politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I thought I read he was putting off endorsing her for certain reasons. What changed so that he changed his outward opinion? Don't say nothing--I thought he was waiting to see a more pragmatic demand for improvement or something?
Aside from having to switch his stance because Biden dropped out, higher profile politicians have to plan out when they announce their endorsements. The ones that progressive and liberal voters really care about are those of Obama and Bernie. You let the candidate build up some momentum to see how they do, and she did pretty well. They also want to make sure they can actually successfully accomplish making her the new nominee, seeing as how this was a weird situation. Then, you start doling out the endorsements at opportune times. You want to spread them out a little bit, but still leave them close enough to give the public that overall impression when they’re reading the news that the candidate is still building and gaining more momentum. As you can see, it works. Excitement about her replacing Biden is a wake they absolutely should ride as long as they can. Go too fast or too slow and you lose the boost.
I think Sanders along with others was working with Biden to make sure the policies he ran on were as progressive as he could get them to be, presumably he was holding off on whether Harris would change tack or run on those same policies.
Perhaps they spoke.
EDIT: Who knows? Maybe about a cabinet position?
Probably Obama's endorsement which finally shut down the prospects of a contested primary.
The Dems got into the mess with Biden because they wouldn't test him with an actual open primary process. Not having a contest for Harris may be pragmatic but it may dog the party in the future. If she loses then there will be recriminations. And if she wins they will have to think about what they do in 2028 - does she get a free pass again or does the party get a say? Do all those ambitious contenders step aside again?
Problems for another day. I think the dems are doing the right thing in coronating Harris now as they have been left with no choice. But they really need to think about what happens with sitting presidents and the primaries - waving Biden through was disasterous, and him dragging his feet on steeping down shut down all other options. I have very little respect left for Biden - he did the right thing but took far too long to do it, risking everything.
IDK, i think the timing was strategic and about as good as it could've been. they wasted most of the GOP resources by dragging Biden out as long as he could, and now Trump is locked in to a fight he didn't want to sign up for. but it's too late now. lol
their shock at Biden actually stepping down kinda tells me that they are not used to leaders who do what the people ask for
Right? They waited till the GOP locked in messaging AND made a VP pick AND were done with the convention.
Then they dropped the hammer, denied them the convention bounce by stealing all the media oxygen AND rendered their messaging not just obsolete but actively harmful to them (candidate is old? You’re right) AND now they are stuck with a VP that hurts them with the demo Harris is going to make major gains in.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think the democrats were actually organized and disciplined for once.