It's going to be Harris nominated at the DNC. No other prospect with his/her/their marbles intact is going to risk prodding the elephant in the room. The only question mark is her VP pick.
Unlike in the past (below), you can bet KH is hands-off for the entertainment industry after this. No more lampooning from the mainstream, after what happened to Joe.
If you're referring to some discussions he had had after the debate performance, wasn't that a misrepresentation of what he said? He's already denied he said it, and clarified that he said he would need to pace himself better, rather than getting up at 7am and going to bed at midnight etc.
Or was there something since then?
Yeah, I was getting it mixed up with all the last minute damage control after the debate. No matter how many times she repeats that Biden was jet-lagged, I'm not buying that someone is still jet-lagged two weeks on.
Nice to see the Republicans calling for Biden to step down immediately. Fallacious arguments.to the fore: if you can't commit to four more years from Jan 25 then you're not capable of carrying on for 6 months untilr then.
Anyhoo - were Biden to resign and put Harris in charge, wouldn't it scupper all of Dump's "47" marketing??
Nice to see the Republicans calling for Biden to step down immediately. Fallacious arguments.to the fore: if you can't commit to four more years from Jan 25 then you're not capable of carrying on for 6 months untilr then.
Well, you know, that's just how it works in any industry: Whenever a person announces their decision or plans to retire at some future date, they are ethically obligated to cease all work immediately.
Some years back, I decided that I would some day retire and I have not done a bit of work since.
That works for me... as long as they still pay me until retirement. In fact, I'll go and tell my boss that I plan to retire in 2040! Then sit at my desk with feet up and a smug smile on my face. Ethically obligated inaction. Let's see how they like them apples!
Just on a whim, I'm going to predict the US SCOTUS rules that Harris is not permitted on the ballot. They are corrupt as the day is long. Of course I hope and pray I am wrong.
Just on a whim, I'm going to predict the US SCOTUS rules that Harris is not permitted on the ballot. They are corrupt as the day is long. Of course I hope and pray I am wrong.
There would appear to be zero grounds for such a ruling, and as yet noone has tried to take such a case to any lower court. The Democrats haven't held their convention to pick their nominee, so Biden had only ever been the presumptive nominee, irrespective of whether he won primaries or not.
But, as you say, with this SCOTUS there is no confidence that they will not opt to display their corruption yet again.
Of course, this would require such a case to get to the SCOTUS, and if cases are brought at state level then they tap out at state level appeals courts. So red states might get some traction in such a case, even if the cases themselves would be beyond frivolous.
As far as I understand things, whether the Republicans have spent money or done anything else on the assumption of Biden being the nominee before being formally nominated at the DNC, is their own fault. Just as it is the Democrat's fault for the money they have spent on promoting Biden.
More concerning would be that some states (it may be only one, actually) put a date for declaring nominations so as to be on that state's ballot earlier than the DNC. Usually the lawmakers have passed extensions to cover the gap when these have arisen (whether for Dems or Reps), but the MAGA GOP had, as far as I understood, refused to do so, meaning there might be no Democrat on that state's ticket. Not sure what the resolution of that was, if there was one.
Anyhoo, given the MAGA world of US politics and judiciary, none of your concerns can be ruled out. Unfortunately.
News in (I may be getting it late) confirming Harris has recieved sufficient endorsements to secure the nomination. Obviously the delegate's support is non-binding, and at the DNC they can cast their vote for whomever they want, but as things stand, if they follow through with their stated support, Harris will be the nominee.
Just on a whim, I'm going to predict the US SCOTUS rules that Harris is not permitted on the ballot. They are corrupt as the day is long. Of course I hope and pray I am wrong.
If (and that can even be a Mirror Universe level speculative "if" so to avoid blasphemy or sacrilege) Harris is as much a "do-gooder message" opportunist as what Biden was (example at bottom)...
And there is some way to communicate that tactical facade to non-Democrats without being caught...
Then she could probably even snare a percentage of the Homelander voters this time around.
Or to put another way... There are (flimsy loyal) inquiring special interest groups over on the Dark Side that would appreciate a reassuring "wink-wink" from KH that aspects of the Biden tradition could continue...
US produced more fossil fuel than any country in history during Biden's term
(March 11, 2024) United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever
EXCERPTS: That the US is about to produce more oil than any country ever before undercuts the argument that Biden has waged a war on American energy...
[...] Last year, gas prices spiked above $5 a gallon following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which set off a panic in the oil market. Biden urged US oil companies to pump more oil – exactly the opposite of what climate scientists are calling for.
In March, the Biden administration even approved the Willow oil drilling project, a controversial ConocoPhillips drilling venture in Alaska that had been stalled for decades. That green light came in the face of deep criticism from climate groups worried about the environmental and health risks.
“President Biden has been dragged kicking and screaming from his initial keep-it-in-the-ground strategy towards a more pragmatic policy,” McNally said, noting the administration was “mugged by ... reality...” [AKA strategic apologetics department]
Trigger Warning: This post discusses white supremacism
There is the basic news, and then there are the stories of perspective that go with it.
By all appearances, Democrats seem quite pleased with Donald Trump’s latest choice for running mate. In fact, Democratic officials and their allies have spent the last week effectively treating Sen. JD Vance like a pinata, eagerly reminding the public about the Ohio Republican’s weird far-right views.
The question, however, is whether Republicans are equally satisfied.
Donald Trump appeared on Fox News around this time yesterday, and co-host Steve Doocy asked the former president, “I’m sure you’ve seen there have been a couple of stories out saying they wonder whether or not you feel you made the right pick. ... You’re still 100% behind JD Vance, right?”
The Republican nominee, not surprisingly, reiterated his support for his newest running mate, but the fact that a Fox host even felt the need to ask the question — a week after the party’s national convention — was itself extraordinary.
The first chatter came early, and in truth, I just figured it was socmed noise. But it wasn't immediate. I know that because I was following something even more immediate, which was the white supremacist meltdown. Just transcribing the stuff is depressing; it's an awful read. Nick Fuentes↱, for instance:
And, you know, look, I'm not a racist guy, so I'm not saying, ignorantly, "Oh, you have an Indian wife, F.U." I'm saying, what kind of values―What kind of values does a man have to marry somebody that far outside your race, who isn't even a Christian? It says something about your values.
That's the lightweight version. And notice the notaracist pretense; he even said it↱before Vance was known to be the veep pick:
J.D. Vance also has a nonwhite wife, an Indian wife, and a kid named Vivek. All his kids have Indian names. So, it's like, what exactly are we getting here? And that's not a dig at him just because I'm a racist, or something, but it's like, who is this guy, really? Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and names his kid Vivek is going to support 'white identity'? Like, there's a white genocide going on in the world: White people are being systematically replaced in America and Europe through immigration and, to a much lesser extent, due to intermarrying. This guy has a nonwhite wife and a kid named Vivek. This guy is going to be a defender of white identity? I don't think so. This guy is going to defend American identity? If he does, it's gonna be no better than any of these other civic nationalists like Vivek Ramaswamy. How else could you countenance American identity if you have a mixed-up family like that?
Let's circle back for a moment.
February, 2021↗: Pitching some manner of partisan bawl, several House Republicans filed notices with the Clerk's Office that covid pandemic health concerns required surrogates to vote on their behalf. Fearing for their health, Congressmen Budd (NC-13), Cawthorn (NC-11), and Gaetz (FL-1), among others, would then go on to attend CPAC, a superspreader event. Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-9), however, attended a different political conference, and even spoke at the white nationalist America First PAC (AFPAC) event↗. As a political story, filing false statements with the House Clerk's Office is, for the most part, a small thing among myriad inappropriate Congressional behaviors, but there is always a question of why even bother with such stunts. In this case, to what degree does, or perhaps should, it stand out that Gosar skipped out to go pitch to white nationalists with neo-Nazi ties?
Congressman Gosar, then representing Arizona Four, was elected again, unopposed, after redistricting placed him in the Ninth. It's important to recognize that nearly 193,000 constituents were willing to vote for the neo-Nazi sympathizer. Moreover, Gosar isn't alone as an AFPAC participant; Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA14) addressed the organization in 2022, and even went on to hire a Fuentes associate to work on her congressional campaign. More generally, consider the idea of a House Republican Nazi bloc, because notorious celebrity sheriff turned congressman, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA03), is a longtime Nazi sympathizer.
†
Is they is, or is they ain't? Will they will, or will they won't?
The first thing is that the early murmur and buzz seems about on par for any cycle. Benen quotes Tim Alberta, who said the "most striking thing I heard from Trump allies yesterday was the second-guessing of JD Vance — a selection, they acknowledged, that was borne of cockiness, meant to run up margins with the base in a blowout". Axios quoted an unnamed House GOP member "second-guessing" what "was the only pick that wasn’t the safe pick." The House Republican continued, "And I think everyone has now realized that."
Somebody else said Vance "doesn't add much" to the ticket. The Hill, as Benen notes, quoted another GOP lawmaker who called Vance "the worst choice of all the options", and speculated that "nine out of ten on our side would say he's the wrong pick." Even the statement that Vance is "the only person who can do serious damage" is a sort of mundane, anonymous critique, increasingly familiar in twenty-first century politics.
By Benen's telling, "Trump picked him anyway at least in part because Trump assumed he was poised to win anyway", and, sure, that's easily believable. But, Benen explains, "That, of course, was when the GOP nominee thought a relatively easy victory over Biden was at hand." And this story continues to have some sort of leg; "As of five days ago, things are suddenly ... different."
†
Okay, this part might seem subtle from half a world away↑, but it's not, or, at least, not like that; the thing is, it's complicated.
First: Will the white supremacist bloc sit out the vote?
Then: What difference will it make if they do?
There is an argument to be made that history says they will turn out. This reaches back to the Southern Strategy and Reagan Awakening, and then just follow the mean spirit through the years.
And if, from a distance, some part of the mystery is the so-called moderate Republicans, it's kind of hard to explain because of the number of identifiable elements involved (i.e., what does "passive-aggressive", ca. 1990s, have to do with anything?), but there is a basic theme that cannot be ignored.
By contrast, many Democratic voters hold their noses and vote for centrists and technocrats who hold the line but innovate no solutions because for generations, now, that's the choice they've had. There is much discussion to be had about why that is, but those who fret about liberal paternalism and condescension should remember that while the prevailing religious politic would claim this is a Christian nation, it is also one in which feeding the hungry is so radical that it should be illegal. For Democratic voters, consider it was all of 2016-17, in the wake of Trump's victory, when the discussion still included the need to elect anti-abortion Democrats; in the present, that thing that only the hysterical would accuse has gone and happened, so one of the major checks against progressive ambition is now variable in a way it hasn't been for over fifty years. That we're going to vote for a law enforcer is not lost on her supporters, but this, too, is a different kind of question than it was before Trump.
Conservatives, though, are on certain questions more about appearances; for generations, Republican voters have struggled with questions of pace and magnitude, and resented the need to keep their mouths shut about certain things. Trump gave them license, and it was enough to win a presidency. Still, remember that the border crisis Republicans complain about not only dates back to Boehner, over a decade ago, but actually reaches back to conservative refusal of President Bush's bill in 2007. Democrats, in the seventeen years since, have literally been unable to give Republicans the bills Republicans demand, because Republicans end up killing the bills. For a while, now, Republicans have been holding their noses to vote for candidates that aren't supremacist enough. Once upon a time, conservatives knew well enough, and, still made significant progress to curtail human rights under the Constitution. But to some degree, the traditional supremacism of American history has driven Republican voters for the last fifty years.
Thus: How many among the white supremacist factions will eschew Trump? How will that sum affect the Trump vote? But there is also this: Is Usha Vance sufficiently unsettling to the so-called moderates?
And while that latter seems like it ought to be an absurd question, we would not be having this discussion if Trump had never been president, or if conservatives had actually shed him in the time since.
The underlying spirit has been present the whole time. How will it affect conservative voter behavior? Even if they really are so racist, the wife of the veep is still a different question than a president.
Notes on #378↑ above
@RightWingWatch. "White nationalist Nick Fuentes says that Trump cannot choose Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate because Vance is a race traitor who has 'a non-white wife' and 'a mixed-up family.'" X. 24 May 2024. X.com. 27 July 2024. https://bit.ly/3WGt9DO
Benen, Steve. "Growing number of Republicans see JD Vance as the wrong VP pick". MSNBC. 25 July 2024. MSNBC.com. 27 July 2024. https://bit.ly/3zXaCdH
Mantyla, kyle. "Nick Fuentes Slams J.D. Vance For Having A Non-White, Non-Christian Wife". Right Wing Watch. 17 July 2024. RightWingWatch.org. 27 July 2024. https://bit.ly/3SrrhN3
Has a Presidential candidate ever unilaterally dumped/changed their VP pick between nomination and the election? I mean, if Vance decided to step down, Trump could presumably pick someone else, right? But if Vance doesn't, could Trump still remove him from the ticket if he wanted to, or would he be stuck with him?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
