Pressley, Warren, Markey back Harris

Can the Biden/Harris campaign transfer its cash on hand to Whitmer or whoever emerges from an open nominating convention? Will Biden/Harris transfer all their campaign cash to the new nominee? The answer better be an ironclad yes to both before opening up the process. 105 days is not enough time to start fundraising from scratch. And if I were the forced-out VP—after four years of service and a hard year on the campaign/fundraising trail—there is no way in hell I would give up my campaign money because I would be saving it for the 2028 Dem primary.

Harris has raised $30 million today since Joe announced his withdrawal. $30M. The small donors are with Harris. Any "Draft Whitmer" (or any similar campaign) can't approach those numbers.

Harris already has the field offices. Harris was a part of the Biden/Harris administration and has a legitimate claim to its accomplishments. Blue state governors do not have such claims. Even if the hypothetical Whitmer campaign retains all present Biden-Harris field offices and there's minimal staff turnover (Would this even be allowed by the FEC? Are Biden staffers cool with both their POTUS and VPOTUS candidates being forced out? Again, the answer better be an ironclad yes), a brand-new messaging strategy would need to be built from scratch; new logos, signs, merch need printing; and all campaign workers would need retraining—which would cost a boat load of money.

The Dems held a primary. Joe Biden defeated Dean Phillips. VP Harris is the inevitable POTUS nominee for a number of pragmatic and structural reasons.

(Not an anti-Whitmer post; she's great!)

no open process or dumping Harris.

Expectations on Harris are low, but she will greatly outperform expectations with the right message, staff and running mate.

If she panders to the identity politicians she will lose. Can't repeat the mistakes of "Hillary!"
She, and everybody supporting the campaign should not rest on a "first woman president" mantra.

TINA

No.

Whitmer isn't running. She gets it.

Every Democrat should be saying, "Harris is great and she'd make a great President but I'm going to wait and see who else is interested before endorsing."

Then wait a week or two and endorse the person leading in the polls provided they don't seem like a liability for other reasons.

It probably will still be Harris but at least it makes it seem less like a rigged system.

Sadly, that's not happening and it's too late at this point.

Gulf war pilot, space shuttle astronaut, gun safety advocate. Spoke live to Glastonbury from space. All in.

I get the shiny, but where are the actual qualifications in that ad?

Did not denigrate VP Harris, It does speak to their honesty though. Just my opinion and I'm not here to convince anyone to change theirs.
All the stories started to come out after the debate on his decline and all those who knew and tried to hide it, before it was too obvious to keep denying it.

That should get a third-party nominee elected. But it won't, because the electorate is garbage.

1968: Multiple viable contenders after the primary process, brokered convention.

Humphrey severely hampered by association with Johnson’s Vietnam War.

Chaotic violence on the streets (and in the hall) during convention, drove voters to alleged “law and order” candidate.

2024: All signs indicate convention delegates are prepared to unite for Harris, whatever interim process is implemented.

Zero enthusiasm for non-registered democrat Joe Manchin.

Harris associated with incredibly impactful administration.

Roe, Bitches.

The actual calendar. July 22 is a Monday, just like it was in 1968.

Yes, LBJ quit in March. And primaries were not nearly as significant as they are today... except this year they aren't. Harris will get the nomination without winning a single primary, just like Humphrey in 1968.

In 1968, the Vietnam war divided Democrats against one another, just as the Gaza war is doing this year. There were protests on college campuses, just as there are today.

The only thing missing is Mayor Daley.

No, Al Gore lost.
As did Trump in 2020.
No air quotes.

Gore didn't actually lose the popular vote

That's like saying "We'd have won this baseball game if we were playing by football rules". There's no "winning" the popular vote because popular vote doesn't "win" you anything but a "you tried" star. However...Gore only "lost" the electoral college vote because of some truly shady behavior by the Supreme Court.

*That* beach will be open. It's in a Trump neighborhood.

Just a brief list of reasons not to be a calm.

• The republican party's candidate for president led an attempted coup of our federal government on January 6th, and is openly calling for mass arrests and deportations, purging the federal government of anyone he doesn't like, and using the justice department as his personal police force. This embrace of fascism by the republican leader has led to the open rise of nazism in the street of the USA, where brownshirt marches occur on a regular basis.
• The republican supreme court has ignored language in the constitution and founders original intent to make the office of president a virtual king (if a republican is in power).
• Republican judges are ignoring centuries of settled law to overturn laws they don't like such as Roe v. Wade, and republican officials are jailing women who have miscarriages and calling for arrests of women and doctors who participate in abortions across state lines.
• Republican politicians, with the backing of their hired hands in the judiciary, are tearing down the wall between church and state everywhere they can.

Now, as your are obviously an older white man, this probably doesn't impact you directly yet, but telling everyone else not to worry their little heads is appallingly blinkered and tone deaf.

But yeah, Carson beach will probably be open next summer.

Even if Trump wins, Carson Beach will be open next summer.

Site of the new Joe Moakley coal-fired Power Plant by 2026, if Trump has his way.

The state's population recently fell from 39 million to 38.965 million, per the US Census Bureau. I wouldn't call 0.0009% of the country's most populous state even one drove.

But the point is moot: Newsom has already endorsed Harris.

And the Republican Party.

We've been on "pit and the pendulum" mode for many decades - or had been, at least.

After 20 years of FDR/Truman, it has gone: R 8 years, D 8 years, R 8 years, D 4 years, R 12 years, D 8 years, R 8 years, D 8 years. That gets us up through the Obama years. Mostly 8 years of back and forth, party out of power gets agitated enough (and/or swing voters tired of the in-power party) to swing back the other way.

Now... It has accelerated. Two single-term presidencies in a row? If 45 becomes 47, that'll be three (if his health doesn't crater). Heck - if Harris wins, she might be only a one-term.

You can't possibly be that ignorant.

There’s the media’s responsibility and our personal responsibility. I for one like them to be neutral and dispassionate.

My search for background on Harris aren’t part of the public discourse/news. When the major news outlets start cheerleading for Harris, by only speaking about the excitement and historicity of a Harris Presidency and talking about who is “getting on board” instead of doing an expose on every aspect of who Harris is, the media and the power players in the establishment are effectively in control of the wind.

appointing her de facto common law spouse to a lifetime on the court,

I cannot find it. Where is this information?

This process is a farce. The media and party leaders are in lockstep, what kind of freedom do electors have to vote their conscience?

could do a little homework. None of the things you allegedly seek are hard to find with modern search tools.

Were you asking these questions four years ago when Harris was nominated as VP, someone who could be asked to step into the presidency at any moment? She has already been through a thorough vetting process. Anyone who has been paying attention knows exactly who she is. The notion that she's being snuck in under the radar without scrutiny is risible.

You're no lifelong Dem: your real goal here is obviously to undermine confidence in the candidate on Trump's behalf. You're about as subtle as a brick through a window.