31 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

Not trying to be an ahole, but this whole process with the Democratic voters not really choosing Kamala as replacement doesn't seem very Democratic. I understand she's the obvious choice from the party's perspective, as passing over her for anyone but Michelle would have been a disaster. But still doesn't sit right that the people don't get to revote.

Her name was on the ballot that won the primary overwhelmingly.

Of course it's legal. There is no law that says parties are obligated to let voters decide. Parties can nominate who they want. The democrats also have super delegates that could overrule primary voters if they were to vote for someone who for example wasn't a democrat. That isn't exactly how Hillary beat Bernie, but it could have played out that way. 

non-dems are the ones most upset with kamala being named the nominee. 

Just now, mr_hunt said:

non-dems are the ones most upset with kamala being named the nominee. 

Republicans suddenly care deeply about my vote.  I've never felt more seen.

5 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

non-dems are the ones most upset with kamala being named the nominee. 

That's because they're afraid.

She's the greatest US VP in the past 405 years

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Republicans suddenly care deeply about my vote.  I've never felt more seen.

Oh, conservatives don't care about your vote I think it's more a matter of you all pounding the "democracy is in jeopardy" drum but then unelected delegates pick one of the candidates in a two party system where 48% of the country will automatically vote for their side. Hypocrisy  exists on both sides and neither likes hearing it.

20 minutes ago, Gannan said:

There wasn't even voting in primaries until the 1960's, not voting that counted anyway. The republican party literally cancelled their primaries in 2020 when 2 republicans challenged Trump for the nomination. Spoiler alert, the same republicans rheeeeing about this didn't care. I would say that since she's gotten around 100 million in small donations, says that democrats are good with it. 

Very solid counterpoint. Thanks.

12 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

non-dems are the ones most upset with kamala being named the nominee. 

Not upset at all. I didn't vote in the D primary. But Gannan made some good points above.

27 minutes ago, Gannan said:

There wasn't even voting in primaries until the 1960's, not voting that counted anyway. The republican party literally cancelled their primaries in 2020 when 2 republicans challenged Trump for the nomination. Spoiler alert, the same republicans rheeeeing about this didn't care. I would say that since she's gotten around 100 million in small donations, says that democrats are good with it. 

A lot of things existed in the 60s that changed for the better that doesn't mean we should go back. RFK Jr. would say them telling him any primary would be cancelled this year would be similar to the GOP in 2020. Wrong to do so? No, because they honestly didn't have a chance and it was a waste of money. That's different than unelected delegates picking someone. I'm not sure there is a better option at this point, but the difference here is the Dems knew he was failing. There is no way you can tell me they didn't know and that isn't why they decided to have a historically early debate in the middle of June. Worth fighting about or debating? Not really. But hypocrisy exists on both sides.

4 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

How long before we start seeing the first Kamala v Trump polls? Another week? 

Quote

Today's Presidential Polls

These are old polls and so mean nothing now. It may take a week or more to start getting meaningful polls. One very big problem is that all pollsters correct the sample to match their idea of the electorate. So if the pollster believes 15% of the electorate will be young women and in the sample only 13% are young women, it will count every young women in the sample as 15/13 of a person (which is much better than the three-fifths of a person the Constitution speaks of for some people).

Now here's the rub. The "electorate" the pollsters mean is the set of people who will actually vote. It is not the voting-eligible population (i.e., citizens over 18 who are not excluded felons). The electorate is not fixed. With Harris in and Biden out, some double haters who were not planning to vote may have become single haters and are now planning to vote. This changes the electorate and thus requires a different correction to the polling sample. The better pollsters understand this, but figuring out the new electorate isn't so easy. It could take them a while and they could get it wrong. They won't really know for sure until election day and may be forced to use old models of the electorate that they have been using for a while. It is not a simple problem to solve quickly. The obvious fix is to go out and ask a whole bunch of people: "Are you going to vote?" but then we quickly get into the problem of differential nonresponse: shy Trump voters who won't answer the phone, enthusiastic 18-year-olds who don't know that you have to be registered in order to vote, etc. We hope that our method of aggregrating polls from multiple pollsters smooths this out somewhat, but there is little else we can do right now. (V)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	44%	52%	Jul 10	Jul 11	PPP
Pennsylvania	45%	51%	Jul 11	Jul 12	PPP
Pennsylvania	46%	50%	Jul 20	Jul 21	SoCal Research
Wisconsin	46%	50%	Jul 20	Jul 21	SoCal Research

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

 

13 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

That's because they're afraid.

She's the greatest US VP in the past 405 years

Even better than Vice President Trump?

13 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Oh, conservatives don't care about your vote I think it's more a matter of you all pounding the "democracy is in jeopardy" drum but then unelected delegates pick one of the candidates in a two party system where 48% of the country will automatically vote for their side. Hypocrisy  exists on both sides and neither likes hearing it.

 

- Everyone that voted for a Biden-Harris ticket in the primary voted for Harris

- There's no right to primary voting in the Constitution

- The vast majority of Dems want this change

Trump calling the Sec of State of GA and begging him (like a dog) to cancel 11K Dem votes, praising autocrats and saying he wants to be a dictator and terminate the Constitution is not the same as the guy at the top of the ticket dropping out before he's even officially on the ballot because he's ancient and his VP taking over.  I realize that has to be the spin from the right, but it's silly.

Quote

https://nypost.com/2024/07/23/us-news/kamala-harris-boycott-of-netanyahus-speech-to-congress-disappointing-israeli-official-says/

I wouldn't say Harris is boycotting his speech, but she should have been there even though she had something else planned. She may be the president before January and is now running at the top of the ticket. I'm glad she will meet with him, but I'd prefer her to publicly support an ally addressing Congress when his country is under attack.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, looks like some states dropped EVs from 2020: MI, NY, IL, CA while others gained some: CO, OR, NC 

 

Can you drop the link to this site?
It looks like most of republican strong holds gained (TX/FL) and  dem strong holds lost (NY/CA)

I never knew electoral votes were re-distributed.

13 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

- Everyone that voted for a Biden-Harris ticket in the primary voted for Harris

- There's no right to primary voting in the Constitution

- The vast majority of Dems want this change

Trump calling the Sec of State of GA and begging him (like a dog) to cancel 11K Dem votes, praising autocrats and saying he wants to be a dictator and terminate the Constitution is not the same as the guy at the top of the ticket dropping out before he's even officially on the ballot because he's ancient and his VP taking over.  I realize that has to be the spin from the right, but it's silly.

There is a difference between voting for someone at the top of a ticket and voting for them to be president. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I doubt anyone wanted Quayle or Cheney to ever be president. Many would have voted for McCain in the primary if that was realistic vs a possibility in 2000.

Like I said both sides refuse to admit their hypocrisy. Trump did what he did.Sky is blue. Dems should just admit their party f'ed around (or at least let it go and stop defending it) and had an early debate to get him off the ticket and let delegates pick his replacement, but they can't.

1 minute ago, pisceschica said:

Can you drop the link to this site?
It looks like most of republican strong holds gained (TX/FL) and  dem strong holds lost (NY/CA)

I never knew electoral votes were re-distributed.

https://www.270towin.com/

You can use the reset map button to select different starting points

Just now, Diehardfan said:

There is a difference between voting for someone at the top of a ticket and voting for them to be president. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I doubt anyone wanted Quayle or Cheney to ever be president.

Like I said both sides refuse to admit their hypocrisy. 

But the vast majority of people that voted for that ticket wanted this change, so it's not the same as the Cheney or Quayle comparison either.  

Dem voters were all for Biden, then they saw him in the debate and the worm turned quickly.  Biden deserves the blame here since he didn't debate in the primary (he absolutely should have even though it would be surprising since he's the incumbent and there was almost no one running against him), but it is what it is.  He's old and he got worse fast. 

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

But the vast majority of people that voted for that ticket wanted this change, so it's not the same as the Cheney or Quayle comparison either.  

Dem voters were all for Biden, then they saw him in the debate and the worm turned quickly.  Biden deserves the blame here since he didn't debate in the primary (he absolutely should have even though it would be surprising since he's the incumbent and there was almost no one running against him), but it is what it is.  He's old and he got worse fast. 

Sure it is. They may have wanted a change but you think Dem voters would pick her over some of the other options at the top? I seriously doubt it. Again, most Trump people won't just let it go or stop defending him when people bring it up the same way Dems should stop defending the crap the Dem party just pulled. Both are obvious.

They technically voted for Kamala to be president in the event that Biden was no longer president

so PA, MI, and WI again.. the states trump barely won the first time 

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Sure it is. Do you think Dem voters would pick her over some of the other options at the top? I seriously doubt it. Again, most Trump people won't just let it go or stop defending him when people bring it up the same way Dems should stop defending the crap the Dem party just pulled. Both are obvious.

In both cases, we're talking about Dem votes.  Biden is stepping down and tossing his primary votes to Harris.  The Dems are good with it and are cheering for it.  Trump tried to get Dem votes thrown out so he could win the general.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say Dems by and large aren't good with that.

Again, I appreciate the concern for my vote here, but I'm good with one and not good with the other.  Not sure why you're so insistent that I should upset about both.

1 minute ago, pisceschica said:

so PA, MI, and WI again.. the states trump barely won the first time 

Yep. Reposting from 4 years ago.

10 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Sure it is. They may have wanted a change but you think Dem voters would pick her over some of the other options at the top? I seriously doubt it. Again, most Trump people won't just let it go or stop defending him when people bring it up the same way Dems should stop defending the crap the Dem party just pulled. Both are obvious.

have you seen any dem uproar over the harris pick? any? at all? even a smidge? at least a tidbit? even a blip? a fart in the wind?

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president

PA +44,292

MI + 10,604

WI +22,748

so 77,644 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

There is a difference between voting for someone at the top of a ticket and voting for them to be president. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I doubt anyone wanted Quayle or Cheney to ever be president. Many would have voted for McCain in the primary if that was realistic vs a possibility in 2000.

Like I said both sides refuse to admit their hypocrisy. Trump did what he did.Sky is blue. Dems should just admit their party f'ed around (or at least let it go and stop defending it) and had an early debate to get him off the ticket and let delegates pick his replacement, but they can't.

I don't know all the rules and protocols, but there would have to be contingencies for emergencies same as with the sitting POTUS. This situation is the incumbent ticket had no primary so just like if the POTUS had to step down, the VP takes over. The incumbent party of both POTUS and VP is carried over from the last election so they promote the VP on the ticket. It's actually the simplest way. 

The delegates that put their votes for the official nomination could technically choose someone else at the convention, but the timing is too late and no one would have time to put together a campaign. The Democrat leadership conferred and decided to roll with Harris. It's the simplest way, and still maintains the democratic process and protocols. 

Democrats aren't upset by it and understand it makes the most sense. There is no threat to democracy here. It's amazing that Republicans are concerned about the democratic process in this situation! 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

have you seen any dem uproar over the harris pick? any? at all? even a smidge? at least a tidbit? even a blip? a fart in the wind?

The blowback I've seen was more so at the perception that Biden was pushed out by party elites and big money donors. They don't have anything against Harris as a candidate, they just seem upset about how it all went down. My guess / hope is that they get over it soon because we can't afford to squabble over stuff like this when Trump still looms over all of it.