WHO WINS?


  • Total voters
    259

Piff Perkins

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
51,024
Reputation
18,671
Daps
277,786


Too many incentives for Harris, I don't think Biden survives. Only his people/camp want him to stay. If you're a 2028 dem candidate - Whitmer, Pritzker, Shapiro, Moore, etc - you inherently understand that Kamala being the nominee right now is your best shot for 2028. She could win in November but I doubt she'd ever be popular enough to hold the party. There will be a primary in 2028 and unless she magically turns into an amazing politician/president she's gonna lose to Whitmer or Pritzker. I feel very confident about that and I think their camps do too.

The blueprint is support Kamala, help her win, and then run on a "DC has lost touch with Americans" platform four years later against her. All of the best dem candidates are going to be governors or former governors, everything lines up...

BTW if I'm Kamala I'm selecting Andy Beshear as my VP. She needs a white dude.
 

BigMoneyGrip

I'm Lamont's pops
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
79,960
Reputation
10,955
Daps
315,879
Reppin
Straight from Flatbush
Well, maybe if Obama didn't betray his own Vice President by encouraging him not to run in 2016 because he had his head up Hillary Clinton's ass, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Stop being a fukkin dumb ass with the lies and misdirection… Biden’s son passed away in May of 2015… Biden was not going to run and he made that clear… His heart wasn’t in it to run
 

Outlaw

New Hope For the HaveNotz
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
4,689
Reputation
141
Daps
14,213
Reppin
Buzz City, NC :blessed:


Too many incentives for Harris, I don't think Biden survives. Only his people/camp want him to stay. If you're a 2028 dem candidate - Whitmer, Pritzker, Shapiro, Moore, etc - you inherently understand that Kamala being the nominee right now is your best shot for 2028. She could win in November but I doubt she'd ever be popular enough to hold the party. There will be a primary in 2028 and unless she magically turns into an amazing politician/president she's gonna lose to Whitmer or Pritzker. I feel very confident about that and I think their camps do too.

The blueprint is support Kamala, help her win, and then run on a "DC has lost touch with Americans" platform four years later against her. All of the best dem candidates are going to be governors or former governors, everything lines up...

BTW if I'm Kamala I'm selecting Andy Beshear as my VP. She needs a white dude.

Roy cooper imo would be a better VP
 

Worthless Loser

Blackpilled
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
16,822
Reputation
5,139
Daps
113,016
Stop being a fukkin dumb ass with the lies and misdirection… Biden’s son passed away in May of 2015… Biden was not going to run and he made that clear… His heart wasn’t in it to run
No lies. That's what he tells people publicly. Beau wanted his father to run. Read for yourself.

Nah. He tell people in public its because his son died, but truthfully he's just providing cover for Obama. Biden didn't run because Obama, Obama's people, and Biden's own people basically turned on him to support Hillary Clinton. Beau Biden told his father to run before he died. So we can thank Obama for Trump's election. Biden would have destroyed Trump in 2016 as the popular sitting Vice President if he was the nominee.

Read these clips from a much larger article on the behind the scenes of the real relationship between Obama and Biden.

After Clinton’s 2016 loss and a certain amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking about her weakness as a candidate, many Obama aides tried to cast the President’s snub of Biden as purely an act of compassion: Biden was grieving for his son Beau, who died of cancer in 2015, and didn’t have the emotional bandwidth to handle a campaign.

Biden himself has offered this explanation in public, and Jarrett, the ultimate Obama loyalist, insists that was largely the case: “Vice President Biden was devastated, as any parent would be, by the loss of Beau. It was excruciating to watch him suffer the way he did,” she said.

But numerous administration veterans, including loyalists to both Obama and Biden, remember it differently: Obama had begun embracing Clinton as a possible successor years before Biden lost his son, while the Vice President was laying the groundwork for his own campaign.

Just after Obama’s second inauguration in 2013, Democrats turned on their TVs to see Obama singing Clinton’s praises in a joint “ 60 Minutes ” interview on the occasion of Clinton’s departure from the State Department—one that two Clinton aides say was suggested by Obama’s team, albeit as a print interview.

When interviewer Steve Kroft raised the prospect of a Clinton presidential run, both Obama and Clinton played it coy, saying it was way too early for such thinking, but doing nothing to discourage the idea.

Then Obama’s political sage, David Plouffe—the man who had dedicated a year and a half to taking down Clinton in 2008—offered his help in mid-2013 and met with Clinton, according to a Democrat familiar with the overture. (Plouffe maintains that Clinton’s team approached him first.) Obama’s pollster, Joel Benenson, later hopped on board. In early 2015, so did top Obama aides John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri. Clinton’s campaign even began interviewing and picking off people from Biden’s office, including Alex Hornbrook, who became Clinton’s director of scheduling and advance.

“It certainly felt like Obama’s world was behind us,” said one former Clinton campaign aide. “It wasn’t just Plouffe, Palmieri and Benenson. From the beginning, a lot of key Obama aides came over and helped stand up our campaign.” It was so blatant that some Clinton aides wondered whether Obama had just wrongly assumed that Biden wasn’t interested in running because of his age.

On January 5, 2015, Biden and Obama privately discussed a White House run at their weekly lunch. Obama “had been subtly weighing in against,” Biden recalled in Promise Me, Dad, his 2017 book.

There was also dismissiveness of Biden in Clinton’s orbit that echoed Obama aides. “The good thing about a Biden run,” Neera Tanden, Clinton’s close aide who also advised the Obama administration on health policy, wrote to Podesta in 2015, in an email later exposed by WikiLeaks, “is that he would make Hillary look so much better.”

Obama tried to remain above the fray, even as his closest staffers largely rallied around Clinton—which they likely would not have done if there was a chance he would support Biden. “I knew a number of the President’s former staffers, and even a few current ones, were putting a finger on the scale for Clinton,” Biden wrote.

It was in the midst of the handoff to Clinton that Beau Biden’s health began deteriorating. Joe Biden had had an especially deep bond with his eldest son since Beau’s mother and sister died in a car accident that seriously injured Beau and his brother Hunter. Before the 46-year-old Beau passed away that May from an aggressive form of brain cancer, he had been a firm advocate for his Dad to run and, even in intense grief, Biden made serious preparations in the summer and fall of 2015 to jump into the race.

The Clinton camp took Biden’s deliberations seriously. Podesta told people he believed Biden would go for it. The Clinton team assembled an oppo-research book on him with the code name “Project Acela,” according to one former Clinton official. Negative stories began popping up. The Clinton campaign denied having had any role, but Biden was skeptical.

Obama pressed the issue in another private meeting. “The President was not encouraging,” Biden recalled.

A more direct kind of brushback occurred that fall. Plouffe—the Obama strategist who had been quietly advising Clinton since 2013—met with Biden and told him not to end his career in embarrassment with a third place finish in Iowa, according to multipleaccounts of the meeting.

“There just wasn’t an opening,” Plouffe said, explaining why he advised Biden against the run. “He started asking the question in the 4th quarter of the contest.” Plouffe argued that Biden hadn’t done the necessary legwork before 2015 that previous vice presidents had done before their runs.

The most stinging rebuke, however, came when Klain—Biden’s former chief of staff who went back decades with him to when he was chief counsel on Biden’s Judiciary Committee in 1989—defected to Clinton.


“It’s been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise,” Klain wrote to Podesta in October 2015, a week before Biden gave in and announced he would not run. “I am definitely dead to them—but I’m glad to be on Team HRC.”

 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,991
Reputation
19,621
Daps
202,831
Reppin
the ether
You know the party is in shambles when people are even drawing a scenario to have Michelle Obama running.:francis:

What were the Dems thinking?


And you would think that after the RBG catastrophe, after the Feinstein catastrophe, after having YEARS to respond to Biden's demonstable shortcomings, they would be hypersensitized to this issue and willing to confront it. But I think I understand why they're not.

You have to understand, most people who rise to that level of power are more arrogant and more selfish than you could ever imagine. They don't just want their party to win, they want to win on their terms in their way, and are incapable of seriously processing information that goes against the narrative they've developed. They built a series of assumptions that are preventing them from taking any other step than the path they're on.


1. "Hillary is our candidate, she agrees with our core neoliberal assumptions and she's part of our power circle, we're going to push her through regardless of how unpopular she is with the American public and we're going to discourage any other serious candidate from running against her."

2. "Biden is our candidate, he agrees with our core neoliberal assumptions and he's part of our power circle, we're going to push him through regardless of how poorly he's been performing on his own accord."

3. "Bernie is too progressive and he's not part of our inner circle, he pushes for anti-neoliberal economic changes that will hurt our pockets and the pockets of our Wall Street donor base, we can't let him win regardless of how popular he is or how much the public is behind his ideas."



Those were the foundational assumptions. But they aren't the only assumptions, because once the human mind has made a decision, it starts altering its other evaluations and values to align with that decision. "We want Biden to win because he has our values" becomes "Biden is the only one who can beat Trump!" There was never any objective evidence or even really good logic for that second claim - Biden had always been a poor campaigner, a poor debater, had lost to Bernie in every primary and trailed Bernie in every approval poll and head-to-head with Trump. But the evidence was irrelevant. Once they had decided "We want Biden because he has our values", they then had to build the rest of their narrative around that claim. They couldn't admit to themselves that they were hurting themselves with voters, with young people and progressives and independents, that they were hurting their chances to win in November. Once they decided that they liked Biden more, they had to trick themselves into believing that Biden was the objectively superior candidate in every other way too.

The exact same thing they had done for Hillary four years earlier. :francis:


When you start playing those mental games, you can't pull out of them easily. Once the narrative of "But Biden is the only one who can beat Trump" was set, they were committed to it. So even after Bernie was out of the picture, they still were unwilling to say, "Okay, Biden might have barely snuck through in 2020, but his popularity had gone through the floor, he's completely associated in the public's mind with inflation, Israel, and mental confusion, he's in his 80s now and declining every day, maybe we need to get someone else?" In order to maintain the illusion, they had to keep saying, "Biden's the only one who can beat Trump! Biden's the only one who can beat Trump!" And by the time they started realizing what a deep hole they were in, it began to look too late.

Of course, that's not the only lie they've been telling themselves, they have to lie and pretend that every other strategic move was the right one too. And they also have to lie and pretend things are going much better than they really are. You can see it yourself in this thread.



I've been saying for years that they need to find a different candidate than Biden for 2024. It should have been OBVIOUS that he was a one-term president at best, that being president from 82-86 in the state that he's in was never viable, and that the public simply doesn't like him and he can't campaign for shyt. But they weren't going to listen to that, because they have their narratives.

I pray it's not too late. If Trump wins in 2024, with the 2025 Project and all his disdain of democracy, with the chance to further solidify a conservative supermajority for decades, it really could be the end of American democracy as we know it and many other global hopes as well. I'm still going to fight for whoever the Democratic nominee is, and there is every chance that between now and November, something will happen to further sink Trump.

But we should NEVER have been in the position where a widely hated 79-year-old felon who spouts idiocy was the frontrunner. The degree of incompetence it has taken to be in this bad of a position yet again against such a bad candidate is really unfathomable.
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
99,746
Reputation
13,396
Daps
291,058
Reppin
NULL
Well, maybe if Obama didn't betray his own Vice President by encouraging him not to run in 2016 because he had his head up Hillary Clinton's ass, we wouldn't be in this situation.
biden would have fukking steamrolled trump in 2016 :snoop: i really hope that isn't true. i was also under the impression that biden wasn't running

it would have been over after the "grab em" tapes. because republicans' whole "well, trump is human garbage, but we can't allow a clinton presidency, she's the antichrist" would have fallen flat with biden. wouldn't have worked at all, biden's too likeable. or at least he used to be :mjlol:
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
99,746
Reputation
13,396
Daps
291,058
Reppin
NULL
they still were unwilling to say, "Okay, Biden might have barely snuck through in 2020, but his popularity had gone through the floor, he's completely associated in the public's mind with inflation, Israel, and mental confusion, he's in his 80s now and declining every day, maybe we need to get someone else?" In order to maintain the illusion, they had to keep saying, "Biden's the only one who can beat Trump! Biden's the only one who can beat Trump!" And by the time they started realizing what a deep hole they were in, it began to look too late.
i'll at least give "them" credit that the Dems don't have an obvious successor to Biden. or at least they didn't in the middle of 2022, which is when the conversations would have taken place. there really WASN'T an obvious "this guy can beat trump too" candidate :dead:

like if you go back to mid 2022, who the hell was the obvious successor? whitmer? trump had already beaten a woman, in a country that's never elected a woman. same with kamala. newsom is too liberal to be an obvious slam dunk
 

Trips

Superstar
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
7,695
Reputation
629
Daps
20,821
i'll at least give "them" credit that the Dems don't have an obvious successor to Biden. or at least they didn't in the middle of 2022, which is when the conversations would have taken place. there really WASN'T an obvious "this guy can beat trump too" candidate :dead:

like if you go back to mid 2022, who the hell was the obvious successor? whitmer? trump had already beaten a woman, in a country that's never elected a woman. same with kamala. newsom is too liberal to be an obvious slam dunk
The problem if you really think about it is that Trump has been campaigning for close to 10 years at this point. The Dems and Biden assumed the GQP would move on from Trump when the "Red Wave" failed in 2022. The idea being the GQP would have an open primary and Kamala would have to beat the Dem field.

BUT

Trump is like Leo in Wolf of Wall Street he's never fukking leaving. And despite losing, the GQP is afraid of his base and therefore just keep giving them a pass to rule the party.

No one can really move on until Trump fukkin dies. It's clearly the stage we're on. IF and it's a much more damning IF now, the Dems hold the Presidency. Trump is just going to keep running, the GQP will keep trotting him out. If Trump wins, well, get ready for the 22nd amendment to be repealed. Cause he's clearly going to keep running after those 4 years. So in 2028 either President Trump, or Candidate Trump will be the fukkin nominee again.
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
45,279
Reputation
6,814
Daps
144,247
Reppin
CookoutGang
Party had 3 years to groom a proper successor and now with 4 months to go finds themselves in this position WTF
The party has a lot of a folks on the roster, but they just aren't in a position to leave their post:

Whitner: Michigan
Moore: too early
Brown: his year was 2020
Newsome: 44% approval in California
Kamala : already trash
Bernie: old as he'll.
Cooper: was setup for an admin job after his term ends
 

Reality Check

Keepin' it 100
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,659
Reputation
1,765
Daps
47,708
i wonder if Newsom would run as Kamala's VP :lupe: if they lose, he's still governor, having gotten some national exposure to set up his 2028 run

but he probably doesnt want to risk being VP if they win :dead:



No, because constitution prohibits a President and VP coming from the same state (reason why Rubio won't be Trump's VP). Only way this would work is if she and her husband permanently relocated out of California, which I guess being VP she can make that argument that she's no longer a Cali resident.
 
Top