30 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Right, he doesn't need to replace her at all. He's already won the election next year based on who he's running against, it would be pointless to rock the boat by replacing her. And like I said, she'll be gone in 5 years anyways, never to be heard from again after she loses the primary. This "devil" is completely harmless and has a clear expiration date, the metaphor doesn't really work here.

Yeah, and for four of those years she could easily be POTUS lmao. 

It's a sign.

 

43 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Yeah, and for four of those years she could easily be POTUS lmao. 

I hear ya, but while not ideal, it's still better than risking the alternative which would be Trump. If it truly came down to it, we can survive a couple years of Harris without issue. We already know there will be a F-load of issues if the stable genius gets back into office.

18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I hear ya, but while not ideal, it's still better than risking the alternative which would be Trump. If it truly came down to it, we can survive a couple years of Harris without issue. We already know there will be a F-load of issues if the stable genius gets back into office.

Again, and maybe it's just me, I don't think kicking her to the curb would lose any votes and a better veep might be a gain. I know the trends don't agree with me.

22 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Again, and maybe it's just me, I don't think kicking her to the curb would lose any votes and a better veep might be a gain. I know the trends don't agree with me.

It's possible I'm overstating the political risk to him bouncing his VP a year before the election, but I don't think it's worth it even if it ends up being minimal.

22 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Again, and maybe it's just me, I don't think kicking her to the curb would lose any votes and a better veep might be a gain. I know the trends don't agree with me.

You guys are actually making the case that the decrepit career political cypher might lose to the seditious windbag felon because of...Kamala Harris?  FFS, are you people serious?  take that Yoko Ono BS and sit on it my friends, Harris isn't even a top 10 reason.  trump's VEEP will be a branded minor demon and it won't matter either.

5 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

You guys are actually making the case that the decrepit career political cypher might lose to the seditious windbag felon because of...Kamala Harris?  FFS, are you people serious?  take that Yoko Ono BS and sit on it my friends, Harris isn't even a top 10 reason.  trump's VEEP will be a branded minor demon and it won't matter either.

No he's saying the opposite I think. He wants to avoid a Harris presidency so he'd rather take the risk and bite the bullet now to get a VP that might not be as terrible, rather than roll the dice on Biden's health for the entire 4 years. 

9 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

You guys are actually making the case that the decrepit career political cypher might lose to the seditious windbag felon because of...Kamala Harris?  FFS, are you people serious?  take that Yoko Ono BS and sit on it my friends, Harris isn't even a top 10 reason.  trump's VEEP will be a branded minor demon and it won't matter either.

I never said that lol. If you can quote me ever saying I think Trump could beat Biden in the upcoming election I'd like to see it because I must have been black out drunk or high.

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No he's saying the opposite I think. He wants to avoid a Harris presidency so he'd rather take the risk and bite the bullet now to get a VP that might not be as terrible, rather than roll the dice on Biden's health for the entire 4 years. 

Yes. And I'm only entertaining the thought because of Bidens age and Harris's popularity. 

14 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Yes. And I'm only entertaining the thought because of Bidens age and Harris's popularity. 

ah.  Ok.  sorry, jumped in late there.  I'm open to the idea but I just don't think it's worth it.  She's not even the worst VEEP of the last few decades much less US history.  The Democarts are already ruling by committee with Biden, it would hardly be much different under kamala for a year or two.

 

 

32 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

ah.  Ok.  sorry, jumped in late there.  I'm open to the idea but I just don't think it's worth it.  She's not even the worst VEEP of the last few decades much less US history.  The Democarts are already ruling by committee with Biden, it would hardly be much different under kamala for a year or two.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure it would be worth the risk either. But she's so bad, could a long stint with her as POTUS maybe damage the party enough to make the probably minimal risk worth it? Before you answer that, consider your initial response and also consider you just said "I'm open to the idea" just a little while later lmao. I dunno, just trying to make conversation other than "Trump sucks, Biden sucks" for a change.

 

How much does precedent even matter with how wacky american politics had gotten?

18 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Yeah, I'm not sure it would be worth the risk either. But she's so bad, could a long stint with her as POTUS maybe damage the party enough to make the probably minimal risk worth it? Before you answer that, consider your initial response and also consider you just said "I'm open to the idea" just a little while later lmao. I dunno, just trying to make conversation other than "Trump sucks, Biden sucks" for a change.

 

How much does precedent even matter with how wacky american politics had gotten?

Sure.  Thing is the times I've actually thought the process through it doesn't make as much sense.  Harris is fine and dandy just sitting there in the background, you pull her out of the closet for some very specific duties (like most VEEPS).  Try the switcheroo and suddenly you've created a whole unecessary convo.  Will she be replaced by another black woman?  damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Will she be rotated to another powerful cabinet position?  damned if you do, damned if you don't.  And worst of all, under no circumstances can you admit it's because you think Biden won't live for 4 years, that's validating the biggest argument against him.

 

On the flip side, stay the course and be steady, exactly what Biden is running on.  There prolly won't even be a VEEP or POTUS debate.  Write her a nice speech for convention and keep rolling.  Axing her is bad politics imho.

The people who won't vote for Biden because they fear a Harris presidency...won't vote for Biden if he makes a change. The repugnance of Donald Trump will be what drives Biden's voting base again. If he switched her out, there would be an appearance of chaos and a tacit admission that he thinks he won't finish out his term. Most of the people terrified of a Harris' presidency are voting for Trump, and the ones who aren't are voting against Trump no matter what.

All risk for no reward.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The people who won't vote for Biden because they fear a Harris presidency...won't vote for Biden if he makes a change. The repugnance of Donald Trump will be what drives Biden's voting base again. If he switched her out, there would be an appearance of chaos and a tacit admission that he thinks he won't finish out his term. Most of the people terrified of a Harris' presidency are voting for Trump, and the ones who aren't are voting against Trump no matter what.

All risk for no reward.

She's a seasoned and experienced Senator who tows the party line.  Hardly a disastrous backup Qb option.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

She's a seasoned and experienced Senator who tows the party line.  Hardly a disastrous backup Qb option.

I mean, I think a Harris presidency would be terrible. But as I said about a Hilary presidency in 2016, it would be awful within the normal standard deviation of Presidencies. Trump, on the other hand, could easily be catastrophic (honestly, an untethered, unhinged lunatic with a 2nd term is probably likely to be catastrophic). 

For risk management alone, Harris if preferable. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, I think a Harris presidency would be terrible. But as I said about a Hilary presidency in 2016, it would be awful within the normal standard deviation of Presidencies. Trump, on the other hand, could easily be catastrophic (honestly, an untethered, unhinged lunatic with a 2nd term is probably likely to be catastrophic). 

For risk management alone, Harris if preferable. 

I don't even think that comparison holds.  Hillary would have been elected with a mandate, as an interim Harris would just be a slightly weaker Biden.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

I don't even think that comparison holds.  Hillary would have been elected with a mandate, as an interim Harris would just be a slightly weaker Biden.

Was just comparing them as equally unpalatable options to someone like me. Biden is more conservative than either of them (though he has moved left in his later years). They wouldn't be anywhere near my choice for a Dem President, but they're still not going to cause the Black Swan catastrophe that Trump could/would.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, I think a Harris presidency would be terrible. But as I said about a Hilary presidency in 2016, it would be awful within the normal standard deviation of Presidencies. Trump, on the other hand, could easily be catastrophic (honestly, an untethered, unhinged lunatic with a 2nd term is probably likely to be catastrophic). 

For risk management alone, Harris if preferable. 

Funny thing is, if Biden wins, and then croaks, I don't think a Harris presidency would even reflect a "Harris presidency."  She'd still be beholden to whatever policies helped Biden win in 2024. If she were to stray too far from that, she'd screw over the whole party in 2026 midterms.   

i'll take plain stupid over stupid and dangerous any day of the week. 

18 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, I think a Harris presidency would be terrible. But as I said about a Hilary presidency in 2016, it would be awful within the normal standard deviation of Presidencies. Trump, on the other hand, could easily be catastrophic (honestly, an untethered, unhinged lunatic with a 2nd term is probably likely to be catastrophic). 

For risk management alone, Harris if preferable. 

I dont think she'd do much of anything. 

8 minutes ago, Lloyd said:

Funny thing is, if Biden wins, and then croaks, I don't think a Harris presidency would even reflect a "Harris presidency."  She'd still be beholden to whatever policies helped Biden win in 2024. If she were to stray too far from that, she'd screw over the whole party in 2026 midterms.   

Yup.  To me the danger of running Biden in the state that he's in is more about the election than the actual presidency.  Being a bad stumble away from Trump as POTUS again feels like having Franz Ferdinand don a red jacket with target prints.

12 minutes ago, Lloyd said:

Funny thing is, if Biden wins, and then croaks, I don't think a Harris presidency would even reflect a "Harris presidency."  She'd still be beholden to whatever policies helped Biden win in 2024. If she were to stray too far from that, she'd screw over the whole party in 2026 midterms.   

 

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I dont think she'd do much of anything. 

This is probably the case, but she is a special brand of stupid...the issue is the party as a whole is further left than Biden. He acts as a tempering force to a degree. My expectation is that Trump costs the GOP the House in 2024 as well, so there would be more of a chance for her to venture to the extreme.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

 

This is probably the case, but she is a special brand of stupid...the issue is the party as a whole is further left than Biden. He acts as a tempering force to a degree. My expectation is that Trump costs the GOP the House in 2024 as well, so there would be more of a chance for her to venture to the extreme.

Kamala Harris is not stupid.  She's got the steady moral compass of a kite in a tornado, but the girl elbowed her way to 1st female VEEP in US history by being savvy.  Biden took her in as VEEP on the condition she'd be quiet as a mouse and she has done just that.

38 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The people who won't vote for Biden because they fear a Harris presidency...won't vote for Biden if he makes a change. The repugnance of Donald Trump will be what drives Biden's voting base again. If he switched her out, there would be an appearance of chaos and a tacit admission that he thinks he won't finish out his term. Most of the people terrified of a Harris' presidency are voting for Trump, and the ones who aren't are voting against Trump no matter what.

All risk for no reward.

That's a good way to look at it as well. 

The country has survived bad VPs before: Harris is worse than Pence or Gore. Maybe not as bad as Quayle. Really, what has she done since becoming VP? Like a lot of them, a lot of nothing.

The 2024 ticket will be Biden/Harris vs. whatever the Republicans come up with. It's sad that we've entered a stage where neither major party is putting serious candidates up for the election. The parties are broken.