Then the senate would refuse to approve a VP replacement. Remember that leading up to counting the electoral votes loose-lipped GOP senators were saying that Pence (the VP) wouldn’t be counting the days electoral votes? How do you think that would proceed?

The VP's confirmation would be beneficial, solidifying their position for re-election. However, if the confirmation fails, it could reflect negatively on those responsible, particularly if the candidate wins the general election, as it would highlight their inability to secure a key appointment. Regardless, the process would attract extensive media attention, offering free publicity, which is a win.

The problem is that the Republican controlled house would have to confirm the appointed VP. The senate might take a minute, but it would likely get it done.

Yeah, I meant the house: it would be much in the majority's interest* to leave the position vacant through the election.

* I mean the way they seem to operate these days, where keeping the system running properly isn't considered important, and to a hardcore group is considered something to firmly oppose.

Note that by the 25th Amendment both houses would have to confirm. The (bare) Democratic majority Senate would be a challenge. The GOP majority House an even stronger hurdle. Though confirmation is a simple majority, not a supermajority (2/3 vote):

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

<https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv>

There's also the fact that in ascending to the Presidency, Harris would no longer be President of the Senate, which would lose her tie-breaking vote, AFAIU.

He can do president duties, while the candidate they choose go around collecting votes.

That's the thing.

If he's unfit to serve 6 months from now, then how is he fit to serve now?

He didn't endorse Kamala in his letter. We'll see what comes out of the spin cycle this week.

e: looks like Biden endorsed Kamala according to other publications

One could argue the chaos and uncertainty from upending his currently functional administration is not worth the upsides, while allowing for a natural transition via the standard election and end of term process is worth it.

He's just probably unfit to serve four more years, and for sure was too unlikely to beat Trump

See you don't understand, he IS fit to serve, but he doesn't believe he'll win the election.

The important consideration is that he’s unfit to serve for four and a half more years, and also that he’s unfit to win the election. In contrast, he’s probably not considerably more unfit for the next six months than for the past six.

He's unfit to serve another 4 year term. That doesn't mean he's unfit to serve the rest of his current term.

He’s mildly unfit to serve now but there’s reasonable doubt he’ll be at all fit in a few years. That would be what the more rational people should be thinking. It’s not about day one it’s about year two, etc.

Unfit to run a campaign, travel like mad, and get over an illness. An extended lame duck session now.

Time to wield the pen.

Yes, it would be beneficial for Biden to step down, as this would make Kamala Harris the presumptive nominee and simultaneously break the glass ceiling of a female US President. This would also demonstrate her presidential capabilities to the general public, who may not fully comprehend the responsibilities of the office. Furthermore, if Congress were unable to confirm a VP, it would reflect poorly on them and dominate news cycles, shifting the focus away from Republicans. As President, Harris would be able to address the nation with authority, rather than just as a VP campaigning for the top office. Additionally, it's been apparent for some time that Biden has been facing mental and physical health challenges; it's surprising that this isn't more widely acknowledged. Note: As an independent observer, I'm offering this perspective as a political strategist or from the perspective of Americans seeking to overcome the historical gender bias in US presidential politics.

Nah. Let her earn it

Harris already earned it by being elected, so it's not about letting her earn it. The choice is Biden's alone to make, and it's obvious that it would politically amplify his endorsement and significantly reduce the likelihood of further drama within the Democratic Party so close to the election. Moreover, it would likely mitigate any legal challenges related to Biden's transition to Harris.

Let her earn it

I appreciate your concise response, but I was hoping for a more in-depth analysis. Could you elaborate on your thoughts?

She wants to get nominated through a primary process. Let her earn it. It’s weird that you want to strip her of that opportunity.

This argument seems to be missing the point. The discussion is about what Biden should do, not about Harris's qualifications or the primary process. Stepping down would give her a significant advantage and make her presidency more likely, which is presumably what Biden wants. It's a logical step to support her candidacy.

Ordinarily, yes. But she doesn't poll well with a lot of key demographics due to her tough on crime stance as a DA. Making her president would mean she'd be the presumptive nominee, and I think the party has more optimal choices lined up.

This election will come down to four battleground states. Those are the only states and battles that matter.

I hate to say it yet I don't think she's polling well because even in 2024 I don't think America is ready to allow a woman of colour be POTUS.

You’re downvoted, but you’re correct.

It’s not because she’s a woman or that she’s black or Indian. It’s because she comes across as an unlikeable idiot spewing word salad nonsensical speeches. She’s the ultimate DEI hire, specifically chosen by Biden not for any quality of leadership or achievement, but because she checked off two superficial boxes.

If she is indeed the nominee, this is going to be an even greater landslide than it would have been with Biden at the top.

I'm more worried about how divisive the race will be if they nominate her (black vs white). It'll allow the media machine to paint numerous "oh it's because she's black, isn't it" kind of rhetoric as a smear on the Republicans.

Reading this entire thread tbh has been a sad and worrying re-affirmation of my beliefs that we're all collectively "fucked". We literally can't put aside differences (myself included) and argue on facts and details, and instead resorting to tribalism.

The big reason we're resorting to tribalism, I think, is because of a peculiar element of human nature about wanting to "right" past "wrongs". So if me looking in from the outside, see the other side winning unfairly last time round, I'll support my side's wrongs despite them being objectively wrong (or what I don't even want) because I want to right the wrong of the past. That topped with the fact that the stakes are a whole lot higher each time means that neither side wants to "take one for the team" - because they know that if they did, the other side will just use the opportunity to the detriment of their opponents.

So your problem is that black people, ESPECIALLY black women, shouldn't be allowed to run for office, because then white people who hate them might be called racist when they spew unfounded racist misogynist accusations like "DEI Hire". And it's divisive to call out misogynistic racists. Boo fucking hoo. If Republicans don't think it's fair for them to be called racists when they say and do racist shit, then the ball's in your court to stop saying and doing racist shit, like baselessly accusing Kamala Harris of being "The Ultimate DEI Hire".

If being an unlikeable idiot spewing word salad nonsensical speeches disqualifies you from being president, then why the fuck is Trump running, and why do you support him, and not only tolerate his racism and misogyny, but actually parrot his nonsensical word salad, word for word?

> So your problem is that black people, ESPECIALLY black women, shouldn't be allowed to run for office, because then white people who hate them might be called racist when they spew unfounded racist misogynist accusations like "DEI Hire". And it's divisive to call out misogynistic racists. Boo fucking hoo. If Republicans don't think it's fair for them to be called racists when they say and do racist shit, then the ball's in your court to stop saying and doing racist shit, like baselessly accusing Kamala Harris of being "The Ultimate DEI Hire".

Except she’s clearly the ultimate DEI hire.

Biden explicitly said he was going to pick a woman, and strongly suggested it would a black woman.

He didn’t say he was going to pick the best legislator or the noblest leader. The only mandatory characteristics were genitalia and melanin.

She was a terrible candidate during the primaries. She all but accused Biden of being a racist during the debates. Never won a single state in a primary election and I don’t think she ever polled above 5%. She is not an effective public speaker, she’s not likeable, she’s not relatable, and she doesn’t even have any kids! How can you truly care about the future if you don’t even have any skin in the game?

Since becoming VP, she has no accomplishments whatsoever. She didn’t “solve any of the root causes at the border”. She had no command or influence with the legislative branch. And she turns off large swathes of Democrats.

The only reason she’s at the top of the ticket is because anything else would make the Democrats look even more foolish.

At some point she’s going to be asked if and when she saw the mental decline in Biden, and why she didn’t speak up. I’m going to invest in Hidden Valley as we’ll need a lot of dressing for that word salad.

> If being an unlikeable idiot spewing word salad nonsensical speeches disqualifies you from being president, then why the fuck is Trump running, and why do you support him, and not only tolerate his racism and misogyny, but actually parrot his nonsensical word salad, word for word?

I think Trump is quite funny and likable, I agree with vast majority of his policies, and I don’t think he’s racist at all. Clearly millions of other people agree with me.

Do you seriously think 75+ million people are racists? I sure don’t.

Except you're clearly the ultimate racist misogynist, furious and terrified and pounding the table about running against this black woman, so neither your opinion nor anything you parrot from Fox News matters, is original, thoughtful, interesting, or based on facts and reality, therefore none of your and Trump's Gish Gallop of evidence-free lies and misrepresentations and off-the-rails histrionics and deranged conspiracy theories are worth addressing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

If she were anywhere near as terrible or unpopular as you dishonestly claim, you'd be celebrating and welcoming her candidacy and an extensive series of debates: Criminal Prosecutor -vs- Prosecuted Criminal.

But no: The fact that you and Trump are so existentially afraid of her and deeply rattled that you react that way, and actually threaten to sue to keep Joe Biden on the ballot, and cowardly chicken out of another debate with her, says so much more about what a perfect candidate Kamala Harris is for this election than anything any of her most ardent supporters could possibly express in words.

So thanks for your full throated endorsement of Kamala Harris for President of the United States, and just keep doing what you're doing: it makes her look GREAT!

Does this sound like word salad to you?

>“I was elected Attorney General of the State of California and I was a corporate prosecutor before that, and in those roles I took on perpetrators of all kinds,” she said.

>“Predators who abused women, fraudster who ripped off consumers, and cheaters who broke the rules for their gain.

>“So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump’s type.”

>“As a young prosecutor, when I was in the Alameda County District Attorney’s office in California, I specialized in cases involving sexual abuse. Donald Trump was found liable by a jury for committing sexual abuse,” Harris said Monday.

>“As attorney general of California, I took on one of our country’s largest for-profit colleges and put it out of business,” she continued. “Donald Trump ran a for-profit college, Trump University, that was forced to pay $25 million to the students it scammed.”

Versus what The Oldest Presidential Nominee In History aimlessly rambles on and on about, telling incoherent nonsensical stories about his own incoherent nonsensical stories -- do you want some Hidden Valley Ranch Dressing with this Word Salad:

>“Now they’ll say all these stories are terrible. Well, these stories have, you know, you heard my story in the boat with the shark, right? I got killed on that. They thought I was rambling. I’m not rambling. …

>“We can’t get the boat to float. The battery is so heavy. So then I start talking about asking questions. You know, I have an, I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for many years, long, I think the longest tenure ever. Very smart, had three different degrees and, you know, so I have an aptitude for things. You know, there is such a thing as an aptitude.

>“I said, ‘Well, what would happen if this boat is so heavy and started to sink and you’re on the top of the boat. Do you get electrocuted or not?’ In other words, the boat is going down and you’re on the top, will the electric currents flow through the water and wipe you out?

>“And let’s say there’s a shark about 10 yards over there. Would I have to immediately abandon, or could I ride the electric down? And he said, ‘Sir, nobody’s ever asked us that question. But sir, I don’t know.’ I said, ‘Well, I want to know, because I guarantee you one thing, I don’t care what happens. I’m staying with the electric, I’m not getting over with it.’

>“So I tell that story. And the fake news they go, ‘he told this crazy story with electric.’ It’s actually not crazy. It’s sort of a smart story, right? Sort of like, you know, it’s like the snake, it’s a smart when you, you figure what you’re leaving in, right? You’re bringing it in the, you know, the snake, right? The snake and the snake. I tell that and they do the same thing.”

So I'll ask you right now: Why didn't YOU speak up when you saw the mental decline of Trump?

Sounds like you have a big problem. For starters, you're responding to the wrong person, I never said those things.

Nope, I'm responding to you agreeing with the ultimate racist misogynist parroting other Trump supporters calling her a "DEI Hire", and your idiotic attempt to carry the water for racists who deserve to be called out for their obviously racist attacks:

>It'll allow the media machine to paint numerous "oh it's because she's black, isn't it" kind of rhetoric as a smear on the Republicans.

Making unfounded racist attacks like "DEI Hire" and "Colored" is exactly what I'm talking about, and what you're trying to defend. When Republicans say racist shit like that, they totally deserve to be criticized and "smeared" by quoting their own words.

If you don't want to be called racist, then don't say racist shit, or defend racism, then blame it on the media when you're criticized for it. It's as simple as that. And YOU should stop defending racism, or it sounds like YOU'RE the one with a big problem.

"She’s a woman, she's colored": Ex-Trump official Seb Gorka calls Kamala Harris a "DEI hire":

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/10/shes-a-woman-shes-colored-e...

>“She’s a DEI hire, right? She’s a woman. She’s colored, therefore she’s got to be good.” -Sebastian Gorka

‘DEI,’ ‘Colored,’ ‘Jezebel’: MAGA Attacks on Kamala Harris Are Getting Ugly. The right can barely contain its racist, sexist contempt for Biden’s likely 2024 replacement:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/maga-rep...

Even Kevin McCarthy thinks attacking Kamala as a "DEI Hire" is petty and racist:

Kevin McCarthy Flames Republicans’ ‘Totally Stupid and Dumb’ Attacks on Kamala Harris: ‘They’re Wrong in Their Own Instincts’:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/kevin-mccarthy-flames-republican...

Now let's discuss the baseless accusation of "word salad". I posted some Kamala quotes and some Trump quotes in the adjacent comment. Which sound like word salad to you, and which of those people sounds like they're too old and incoherent and incompetent to run the country? Are you going to defend Trump's rambling words about sharks and batteries as not being "word salad"?

And JD Vance is MUCH more of a DEI hire for VP than the INFINITELY more experienced and competent and successful Kamala Harris, who's personally prosecuted and locked up many criminals and sexual predators and frauds just like Trump behind bars.

‘He’s Dragging Trump Down’: CNN’s Data Guru Reveals BRUTAL Polling Data for JD Vance:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/hes-dragging-trump-down-cnns-dat...

>“Frankly, I don’t really understand the pick,” Enten told Erin Burnett on Tuesday’s OutFront. “And apparently, neither do the American voters because we take a look at the net favorable rating for JD Vance. That’s the favorable minus unfavorable. It’s in negative net territory. Look at that. Negative six points.”

>Enten says he looked at every election since 1980 and could not find another veep selection with a net negative rating.

>“He is the first guy after, immediately following a convention, a VP pick, who actually had a net negative favorable rating that is underwater,” he went on. “The average since 2000 is plus 19 points, JD Vance, making history in the completely wrong way.”

Looks like you're copying and quoting a lot of stuff from your other posts and that have nothing to do with what I said; and if anything your side-tracking post proves my point about this entire Kamala pick being rife with non-constructive "black and white" talking points which the media and debaters will undoubtedly use to stifle debate and facts in the political stage.

But I won't apologize ever for calling out actual racism, including DEI and AA itself. If you want to argue that she's not a DEI hire, okay fine, I don't have any info on that and won't talk to that. Every individual I interact with always gets a clean page in my book, color and gender being irrelevant.

That's certainly a factor but not the only factor. She bears a lot of the same baggage as Biden for failing to prosecute abusive cops and enforcing so-called "tough on crime" drug policies.

It wasn't really her tough on crime stance that was the problem. Gabbard nailed it:

https://youtu.be/VxaRt-LlpEk?feature=shared

Polls indicate Harris is holding her own, and it's clear that voters seeking an alternative to Trump have already found it in the Biden-Harris ticket. By selecting Harris as his running mate, Biden has given them a viable choice. Now, it's essential for Biden to see this through and commit to the path he's chosen. Ultimately, he should resign at a time of Harris' choosing, ensuring a seamless transition and maintaining the momentum they've built together.

> and it's clear that voters seeking an alternative to Trump have already found it in the Biden-Harris ticket

Do you have anything to back up that claim?

There are scores of voters planning to vote third party or sit out the election due to the lack of good, viable candidates. If the DNC nominated someone who honestly spoke to the ways our country is messed up and the things we'll need to do to change them they could easily see a considerable increase in their votership.

The comment you replied to seems to have been written by AI. Check out the poster's profile.

On Hacker News, stylometry is used to identify the authors behind comments. Stylometry analyzes the distinct writing patterns of human authors, but AI-styled content lacks a personal touch, making authorship attribution challenging. To evade detection, some users take deliberate steps to remove their digital fingerprints and conceal their identities.

Yep, seems you're right, thanks. Not sure if it's someone actively using AI as a crutch or something someone's let free to try to shore up support for Harris.

Dear Throwaway :)

It's evident that someone in this thread is employing stylometry to profile users, likely to uncover user identities, all the while concealing their true identity. The comments' content, which tackles recent events and complex political strategies, is clearly written by individuals with a deep understanding of the subject matter.

Doxing, or attempting to dox, is a toxic behavior that should be strictly against HN rules. It's essential we maintain a safe and respectful environment for open discussion. Instead of indulging in digital detective work, let's focus on the topic at hand and avoid perpetuating a culture of surveillance.

I wonder about the motivations of creating a sleeper profile for 3 months and then AI-generating comments at a rapid pace in specific threads.

I wish there was a filter to flag these AI profiles and just hide them in all threads.

I'd argue that voters seeking an alternative to Trump have already coalesced around the Biden-Harris ticket. You question this claim, citing the presence of third-party voters and disillusioned citizens. However, I've examined the data from various angles, including voter behavior, incumbent advantages, legal challenges [link], and polls (hundreds of them, in fact). The reality is clear: for Democrats, there's one obvious path forward, and denying this is, in my opinion, a self-destructive stance.

Link: This video discusses the legal implications and potential consequences of Joe Biden dropping out of the 2024 presidential election, including the role of delegates, party rules, and state laws.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mPt-4Eqr35I

...should he? maybe you meant to make some argument that he should do that?