specifically the 25th Amendment
Alternatively, again assuming Republicans keep the house, they could make Trump the Speaker of the House.
"The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been, and as a member the speaker also represents their district and retains the right to vote." source
I hate these two possible scenarios of VP or Speaker.
On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately?
You seem to think the other hasn't been working towards the same goal for the past 50 years at the best of corporations, just less obvious about it. The current Dems are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. That's why all the Republicans fight about is usually social issues, they're both working towards whatever corporations want done with the money most of the time.
No no. House doesn't get to nominate/choose the VP. Harris would choose a VP then the House would have to vote to approve them or not, like the Senate does with SCOTUS nominees. So the worst a Repub-controlled House could do (and they would) is prevent her from filling the VP slot at all.
That's why: 1) very important Dems get the House back in this election. Biden may not hand it over immediately but it could happen at any time during the term. 2) It's probably better to make her the nominee now so she can choose a VP to run with and avoid that issue.
It would take Harris to Nominate him as vice, it would instead be a deadlock of never a vice, and whatever.
I don't think he's capable of making up the difference.
She has higher potential. But she could also do worse, which doesn't really matter.
NYTimes reporting the call wasn’t anything exciting.
Vice President Kamala Harris tried to buck up the Democratic Party’s biggest donors on Friday, telling about 300 of them that there was little to worry about in President Biden’s campaign.
Ms. Harris spoke to the group at a time of extraordinary turmoil among Democrats, with many hoping that she will replace Mr. Biden as the party’s nominee. But several listeners said they found the meeting overall to be of little value and even, at times, condescending, believing that the message ignored donors’ legitimate concerns about the Biden-led ticket.
Ms. Harris, of course, is in a delicate position: She must demonstrate loyalty to her boss but also be prepared to jump immediately to the top of the Democratic ticket if Mr. Biden were to withdraw.
But several listeners said they found the meeting overall to be of little value and even, at times, condescending...
Yeah no shit. Harris bombed out of the 2020 run before Iowa because that's just who she is. Got 0 rizz. Biden should have talked Abrams into being VP 4 years ago.
The NYT that has a personal vendetta against Biden for reasons that Biden stans can never articulate?
It would be fucking hilarious if they pushed out Kamala for Hilary.
"We realized the reason voters want Biden to step down is because Harris is his running mate. So we replaced her with the only Democrat in existence less popular than Biden, and the only person in existence to have lost to the Toupee in an election: Hillary Clinton. It's her turn." - Dem leadership.
God that whole rhetoric pissed me off to no end, when they shoved Bernie aside because it was ‘her turn’. The level of arrogance needed to even think that, let alone push it as an argument on voters…
While I’m certainly not downplaying her actual political credits - she has experience in all levels of government - the presidency is not an ‘it’s my turn now’ position. That soured a lot of voters on her as a candidate.
‘It’s my turn’ is only an argument if you’re waiting in line at Disneyland.
Was the saying "it's her turn" always referring specifically to Hillary? I always processed "it's her turn" to just refer to a woman president in general, and giving the environment, that just happened to be Hillary. Still not MUCH better, but at least we're saying it's a collectives turn, not a single individual person.
Edit: literally just asking a simple question and posing a rhetorical in response to my memories around the event. Not trying to start anything.
It was a potential campaign slogan for her specifically. https://www.businessinsider.com/...
Technically, she got more votes (edit due to being unclear: than Trump, in 2016). And not by a little, nearly 3 million people more voted for her over orange anti-republic anti-democracy man. But the voting system is unrepresentative, so it didn’t matter.
Why is everyone acting as if she’s an heir or something? All delegates to the convention have already been elected. If Biden steps down, they can vote for whoever, and Dem party rules state that the superdelegates can’t jump in until the 2nd vote if no one wins the first.
I heard somewhere that all the money raised for the Biden/Harris campaign would stay with Harris if she ran for president.
I don't know if that's true, or what would happen to the money if they both drop out but I heard someone say that.
From https://www.usnews.com/...
What Happens to Biden's Campaign Money if He Drops Out?
It depends on who the new Democratic nominee is, says Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center.
The simplest option from a campaign finance standpoint would be to nominate Vice President Kamala Harris, because “if Harris remains on the ticket, as either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate, the new ticket would maintain access to all the funds in the campaign committee,” says Ghosh.
This is “[b]ecause Biden and Vice President Harris share a campaign committee,” Ghosh says, as both names appear on Biden’s statement of candidacy and statement of organization to the Federal Election Commission.
However, if a new Democratic ticket did not include Biden or Harris, then things would become “more complicated,” Ghosh said.
Since $2,000 is the limit to transfer money between federal campaign committees per election cycle, Ghosh said, the Biden campaign couldn’t legally contribute all of its campaign money to a new candidate.
Instead, “Biden’s campaign would have to offer to refund the money to donors, who could then contribute to the new candidate’s campaign,” or “transfer an unlimited amount to the DNC, which could then spend the money supporting the new presidential nominee, and up to $32.3 million of that spending could be coordinated with the new nominee,” said Ghosh.
This is absolutely not true. The DNC can do whatever the fuck they want with presidential campaign money. It's a donation to a private organization. There's no contract unless a big donor insists.
That's an oversimplification. The Biden campaign has around $240 million on hand. If Harris becomes the presidential nominee, her campaign inherits the entire $240 mil.
If another person becomes the nominee, the Biden campaign could refund contributions so they can be sent to the new campaign directly. Otherwise, they are permitted to transfer as much as they want to the DNC.
But the DNC can't spend the money however they like. They can spend an unlimited amount supporting the new candidate independently (running ads, oppo research, etc), but there is a limit to how much they can spend in coordination with the campaign. For example, if they rent a venue for the candidate, that must be coordinated with the campaign and therefore counts towards coordinated expenditures. The coordinated expenditure limit per presidential cycle is $32.3 million.
And if they want to give directly to the campaign, that is even more limited. A political committee can only give $5,000 dollars per campaign per election cycle. Anything more than that would have to go to some kind of Super PAC which also has limits in what it can do in direct coordination with a campaign (though it gets fuzzier because Super PACs are tantamount to political money laundering in my opinion).
So no, if the DNC gets the money, they can't just give it to whatever campaign they like. The limitations are not due to any contractual obligation when donating the funds, but rather US political rules on how presidential campaigns are allowed to receive money.
Source: https://www.usnews.com/...
If another person becomes the nominee, the Biden campaign could refund contributions so they can be sent to the new campaign directly.
Hmm.
That'd have to happen extremely quickly. If they don't have some kind of mechanism already in place for getting approval from the donor, it seems likely to me that they wouldn't have time to set something up.
The US typically runs fairly long campaigns, the whole election year. Not all countries work like that. IIRC, the UK does a (limited) three month campaign cycle. But even by those standards, this is really short. There are about three-and-a-half months left before the election. They haven't even selected an alternative, much less had someone spend the money to put together a campaign, much less actually embark on it.
Also, US campaigns are very large compared to most countries. I don't know what total spending is like this time around, but I remember that when Trump ran against Hillary in 2016, each spent about $1 billion in their campaign. If you have to do that, you'd have to select someone, set up and complete all the fund transfer stuff, pay someone to devise a campaign, and then implement the campaign -- and this is on the order of a billion-dollar project -- in about a hundred days.
I'm with you, but can't they just donate it to a super PAC? Isn't that basically their whole point - to launder campaign contributions?
Why is everyone acting as if she’s an heir or something?
Because these are Democrats, and no one expects them to have primaries anymore.
It's been kind of maddening, seeing the discourse about her electability go from zero to hero. US politics makes no sense outside of corporate and wealthy circles. She is way more electable than Biden.
There are, potentially valid, concerns that her being brown, a prosecutor, and a her makes her less electable than the ancient white man nobody likes. I think people for whom this is a problem were never going to vote dem anyway, but I can see what they perceive the problem is.
Some people are gonna vote D/R no matter what, some will never vote D/R. The problem at hand is not those, is taking the people that could vote D 'off their seats' and go cast that vote. Biden's not moving anyone, which could seriously result in losing the election, and I think Harris on top of not moving these could make the people that have a problem with her being a woman of color or a prosecutor go vote for Trump. The perceive problem is a real concern.
I wouldn't listen to any network or pundit that flip flops that noticeably
Where are you seeing that kind of drastic shift?
We should update our currency "enabling the worst of us". We deserve what we get at this point.
Doesn’t matter. The “far left” aren’t voting for her either.
"Far left" here, we generally understand the need to vote blue no matter who in this election. It's pretty obvious.
Then you’re not the “far left” I’m taking about. There’s a Far Left, which are legit- and the “far left” which are MAGA trolls trying to convince people not to vote.
Please. You pretend that any criticism from the left is from maga trolls.
Cool story!
Democrats to Harris:
They both need to step aside, it's better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don't like.
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
Yea, pretty much every election up here in Canada.
I'm amazed that Americans think four months "is like literally no time".
It'd take an ad spend but the DNC could name recognition pretty much anyone at this point.
The elections are short, but we've known the candidates a long time. De Dluca was elected leader shortly before the election and no one knew who he was and he totally tanked.
*see, I even got his name wrong. Del Duca.
You don't elect a chief executive in Canada the way we do in the U.S.
You can't compare a parliamentary election to our constitutional presidential republic's elections.
*4 weeks, bud
The convention is in 4 weeks. Mail-in-ballots get sent out at the end of September.
There's a lot of misinformation being shared due to the lack of proper context. Yes, the election is in November but it's not that simple
Honestly, if we ever think something is simple, we should pretty much assume we don't know wtf we're talking about
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven't stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn't be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven't come to an opinion on yet?
That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.
can you show an election where somebody in the polling position of biden has come back to win it?
non-us election cycles are shorter than the time that's left i don't think it's an impossible hurdle
I don't have to show evidence for a claim I did not make.
You, however, made this claim: it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.
Can you back it up with evidence or not?
i think it's weird that you think you're allowed to infer claims from my position but that i'm not allowed to infer claims from yours
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I'm not sure which one is the, "last time we did this" though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
I remember when Rolling Stone was a magazine only for music haha
So before it was a magazine? Because this is issue 1 and there's a reason there's a photo of John Lennon dressed as a soldier in an anti-war film on the front page of its inaugural issue in 1967.
Still, it was music/musician focused.
And it is now.
Here's the front page of their website.
Now it is both. You can do both.
Is Ashlee Simpson twenty or is her album twenty years old?
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
save