A number of prominent Democrats have already endorsed Harris, and no one has said they will run against her. Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Roy Cooper, and Josh Shapiro - all governors who could make plausible cases for their own candidacies - have endorsed Harris. So have the Clintons. Several state delegations to the Democratic National Convention have held informal straw polls, and they have all come out in favor of Harris. ActBlue says they took in $27.5 million in small-dollar donations for her campaign within 5 hours after Harris said she's running.
I think this will informally be over very quickly because no one will offer a serious challenge. The real horse trading will be in the choice of the VP candidate.
Reuters has reported that all 50 State DNC Chairs have endorsed VP Harris.
I think Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear makes an interesting case for Harris' running mate. He's a recently re-elected Democratic Governor in a highly Republican state. Also interested to see how AZ Senator Mark Kelly fares, though I think a Governor may be a better choice. I don't think a member of Biden's Cabinet (read: Buttigieg) is as compelling, either.
No, CM - it's not just you. I do hope the American People get behind Ms Harris; I'd like to think that her gender and colour shouldn't matter to people who are sensible and decent enough to vote Democrat.
I totally agree with the BIB but as a concerned observer I want to know about her qualities and what makes her especially qualified for the job.
I think the circumstances may be good for Harris. I think the media would like a narrative about her stepping up unexpectedly for the good of the country.
Who ever is chosen to be the Democrat candidate needs to be the President asap. To achieve this Biden needs to make them Vice President and then immediately resign as President ( Not necessary if it's Harris) It would give them time to make an impression actually doing the job.
On top of what @Nick Tamen says, Biden shouldn't resign now because Harris doesn't have time to run the country. She has just over 100 days to run a completely unprecedented campaign for president. She needs to spend all her time doing that.
Watching Joe Biden over the past 12+ months has been toe-curling. For him to have his very obvious decline taking place in full public view must be appalling for those who care for him as a man, rather than as President. However, two things keep nagging at me: [1] I seem to recall that when he stood in 2020 he made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS, so why did no one step in and hold him to it when he started speaking of standing now? [2] He has a wife and grandchildren, so why didn't one, or more, of them intervene with some tough love?
If the Democrats think that Biden stepping down from the campaign is going to take the heat off they are living in a parallel universe. Already the Trumpalumpas are saying, correctly IMV, that if Biden isn't up to standing in a non-contested primary he must therefore be unfit to continue as president. My guess is that the car crash has only just started.
As for the Democratic Party, it has been gross dereliction for it to have allowed a situation to develop where those with a realistic chance of representing the party with experience of running for office were kept out of the limelight? What about Bloomberg or Buttigieg? Assuming that Harris is seen as electable, who is there as an obvious running mate? I don't see an all-female ticket winning, so that rules out Whitmer; Newsom will just double the "woke Californian" quotient; and that leaves Pritzker.
Who ever is chosen to be the Democrat candidate needs to be the President asap. To achieve this Biden needs to make them Vice President and then immediately resign as President ( Not necessary if it's Harris) It would give them time to make an impression actually doing the job.
On top of what @Nick Tamen says, Biden shouldn't resign now because Harris doesn't have time to run the country. She has just over 100 days to run a completely unprecedented campaign for president. She needs to spend all her time doing that.
Yes, and I for one (FWIW) wish her every success!
It does seem unwise, however, for Brits to express such categorical views (however well-meant) about the complex politics of what is, after all, a foreign country.
However, two things keep nagging at me: [1] I seem to recall that when he stood in 2020 he made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS, so why did no one step in and hold him to it when he started speaking of standing now?
You recall incorrectly. “Aides close to Biden” suggested that if elected, he wouldn’t seek a second term. But Biden never said that.
[2] He has a wife and grandchildren, so why didn't one, or more, of them intervene with some tough love?
How do you know they didn’t, but were unsuccessful?
If the Democrats think that Biden stepping down from the campaign is going to take the heat off they are living in a parallel universe.
I don’t know of any Democrat, or at least not any Democrat paying any attention at all, who thinks that.
As for the Democratic Party, it has been gross dereliction for it to have allowed a situation to develop where those with a realistic chance of representing the party with experience of running for office were kept out of the limelight? What about Bloomberg or Buttigieg? Assuming that Harris is seen as electable, who is there as an obvious running mate? I don't see an all-female ticket winning, so that rules out Whitmer; Newsom will just double the "woke Californian" quotient; and that leaves Pritzker.
Mark Kelly (US Senator from Arizona), Andy Beshear (Governor of Kentucky) and Roy Cooper (Governor of North Carolina) are all getting a fair amount of talk as possible running mates, along with Pritzker.
[1] I seem to recall that when he stood in 2020 he made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS, so why did no one step in and hold him to it when he started speaking of standing now? [2] He has a wife and grandchildren, so why didn't one, or more, of them intervene with some tough love?
1] People like being in power, even if that power comes from being adjacent to the center of power. Plus he was doing a good job, and his State of the Union address in January was good. [2] This we won't know unless one of them decides to tell us.
If the Democrats think that Biden stepping down from the campaign is going to take the heat off they are living in a parallel universe. Already the Trumpalumpas are saying, correctly IMV, that if Biden isn't up to standing in a non-contested primary he must therefore be unfit to continue as president. My guess is that the car crash has only just started.
They'll say this, but it won't really hit and it won't be their main avenue of attack, because it's beside the point. If they concentrate on attacking Biden, it will be a mistake because the time they spend doing that is time not spent attacking Harris. They need to focus on her, and I think they will. If they talk about Biden, who is now irrelevant and a lame duck, and the Dems talk about Trump, who is now the oldest and most inarticulate person in the race, they're giving Harris a pass.
As for the Democratic Party, it has been gross dereliction for it to have allowed a situation to develop where those with a realistic chance of representing the party with experience of running for office were kept out of the limelight? What about Bloomberg or Buttigieg?
How were they kept out of the limelight?
Again and again Brits here talk about American parties as if they ran like British parties. They don't. They don't control who gets attention. It's on individual politicians to put themselves out there and get attention. Buttigieg gets plenty - he's on the political shows all the time. He goes on Fox and makes fools of them. He has endorsed Harris, and no one cares enough about what Bloomberg thinks to report whether he's endorsed her. So far the only person who's said they'll challenge Harris is Marianne Williamson, and she's not a serious candidate.
Assuming that Harris is seen as electable, who is there as an obvious running mate? I don't see an all-female ticket winning, so that rules out Whitmer; Newsom will just double the "woke Californian" quotient; and that leaves Pritzker.
That leaves a lot of people. The Democrats have a deep bench of experienced elected officials in governor's seats around the country: Roy Cooper, NC; Josh Shapiro, PA; Gretchen Whitmer, MI; Andy Beshear, KY; and as you say, Jay Pritzker, IL - though he doesn't appear on any of the rundowns of possible candidates I've seen.
There also also senators: Raphael Warnock, GA, though I doubt Harris would pick a Black guy, and Mark Kelly, AZ, are the two I've seen discussed most. And Buttigieg is an option.
I think Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear makes an interesting case for Harris' running mate. He's a recently re-elected Democratic Governor in a highly Republican state. Also interested to see how AZ Senator Mark Kelly fares, though I think a Governor may be a better choice. I don't think a member of Biden's Cabinet (read: Buttigieg) is as compelling, either.
Beshear as running mate makes sense from a Beshear-centric point of view. He's a term-limited governor in very red state that does not seem that interested in electing him to any office other than governor. So it would be good for Beshear to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate. However I see no reason why it would be good for the campaign. There's no plausible reason to believe that adding Beshear to the ticket would put Kentucky "in play" in the upcoming election. If you're going to pick a governor with experience working across the aisle Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania or Roy Cooper of North Carolina make much more sense because they could plausibly deliver their swing state to the Democrats. If you want a longer analysis here is the pro-Beshear case and the anti-Beshear case, at least as far as being the Democratic vice presidential candidate goes.
Without getting too much into specifics, I think an ideal running mate for Kamala Harris should have the following characteristics:
A current or former holder of elected office. This means that they would have survived at least one round (and preferably several) of opposition research. This would minimize the chance of unpleasant last minute surprises, though it's not a complete guarantee.
No Senators from states with Republican governors. There is no reason to hand the opposition a free Senate seat on your first day in office. Preferably no current Senators at all, since weird things can happen in special elections.
Preference should be given to candidates who could plausibly swing a swing state in the Democrat's direction. So that would be Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
It's usually the running mate's job to "go negative" against the rival campaign, so someone who could successfully point out the multiple faults of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance would be a good idea.
As for the Democratic Party, it has been gross dereliction for it to have allowed a situation to develop where those with a realistic chance of representing the party with experience of running for office were kept out of the limelight? What about Bloomberg or Buttigieg?
Going along with @Ruth on this one. Pete Buttigieg is one of the most publicly visible members of the Biden cabinet, which is pretty impressive for a Secretary of Transportation. Here he is last Friday (19 July 2024) trash talking J.D. Vance on Bill Maher's show. How has "the Democratic Party" kept him out of the limelight? As for Michael Bloomberg, I'd like to point out that his loyalty to the Democratic party is very situational. He was a Republican for his first two terms as Mayor of New York and and independent for his third term. He's also older than Joe Biden, which would seem like a problem in the context of the current election.
Oops, yes @Ruth —I knew I was leaving someone out of my list. Josh Shapiro has been getting lots of talk.
I suspect the pick won’t be a senator from a red or swing state, unless, as @Crœsos notes, a Democratic governor controls appointment of a replacement. The risks there for control of the Senate might be too great.
Speaking of the very familiar to me, Roy Cooper’s second term as Governor of North Carolina is about up, and can’t run again. So he’s one possibility that wouldn’t result in a vacancy in his current office.
Biden never said he would only serve one term. Some commentators suggested that would be a good idea, and the Mandela Effect kicked in shortly thereafter.
Watching Joe Biden over the past 12+ months has been toe-curling. For him to have his very obvious decline taking place in full public view must be appalling for those who care for him as a man, rather than as President. However, two things keep nagging at me: [1] I seem to recall that when he stood in 2020 he made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS, so why did no one step in and hold him to it when he started speaking of standing now? [2] He has a wife and grandchildren, so why didn't one, or more, of them intervene with some tough love?
I think one of the issues is that Pres. Biden wasn't actually in very obvious decline on full public view over the past year. His unfortunate "performance" during the recent "debate" was a revelation to many, and the reactions to it included the kind of intensification being surprised about something causes, as well as the intrinsic disappointment in the results of the event. [1] Yes, and I think (a) circumstances change, (b) there may have been feelings about already beating this opponent once, so he could just do it again, and (c) his 1st term has enough bone fide accomplishments that it made sense to believe re-election was deserved on merits, among other things. Right now we don't know that some of his family didn't intervene. The scale probably tipped when Pres. Obama weighed-in.
If the Democrats think that Biden stepping down from the campaign is going to take the heat off they are living in a parallel universe. Already the Trumpalumpas are saying, correctly IMV, that if Biden isn't up to standing in a non-contested primary he must therefore be unfit to continue as president. My guess is that the car crash has only just started.
Those drum beats were a part of the 2020 campaign. Right-wing media has had that as a mantra since Pres. Biden decided to run, and throughout his term. We don't know that this whole thing wasn't orchestrated in part, at least. The entire RNC convention was about campaigning against Pres. Biden. All of that has been duly flushed, now, and Republicans are having to retool, or prepare to retool while waiting to see who the running mate will be. .
As for the Democratic Party, it has been gross dereliction for it to have allowed a situation to develop where those with a realistic chance of representing the party with experience of running for office were kept out of the limelight? What about Bloomberg or Buttigieg? Assuming that Harris is seen as electable, who is there as an obvious running mate? I don't see an all-female ticket winning, so that rules out Whitmer; Newsom will just double the "woke Californian" quotient; and that leaves Pritzker.
Some people will say that Sec. Clinton was shoehorned in as the candidate in 2016. Dianne Feinstein was a great example of The Old Guard sticking around far, far too long. Democrats need to improve a lot in the area of strategic retirements and reshuffling. We'd have a more balanced SCOTUS today if that were so. Michael Bloomberg is 82 years old today, and was 78 when he ran for POTUS in 2020. Mayor Pete is on some short lists I've seen for Harris' VP, but IMO he won't be her choice. SOP is to choose a candidate in a critical swing state (PA Gov. Josh Shapiro or NC Gov. Roy Cooper come to mind), or a Democrat who's proven to have success with Republicans (KY Gov. Andy Breshear is very good in this regard), or a Democrat who's known to be "moderate" (think former VA Gov. Mark Warner). I think a sitting or former Governor makes a lot of sense, probably male, probably white, as much as that is on the nose.
Tr*mp has been playing both sides of American politics for his entire life. Let's not pretend he has actual principles or operates by any. He's a purely transactional person.
Biden is doing just fine now as president, and he has a good team around him. I see no reason for him not to stay out his full term. I think he needed to not run again, but so far, he has done a great job and I believe will continue to do so until the end of his term in six months.
However, two things keep nagging at me: [1] I seem to recall that when he stood in 2020 he made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS, so why did no one step in and hold him to it when he started speaking of standing now?
You recall incorrectly. “Aides close to Biden” suggested that if elected, he wouldn’t seek a second term. But Biden never said that.
I think one of the issues is that Pres. Biden wasn't actually in very obvious decline on full public view over the past year.
To the blind, perhaps. To the rest of us, he was obviously past his Use By date a long time ago. But we had no one to tell who would listen.
My point is that to whatever degree he was/is declining, it was at least partially shielded by his team from "full public view" that made it somewhat less than "very obvious.' I think your commentary here may be a little heavy handed, and I wonder if there's a certain amount of jumping on the bandwagon re: all of this, now that he's stepped aside. "To the blind' and "to the rest of us," other than the latter being a case of argumentum ad populum seems a bit preachy. Then again, maybe it's just me.
I totally agree The.Riv. I think he has been doing an outstanding job. His interviews post debate have been just fine. Yes time to step down with thanksgiving for his service.
As far as I can tell, while Biden has always made verbal slips, he has also been a competent administrator, or more importantly surrounded himself with competent administrators. It's not so much that he can't do the job of being President as that given his propensity to verbal slips he doesn't seem capable of successfully campaigning against a candidate who is campaigning on a nebulous concept of strength.
However, two things keep nagging at me: [1] I seem to recall that when he stood in 2020 he made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS, so why did no one step in and hold him to it when he started speaking of standing now?
You recall incorrectly. “Aides close to Biden” suggested that if elected, he wouldn’t seek a second term. But Biden never said that.
Note, that he confirms here that he said it, but had changed his mind...
I don’t think I did get it wrong. I’m finding it very hard to find the actual articles among all the ads, at least on my phone.* But in the first article, I did find this:
In deference to his age, Biden had hinted he would serve just one term and then step aside. He called himself a “bridge” to a younger generation of leaders during the 2020 race.
“Bridge” doesn’t suggest a specific length of time or number of terms. It can be one term or two, depending on what the reader/listener wants to infer.
And “hinted he would serve just one term and then step aside” is not the same thing as “made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS,” which is the statement I was responding to. You “hint” or you clearly state.
Biden was careful not to clearly state he would be a one-term president. Doing so would have made him a lame duck on Inauguration Day. Rather, he hinted and he let his aides suggest he’d serve one term, but he himself never actually said it.
* And when I copied those two sentences and then pasted, what pasted was the whole freaking article.
It wasn't all that long ago that Pres. Biden was being lauded for his SOTU address, during which he was clear, concise, and even a bit combative. Yes, it was scripted, but by all appearances, he was pretty strong.
Biden admitted with all his traveling to Europe preceding the debate, he could not recover quickly enough for the debate. On top of that, he was visibly sick. His face was ashen.
In spite of what Trump said about Biden, being the worst president in modern history, historians are giving him good grades for what he did to bring the country back from the effects of the pandemic.
It is now time to move on. Harris has my vote, if she gets the nomination,
However, two things keep nagging at me: [1] I seem to recall that when he stood in 2020 he made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS, so why did no one step in and hold him to it when he started speaking of standing now?
You recall incorrectly. “Aides close to Biden” suggested that if elected, he wouldn’t seek a second term. But Biden never said that.
Note, that he confirms here that he said it, but had changed his mind...
The longer article just says that he "hinted" he would only serve one term, and mentions the "bridge to younger candidates" statement, with nothing further.
So, as far as I can tell, there was no explicit promise to only serve one term.
My point is that to whatever degree he was/is declining, it was at least partially shielded by his team. . . . "To the blind' and "to the rest of us," other than the latter being a case of argumentum ad populum seems a bit preachy. Then again, maybe it's just me.
Maybe. Others will see what they will, but to me he was well past his Use By date ages before he announced his candidacy for re-election.
My point is that to whatever degree he was/is declining, it was at least partially shielded by his team. . . . "To the blind' and "to the rest of us," other than the latter being a case of argumentum ad populum seems a bit preachy. Then again, maybe it's just me.
Maybe. Others will see what they will, but to me he was well past his Use By date ages before he announced his candidacy for re-election.
Well, you must be especially relieved, then. I'm glad.
Biden has lost his speaking ability but I don't reckon he's lost his intelligence. I don't think he ever intended to run for a second term.
In my opinion and I am happy to accept your scorn, he always wanted Harris to run for President. He realised she was not popular enough to win the nomination by normal means. He therefore got the nomination and kept it long enough so that the Democrats would have no choice but to accept her as candidate.
Now I may well be wrong but I've had may say, so pile in
I think we can probably stop fussing about Biden now and let history take that on. No doubt we'll all have the chance to say "I told you so" (or not) in a few years.
IMO that's wholly unnecessary. Televised debates measure negligible, superficial things that have little to do with insightful, appropriate policy or sound governance. Harris would do much better to use the bully pulpit her position as VP affords, and leave Tr*mp to twist in the wind.
that would be fascinating! I wonder if Trump could manage to behave with any semblance of decency whatsoever, given the gender and race issues.
Fascinating indeed...I imagine Ms Harris would relish the opportunity, not so sure about Trump, though. He doesn't relate well to women, to say the least, or so it seems.
Well done, though, President Joe, for doing the right thing, as commented on by many people on this side of the Pond.
There is theoretically another presidential debate on the schedule for September 10. That's after Labor Day, when most Americans start paying attention to presidential politics. The agreement was that it was to be hosted by ABC News, but Trump has recently (yesterday) insisted that he won't participate unless the venue is changed to Fox "News".
No, CM - it's not just you. I do hope the American People get behind Ms Harris; I'd like to think that her gender and colour shouldn't matter to people who are sensible and decent enough to vote Democrat.
I totally agree with the BIB but as a concerned observer I want to know about her qualities and what makes her especially qualified for the job.
In my mind, she has the quality of being an apparently reasonable human being, which puts her a considerable distance above the Republican candidate. I don't know whether Kamala Harris will make a fantastic president. We haven't really seen enough from her to know that. I think we've seen enough to know that she'll be at least OK.
Biden has lost his speaking ability but I don't reckon he's lost his intelligence. I don't think he ever intended to run for a second term.
In my opinion and I am happy to accept your scorn, he always wanted Harris to run for President. He realised she was not popular enough to win the nomination by normal means. He therefore got the nomination and kept it long enough so that the Democrats would have no choice but to accept her as candidate.
Now I may well be wrong but I've had may say, so pile in
Doesn't look like anyone's taken you up on your offer.
Biden has lost his speaking ability but I don't reckon he's lost his intelligence. I don't think he ever intended to run for a second term.
In my opinion and I am happy to accept your scorn, he always wanted Harris to run for President. He realised she was not popular enough to win the nomination by normal means. He therefore got the nomination and kept it long enough so that the Democrats would have no choice but to accept her as candidate.
Now I may well be wrong but I've had may say, so pile in
Doesn't look like anyone's taken you up on your offer.
I don't but I can't muster the energy to refute an obvious conspiracy theory.
If Biden was actually playing the sort of tactical game @Telford suggests, then a better tactic would have been to quit due to ill health a year ago, and give Kamala Harris a year's presidential incumbency to build a campaign off.
IMO that's wholly unnecessary. Televised debates measure negligible, superficial things that have little to do with insightful, appropriate policy or sound governance. Harris would do much better to use the bully pulpit her position as VP affords, and leave Tr*mp to twist in the wind.
I don’t know. The last televised debate started the conversations that led to one of the candidates withdrawing from the race.
It seems to me that a second debate is almost unavoidable. As @Crœsos noted, Trump and Biden had agreed to two debates, and I’m assuming Harris will want to stick to that, given how the last debate went.
If Trump backs out, he risks looking scared.
Comments
Reuters has reported that all 50 State DNC Chairs have endorsed VP Harris.
I think Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear makes an interesting case for Harris' running mate. He's a recently re-elected Democratic Governor in a highly Republican state. Also interested to see how AZ Senator Mark Kelly fares, though I think a Governor may be a better choice. I don't think a member of Biden's Cabinet (read: Buttigieg) is as compelling, either.
What’s a BIB?
On top of what @Nick Tamen says, Biden shouldn't resign now because Harris doesn't have time to run the country. She has just over 100 days to run a completely unprecedented campaign for president. She needs to spend all her time doing that.
If the Democrats think that Biden stepping down from the campaign is going to take the heat off they are living in a parallel universe. Already the Trumpalumpas are saying, correctly IMV, that if Biden isn't up to standing in a non-contested primary he must therefore be unfit to continue as president. My guess is that the car crash has only just started.
As for the Democratic Party, it has been gross dereliction for it to have allowed a situation to develop where those with a realistic chance of representing the party with experience of running for office were kept out of the limelight? What about Bloomberg or Buttigieg? Assuming that Harris is seen as electable, who is there as an obvious running mate? I don't see an all-female ticket winning, so that rules out Whitmer; Newsom will just double the "woke Californian" quotient; and that leaves Pritzker.
Yes, and I for one (FWIW) wish her every success!
It does seem unwise, however, for Brits to express such categorical views (however well-meant) about the complex politics of what is, after all, a foreign country.
How do you know they didn’t, but were unsuccessful?
I don’t know of any Democrat, or at least not any Democrat paying any attention at all, who thinks that.
Mark Kelly (US Senator from Arizona), Andy Beshear (Governor of Kentucky) and Roy Cooper (Governor of North Carolina) are all getting a fair amount of talk as possible running mates, along with Pritzker.
1] People like being in power, even if that power comes from being adjacent to the center of power. Plus he was doing a good job, and his State of the Union address in January was good. [2] This we won't know unless one of them decides to tell us.
They'll say this, but it won't really hit and it won't be their main avenue of attack, because it's beside the point. If they concentrate on attacking Biden, it will be a mistake because the time they spend doing that is time not spent attacking Harris. They need to focus on her, and I think they will. If they talk about Biden, who is now irrelevant and a lame duck, and the Dems talk about Trump, who is now the oldest and most inarticulate person in the race, they're giving Harris a pass.
How were they kept out of the limelight?
Again and again Brits here talk about American parties as if they ran like British parties. They don't. They don't control who gets attention. It's on individual politicians to put themselves out there and get attention. Buttigieg gets plenty - he's on the political shows all the time. He goes on Fox and makes fools of them. He has endorsed Harris, and no one cares enough about what Bloomberg thinks to report whether he's endorsed her. So far the only person who's said they'll challenge Harris is Marianne Williamson, and she's not a serious candidate.
That leaves a lot of people. The Democrats have a deep bench of experienced elected officials in governor's seats around the country: Roy Cooper, NC; Josh Shapiro, PA; Gretchen Whitmer, MI; Andy Beshear, KY; and as you say, Jay Pritzker, IL - though he doesn't appear on any of the rundowns of possible candidates I've seen.
There also also senators: Raphael Warnock, GA, though I doubt Harris would pick a Black guy, and Mark Kelly, AZ, are the two I've seen discussed most. And Buttigieg is an option.
Beshear as running mate makes sense from a Beshear-centric point of view. He's a term-limited governor in very red state that does not seem that interested in electing him to any office other than governor. So it would be good for Beshear to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate. However I see no reason why it would be good for the campaign. There's no plausible reason to believe that adding Beshear to the ticket would put Kentucky "in play" in the upcoming election. If you're going to pick a governor with experience working across the aisle Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania or Roy Cooper of North Carolina make much more sense because they could plausibly deliver their swing state to the Democrats. If you want a longer analysis here is the pro-Beshear case and the anti-Beshear case, at least as far as being the Democratic vice presidential candidate goes.
Without getting too much into specifics, I think an ideal running mate for Kamala Harris should have the following characteristics:
Going along with @Ruth on this one. Pete Buttigieg is one of the most publicly visible members of the Biden cabinet, which is pretty impressive for a Secretary of Transportation. Here he is last Friday (19 July 2024) trash talking J.D. Vance on Bill Maher's show. How has "the Democratic Party" kept him out of the limelight? As for Michael Bloomberg, I'd like to point out that his loyalty to the Democratic party is very situational. He was a Republican for his first two terms as Mayor of New York and and independent for his third term. He's also older than Joe Biden, which would seem like a problem in the context of the current election.
I suspect the pick won’t be a senator from a red or swing state, unless, as @Crœsos notes, a Democratic governor controls appointment of a replacement. The risks there for control of the Senate might be too great.
Speaking of the very familiar to me, Roy Cooper’s second term as Governor of North Carolina is about up, and can’t run again. So he’s one possibility that wouldn’t result in a vacancy in his current office.
Biden never said he would only serve one term. Some commentators suggested that would be a good idea, and the Mandela Effect kicked in shortly thereafter.
Those drum beats were a part of the 2020 campaign. Right-wing media has had that as a mantra since Pres. Biden decided to run, and throughout his term. We don't know that this whole thing wasn't orchestrated in part, at least. The entire RNC convention was about campaigning against Pres. Biden. All of that has been duly flushed, now, and Republicans are having to retool, or prepare to retool while waiting to see who the running mate will be. . Some people will say that Sec. Clinton was shoehorned in as the candidate in 2016. Dianne Feinstein was a great example of The Old Guard sticking around far, far too long. Democrats need to improve a lot in the area of strategic retirements and reshuffling. We'd have a more balanced SCOTUS today if that were so. Michael Bloomberg is 82 years old today, and was 78 when he ran for POTUS in 2020. Mayor Pete is on some short lists I've seen for Harris' VP, but IMO he won't be her choice. SOP is to choose a candidate in a critical swing state (PA Gov. Josh Shapiro or NC Gov. Roy Cooper come to mind), or a Democrat who's proven to have success with Republicans (KY Gov. Andy Breshear is very good in this regard), or a Democrat who's known to be "moderate" (think former VA Gov. Mark Warner). I think a sitting or former Governor makes a lot of sense, probably male, probably white, as much as that is on the nose.
Just to reiterate my previous post, Biden did NOT say that he would only serve one term.
I may be remembering that wrong, then. Apologies to all.
Sorry for the double post.
Tr*mp has been playing both sides of American politics for his entire life. Let's not pretend he has actual principles or operates by any. He's a purely transactional person.
He's "that way," as my mother used to say.
Sorry, Nick, you got this one wrong. Biden referred to himself as a 'Bridge Candidate' as noted in this long article here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/joseph-r-biden-considered-young-serve-now-old-win-rcna162439
And in a press conference a week or so ago (when he said he was gonna run, he was asked about it):
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/biden-asked-about-2020-bridge-candidate-remarks-214703173642
Note, that he confirms here that he said it, but had changed his mind...
To the blind, perhaps. To the rest of us, he was obviously past his Use By date a long time ago. But we had no one to tell who would listen.
Sort of.
It is still true that on his worst day, Biden it's a lot better than Trump on his best.
Either way, it's a very different campaign now.
My point is that to whatever degree he was/is declining, it was at least partially shielded by his team from "full public view" that made it somewhat less than "very obvious.' I think your commentary here may be a little heavy handed, and I wonder if there's a certain amount of jumping on the bandwagon re: all of this, now that he's stepped aside. "To the blind' and "to the rest of us," other than the latter being a case of argumentum ad populum seems a bit preachy. Then again, maybe it's just me.
“Bridge” doesn’t suggest a specific length of time or number of terms. It can be one term or two, depending on what the reader/listener wants to infer.
And “hinted he would serve just one term and then step aside” is not the same thing as “made it clear he was going to be a one term POTUS,” which is the statement I was responding to. You “hint” or you clearly state.
Biden was careful not to clearly state he would be a one-term president. Doing so would have made him a lame duck on Inauguration Day. Rather, he hinted and he let his aides suggest he’d serve one term, but he himself never actually said it.
* And when I copied those two sentences and then pasted, what pasted was the whole freaking article.
In spite of what Trump said about Biden, being the worst president in modern history, historians are giving him good grades for what he did to bring the country back from the effects of the pandemic.
It is now time to move on. Harris has my vote, if she gets the nomination,
It will be a good race, now.
The longer article just says that he "hinted" he would only serve one term, and mentions the "bridge to younger candidates" statement, with nothing further.
So, as far as I can tell, there was no explicit promise to only serve one term.
Maybe. Others will see what they will, but to me he was well past his Use By date ages before he announced his candidacy for re-election.
In 2011, for a different position, before he plunged as deeply into politics as he did later, yes. Not currently.
Well, you must be especially relieved, then. I'm glad.
/irony
In my opinion and I am happy to accept your scorn, he always wanted Harris to run for President. He realised she was not popular enough to win the nomination by normal means. He therefore got the nomination and kept it long enough so that the Democrats would have no choice but to accept her as candidate.
Now I may well be wrong but I've had may say, so pile in
IMO that's wholly unnecessary. Televised debates measure negligible, superficial things that have little to do with insightful, appropriate policy or sound governance. Harris would do much better to use the bully pulpit her position as VP affords, and leave Tr*mp to twist in the wind.
Fascinating indeed...I imagine Ms Harris would relish the opportunity, not so sure about Trump, though. He doesn't relate well to women, to say the least, or so it seems.
Well done, though, President Joe, for doing the right thing, as commented on by many people on this side of the Pond.
There is theoretically another presidential debate on the schedule for September 10. That's after Labor Day, when most Americans start paying attention to presidential politics. The agreement was that it was to be hosted by ABC News, but Trump has recently (yesterday) insisted that he won't participate unless the venue is changed to Fox "News".
In my mind, she has the quality of being an apparently reasonable human being, which puts her a considerable distance above the Republican candidate. I don't know whether Kamala Harris will make a fantastic president. We haven't really seen enough from her to know that. I think we've seen enough to know that she'll be at least OK.
Doesn't look like anyone's taken you up on your offer.
I can't believe they agree with me.
If Biden was actually playing the sort of tactical game @Telford suggests, then a better tactic would have been to quit due to ill health a year ago, and give Kamala Harris a year's presidential incumbency to build a campaign off.
It seems to me that a second debate is almost unavoidable. As @Crœsos noted, Trump and Biden had agreed to two debates, and I’m assuming Harris will want to stick to that, given how the last debate went.
If Trump backs out, he risks looking scared.