She’s the only candidate with access to the existing campaign funds. There’s not enough time to refund them all and donate to a new candidate before early voting ballots go out in eight weeks. If it’s not Harris, they’ll have to be independently wealthy to fund their own campaign in time.
Why is US politics relying so much on campaigning and donations anyway? Not that we don't have the odd politician speaking somewhere physically here either but it is fairly rare in comparison. Most of the whole "get to know" part happens through TV or internet media. The US just seems to make it a weird spectacle, which imo just further reinforces the whole "team" aspects of it and with that the whole two party system.
Our news system has no integrity, and is loyal only to money. Ad campaigns are the only option to reach the passively informed with a clear and uncompromised message.
Is there no publicly funded news media / broadcaster? Like the German Tagesschau, or UK's BBC, or the Canadian CBC, etc? Typically there's a higher amount of trust for those, since they are mostly acting independently and the majority of funding coming from the people itself.
We have NPR and PBS. They don’t get as much exposure as corporate news. You’ll see posts on Lemmy from both publications often, but this is obviously not the average American’s experience.
There is, unfortunately they're viewed by on of the political parties as being evil liberal propaganda machines, and they very much want to privatize them or just sell all of their content off and shutter them.
In 2010, a biased and purchased Supreme Court declared that wealthy people are allowed to spend whatever amounts they want to on propaganda. There's no way to get a word in edgewise.
To be fair that money can all go to the DNC and get used on "issues" or "support" ads. Officially around 30 million could be used in collaboration with a new campaign committee, but in reality it would all be supporting the nominee.
Yes, she's the only candidate, but the funds can also go to the DNC or a Super PAC if Biden directs them there.
That’s incorrect. Only a few thousand is transferable to a candidate not on the existing ticket. The rest would need to be refunded to donors.
But under a more likely scenario, Biden would take advantage of rules that allow unlimited transfers to the candidate's political party. In that case, Biden's Democratic Party could spend the money supporting the party's new candidate.
He can also transfer to a Super PAC.
Edit: In case you don't believe me again.
Biden could also potentially transfer his funds to an independent super PAC if Harris is not on the ticket.
It sounds like it would be an official act, though.
Hmmm I stand corrected. Thanks
Bernie was able to redirect his funds to the DNC after he got shafted.
Do you have a source? Everything I’ve read states that campaign funds have very strict rules.
I thought you could use them for anything you wanted, up to and including paying hush money to a pornstar that you had very disappointing sex with, whilst your wife was at home with your newborn.
You can. You’ll just have to be willing to accept the inevitable conviction.
They do. The article you posted above actually discusses how the money can be transferred to a political party, with the caveat that there's a cap on how much can then be spent on a different candidate.
The other committees referenced are all Sanders related it should be noticed. There is likely some confusion relating to sanders transferring money to the DNC to cover his costs associated with his post-drop-out campaign activity to try to rally support behind the Democratic candidate.
Maybe one day a party will nominate your perfect candidate, and then you can watch them get their ass whooped because the policies you support aren't popular.
That's the thing, the policies supported by socialists are wildly popular until the socialist label goes on it.
While I’m not the OP you’re replying to I definitely think Harris is going to be unpopular. The problem isn’t winning over city democrats, it’s winning over Joe Schmo in Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. Those people are the ones I worry about whether they’ll vote for a minority female candidate and they’re unfortunately the ones whose vote counts. This late in the game, I think the best course of action would have been running some stale white guy that mid westerners could more easily swallow. Though time will only tell and November is quickly approaching.
Also, is Harris’ politics popular… because last time I checked she was a former prosecutor and a lot of people here on Lemmy were upset about a “cop” being elected to office. She doesn’t seem to have an opinion/political belief.
Lol. The troll guy sowing discord again
Yep Clinton bad. Biden bad. Harris bad. Nothing will satisfy this person.
Well Trump would
I do think others would be stronger (I especially think Whitmer would be a strong candidate), but I think people underestimate just how weak Trump actually is as a candidate right now.
It just hasn't been capitalized on because Biden was a fucking mummy, but Trump is old and tried. His RNC speech was just exhausting to even watch, and he is falling asleep in most drawn out public appearances.
He's surrounded by yes men who peddle QAnon conspiracy theories and rambles on about things only his most loyal fan base even understand, playing the encore for his fans but leaving any independents or less politically engaged folks bewildered.
None of this was able to be capitalized on by an ailing and addled Biden, but as long as Harris can be halfway coached to focus on these points and juxtapose them, she'll be fine (even if I agree there could be much better options than a previous CA senator and law enforcement pick).
Whitmer's one weakness is that she hasn't really been tested yet on the national stage....
.... which will be fixed once Harris picks her as her VP
Or when she still throws her hat into the ring if delegates are unpledged and people want a more healthy competition for the nomination.
Whitmer has already said she's not contending for the nomination, probably because Kamala already promised her a good job, either as VP or Secretary of Somethingorother
IIRC she and Newsom said they are not interested in being Harris's VP. Didn't see her saying she wasn't going to be looking for nomination, but open to seeing a source.
If the DNC keeps Harris I think she will get beat
She’s the only candidate with access to the existing campaign funds. There’s not enough time to refund them all and donate to a new candidate before early voting ballots go out in eight weeks. If it’s not Harris, they’ll have to be independently wealthy to fund their own campaign in time.
Why is US politics relying so much on campaigning and donations anyway? Not that we don't have the odd politician speaking somewhere physically here either but it is fairly rare in comparison. Most of the whole "get to know" part happens through TV or internet media. The US just seems to make it a weird spectacle, which imo just further reinforces the whole "team" aspects of it and with that the whole two party system.
Our news system has no integrity, and is loyal only to money. Ad campaigns are the only option to reach the passively informed with a clear and uncompromised message.
Is there no publicly funded news media / broadcaster? Like the German Tagesschau, or UK's BBC, or the Canadian CBC, etc? Typically there's a higher amount of trust for those, since they are mostly acting independently and the majority of funding coming from the people itself.
We have NPR and PBS. They don’t get as much exposure as corporate news. You’ll see posts on Lemmy from both publications often, but this is obviously not the average American’s experience.
There is, unfortunately they're viewed by on of the political parties as being evil liberal propaganda machines, and they very much want to privatize them or just sell all of their content off and shutter them.
In 2010, a biased and purchased Supreme Court declared that wealthy people are allowed to spend whatever amounts they want to on propaganda. There's no way to get a word in edgewise.
To be fair that money can all go to the DNC and get used on "issues" or "support" ads. Officially around 30 million could be used in collaboration with a new campaign committee, but in reality it would all be supporting the nominee.
Yes, she's the only candidate, but the funds can also go to the DNC or a Super PAC if Biden directs them there.
That’s incorrect. Only a few thousand is transferable to a candidate not on the existing ticket. The rest would need to be refunded to donors.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/91-million-question-what-happens-bidens-campaign-money-2024-07-18/
Literally from the article you linked.
He can also transfer to a Super PAC.
Edit: In case you don't believe me again.
https://www.vox.com/joe-biden/361991/361991biden-campaign-funds-after-drops-out
Biden can redirect the funds to anyone he chooses. As long as it's used for a campaign.
Absolutely not. The funds can go to Harris, because her name is on the campaign to which they were donated, or they can be refunded.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/91-million-question-what-happens-bidens-campaign-money-2024-07-18/
It sounds like it would be an official act, though.
Hmmm I stand corrected. Thanks
Bernie was able to redirect his funds to the DNC after he got shafted.
Do you have a source? Everything I’ve read states that campaign funds have very strict rules.
I thought you could use them for anything you wanted, up to and including paying hush money to a pornstar that you had very disappointing sex with, whilst your wife was at home with your newborn.
You can. You’ll just have to be willing to accept the inevitable conviction.
They do. The article you posted above actually discusses how the money can be transferred to a political party, with the caveat that there's a cap on how much can then be spent on a different candidate.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/042716/what-happens-campaign-funds-after-elections.asp
https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P60007168/#total-spent
The other committees referenced are all Sanders related it should be noticed. There is likely some confusion relating to sanders transferring money to the DNC to cover his costs associated with his post-drop-out campaign activity to try to rally support behind the Democratic candidate.
Maybe one day a party will nominate your perfect candidate, and then you can watch them get their ass whooped because the policies you support aren't popular.
That's the thing, the policies supported by socialists are wildly popular until the socialist label goes on it.
While I’m not the OP you’re replying to I definitely think Harris is going to be unpopular. The problem isn’t winning over city democrats, it’s winning over Joe Schmo in Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. Those people are the ones I worry about whether they’ll vote for a minority female candidate and they’re unfortunately the ones whose vote counts. This late in the game, I think the best course of action would have been running some stale white guy that mid westerners could more easily swallow. Though time will only tell and November is quickly approaching.
Also, is Harris’ politics popular… because last time I checked she was a former prosecutor and a lot of people here on Lemmy were upset about a “cop” being elected to office. She doesn’t seem to have an opinion/political belief.
Lol. The troll guy sowing discord again
Yep Clinton bad. Biden bad. Harris bad. Nothing will satisfy this person.
Well Trump would
I do think others would be stronger (I especially think Whitmer would be a strong candidate), but I think people underestimate just how weak Trump actually is as a candidate right now.
It just hasn't been capitalized on because Biden was a fucking mummy, but Trump is old and tried. His RNC speech was just exhausting to even watch, and he is falling asleep in most drawn out public appearances.
He's surrounded by yes men who peddle QAnon conspiracy theories and rambles on about things only his most loyal fan base even understand, playing the encore for his fans but leaving any independents or less politically engaged folks bewildered.
None of this was able to be capitalized on by an ailing and addled Biden, but as long as Harris can be halfway coached to focus on these points and juxtapose them, she'll be fine (even if I agree there could be much better options than a previous CA senator and law enforcement pick).
Whitmer's one weakness is that she hasn't really been tested yet on the national stage....
.... which will be fixed once Harris picks her as her VP
Or when she still throws her hat into the ring if delegates are unpledged and people want a more healthy competition for the nomination.
Whitmer has already said she's not contending for the nomination, probably because Kamala already promised her a good job, either as VP or Secretary of Somethingorother
IIRC she and Newsom said they are not interested in being Harris's VP. Didn't see her saying she wasn't going to be looking for nomination, but open to seeing a source.
Edit: Ah, it's rumored that she said that: https://fortune.com/2024/07/21/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-kamala-harris-democratic-presidential-nomination-gavin-newsom/
It's cute that you think Americans would elect an administration with both a female president and vice president.
I don't think she will get beat, but she is probably the second worst candidate.