Biden will not seek reelection; endorses Harris

[John Clark]

At last  glimmer of hope! 

Biden will not seek reelection; endorses Harris

“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President,” Biden wrote. “And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

John K Clark

[PGC]

In light of this, there indeed is a glimmer of hope for Democrats against Trump. This opens a pathway for new leadership, yet it brings forth pressing questions about Vice President Kamala Harris's suitability for the job. I'm just curious guys, not trying to make a point + just want to read people's thoughts: Is she likeable enough to win over the majority?

Her tenure hasn't seemed stellar, notably her handling of the border. Her trip to Guatemala, where she sternly advised potential migrants to "do not come. Do not come," seemed to lack the strength/depth/vision necessary for such a complex issue. This highlighted concerns about whether she is truly up to the task or merely out of her depth.

Can a seasoned insider like Harris convincingly articulate a fresh, positive vision for the future? The American electorate has grown weary of the status quo, regardless of its legislative successes. I'd guess there's a palpable desire for some change, not just a different face with the same message of "do not Trump."

So, the question boils down to: should the Democrats pivot towards a new, dynamic figure that embodies a break from the past, or is Kamala Harris the best option they have, merely offering an anti-Trump stance without substantial innovation? If so, who could that candidate be, with most potential candidates immediately jumping behind Harris?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:54 AM PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can a seasoned insider like Harris convincingly articulate a fresh, positive vision for the future? 

Probably not because that would be difficult, but I think she might be able to do something that was far easier, articulate the nightmarish Orwellian future we can expect if Trump is in the oval office again.  And that's all she needs to do to win.

John K Clark

  

 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:54 AM PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> should the Democrats pivot towards a new, dynamic figure that embodies a break from the past, or is Kamala Harris the best option they have, merely offering an anti-Trump stance without substantial innovation? If so, who could that candidate be, 

If they don't pick Kamala Harris a good pick would be Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer. She has twice won the race for governor in the must-have swing state of Michigan, and won by a 10 point margin both times. Objectively she has the knack of being able to get things done, and subjectively the people of Michigan like what she has done. And she's likable and looks good on television. If they don't pick her for president she would be an ideal choice for Harris's vice president.

John K Clark

[Brent Meeker]

I don't think there's any real alternative to Harris.  She's the only person that can use the $93 million donated to the Biden/Harris campaign.  No other recognizable Democrat, like Whitmer, has expressed interest in running.  Five states have already pledged their delegates to her.

For Vice President she needs to have a white male Senator, such as Mark Kelly of AZ or Mike Bennett of CO, who is in a state with a Democratic Governor so that a Dem can be appointed in place of the Senator...otherwise the Dems risk losing a Senate seat.  It's good to have VP from a swing-state too.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0AA0QysphfFwMzbLyGmat4E_Cucj%2BD%2B0D9Ow%3DC1o7BiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[spudb...@aol.com]

Can consciousness exist in a computer simulation? (msn.com)

MSN

 

[PGC]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 10:49:40 AM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:

I don't think there's any real alternative to Harris.  She's the only person that can use the $93 million donated to the Biden/Harris campaign.  No other recognizable Democrat, like Whitmer, has expressed interest in running.  Five states have already pledged their delegates to her.

For Vice President she needs to have a white male Senator, such as Mark Kelly of AZ or Mike Bennett of CO, who is in a state with a Democratic Governor so that a Dem can be appointed in place of the Senator...otherwise the Dems risk losing a Senate seat.  It's good to have VP from a swing-state too.

It's weird that nobody expresses interest in running. Is this some sort of "need to display unity to remain credible/non-chaotic" argument making the rounds? Why not sell the chaos as a feature, not a bug? Democracy is messy. Ideology is harmonious. It paints a picture that everybody is intimidated, when the opposite should be the case, and that elites determine the course.

Whoever the Democratic candidate may be, they cannot rely solely on painting a dystopian picture of the future. Although Trump's rhetoric is riddled with lies, they are limited in number and tend to revolve around the same few dozen talking points. He is not difficult to counter on the campaign trail or in debates. However, it's important to acknowledge that many people find his assertions genuinely convincing. Dismissing these statements with eye-rolling or condescension is counterproductive. To win, Democrats must employ a strategy grounded in facts and respect for those swayed by Trump's claims. This means presenting independently verifiable facts that either refute his statements or undermine their premises.

Fact-checking should be a continuous, transparent process open to public scrutiny and rebuttal. Whenever Trump introduces a new claim or distraction, Democrats must respond promptly with factual counterpoints.

Additionally, it is crucial to equip Democratic or potential Democratic voters with the latest information and tools to debunk falsehoods making the rounds across all media channels, especially social media. Such a proactive approach would support folks in becoming an increasingly well-informed electorate capable of engaging in constructive and fact-based dialogue. Further, it's essential to address the challenge of foreign-controlled bots and disinformation campaigns. Democrats should invest in advanced cybersecurity measures and collaborate with social media platforms to identify and neutralize bot networks. By combining factual integrity with robust defenses against disinformation, Democrats should have more than a shot, particularly when the facts mostly support them. A commanding lead in polls should be mandatory at some stage.

 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:49 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think there's any real alternative to Harris. 

It's starting to look like you're right.  

>For Vice President she needs to have a white male Senator, such as Mark Kelly of AZ

Mark Kelly would be an interesting choice but it doesn't have to be a Senator, more governors have gone on to become president than senators, and governors have executive experience but senators do not.  And I don't see anything wrong with an all female ticket, we've certainly had plenty of all male tickets and I'm not exactly thrilled with the results. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

4v7

 

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/23/2024 10:04 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:49 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think there's any real alternative to Harris. 

It's starting to look like you're right.  

>For Vice President she needs to have a white male Senator, such as Mark Kelly of AZ

Mark Kelly would be an interesting choice but it doesn't have to be a Senator, more governors have gone on to become president than senators, and governors have executive experience but senators do not. 

But when a sitting governor runs he gives up a seat which the Dems may then lose; especially since it's best to pick a VP from a toss-up state.  When you pick a Senator from a state with a Dem governor then, in most states, the governor gets to appoint a Senator until some future election, so you don't immediately have a contested seat in the Senate and your appointed guy gets a step up. 

And I don't see anything wrong with an all female ticket, we've certainly had plenty of all male tickets and I'm not exactly thrilled with the results.

I don't see anything wrong with a female/gay ticket, but I still think Pete Buttigieg would be a bad choice.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

4v7

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0poFowiA1z%2BgtCfUOSDWxV4f8RDp4osq8cD8q8H8eXvw%40mail.gmail.com.