Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.

The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.

“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nope, gotta have a contrasting VP to spread the draw. Running AOC as VP would be like trump running Vance…just stupid. AOC is far more effective where she is anyway.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I very much am hoping that Gretchen Whitmer gets picked for VP. Trump picked Vance to draw in the Midwest votes, Gretch could easily kick him in the balls if picked

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          As much as that would be a neat historic thing, and probably a good pairing, the Midwest can be as backwater as the South and would lean Fighter Pilot over Two Women, unfortunately. Can’t take risks chasing achievements when we need to play the game to win…and the harder trump fails, the better. I want him to see the entire country reject him in a landslide before he slips into the torment and constant fear of full blown dementia for the rest of his miserable days.

    • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      Read in another thread, and haven’t looked it up yet mind you, but apparently AOC is 1 year too young.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        4 months ago

        AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

        People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Huh, didn’t know her birthday offhand. So she’ll be 35 by Jan 20, 2025? And she of course is a natural born US citizen who has lived in the US for the requisite number of years.

          Normally POTUS candidates pick VPs that in their minds shore up their perceived weak spots among voters to make them overall more electable. So who do you think Harris would do worst with and why would AOC draw that demographic in?

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            AOC is an actual progressive. I don’t know very much about Harris, and I’m going to vote for her regardless, but I’m not a big fan of law enforcement in general. I’m reading through her Wikipedia page, which seems to be the only non biased source I can find that goes over her LEO career.

            AOC is outspoken about issues that I care about, she seems to actually want something better for the working class. It’s hard to feel that a former state prosecutor has the best interest of the working class in mind.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I could see two strategies.

            Some leftist people who are hard core ACAB, for those AOC may be so appealing that they don’t mind voting for a prosecutor.

            However if they want to moderate concerns of sexists and racists, they would want to run some milquetoast white guy. While the full on sexist/racist is a lost cause, there are people who are more unconsciously racist/sexist they might think to get the vote of.

            I’m guessing they see the latter as the biggest risk to mitigate.

            • yrmp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              A former prosecutor selecting AOC also suggests a semblance of growth on the part of the prosecutor.

              Yes, she put away a lot of people on drug crimes and I’m sure other BS. The conservatives are already circulating memes with a collage of black faces she put in prison. As if they give a fuck about black people in any capacity outside of when it’s politically expedient. They’ll be in the camps with the rest of us if Trump wins.

              Someone like AOC diffuses some of the Israel and ACAB criticism. Or it could be turned to say AOC is a sellout, which I think is a hard argument to make. No one saying that should really be taken seriously given her record.

              In this political climate of violence, it’s basically also a giant “fuck you” to the right. You’ll get this centrist woman, or you’ll get this left leaning woman. It hints where a Kamala Harris admin is wanting to take the country in the future and could also serve to finally motivate the youth vote.

              AOC seems to understand realpolitik better than the many on the left, and I think she’ll eventually save us all. I know she probably won’t be on the ticket, but manifestation is a thing right?

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                I will keep my overall prediction, that they don’t think they are at risk of losing the further left voter base, that they are more concerned about the more “up for grabs” voters that might vote either way. I think milquetoast straight white guy is the order of the day when they have a woman person of color running as the other half of the ticket.

                It’s not necessarily how it should be, but the strategy they will presumably use to address the reality of the electorate.

                • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I mean, that is essentially how Biden ended up as VP.

                  And aside from the racial angle how Pence ended up as VP - a milquetoast, boring standard politician type to counterbalance Trump’s lunacy, someone hypothetically to be the adult in the room.

                  • jj4211@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Yeah, I’m not able to recall a successful ticket where both candidates were “exceptional”. I still think whatever chances McCain might have had were blown when he went with Palin as a VP to try to sate the extra crazy wing of his party. Trump’s choice to do Vance seems like a strategic failure. Tim Scott must be mad that he crawled all the way up Trump’s ass for nothing when everyone speculated that Trump would try to pander to the black vote with a token black VP.

            • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah but I doubt subconsciously sexist/racist people would be willing to vote for Trump… They’re stuck with whomever the DNC runs

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Besides the obvious magas and Republicans, who would never vote blue anyway, Kamala will be weakest with progressive young people. And I know people like to say there’s no use going after those people (now half the voting population!) because they don’t vote, but they actually DO vote when you give them someone worth voting for. Their numbers are also growing, while the centrist boomer population is declining.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          My problem is not that it is misinformation, my problem is that Republicans could use it to gum up the elections in the courts.

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

            It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

            Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Until this year, there was nothing remotely questionable about whether or not it was legal for a president to commit crimes. And people like you told me similar things about how the court would rule there too.

              • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

                I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

                If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

                Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled.

                  What world is this? Because it’s not Earth in the year 2024.

                  Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

                  • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Then it’s option two for you, is it? The one where we allow bad actors to dictate because we believe they won’t play fair?

                    If that’s the case, you don’t have anything to worry about because all is already lost. “Despair is a narcotic. It lulls the mind into indifference.”

                    Or is this one of those situations where you’ve already seen that you’re wrong, but you’re too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?