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

    Whitmer, Shaprio, Walz, Buttigieg all don’t have the nationwide name recognition needed to hit the ground running with so little time before elections.

    Newsom only has name recognition because the Right has been demonizing him for years because they recognized him as a threat. We’d just have a repeat of Hillary.

    I’m not saying that these wouldn’t make decent candidates in a normal Primary time frame. But it would spell disaster to pivot to any of these candidates this late in the race.

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

      Four months is not “so little time”. And I agree that Shapiro and Walz have branding issues, but 4 months, the entire news media and DNC war chest would be enough to solve that. Newsom doesn’t have nearly the baggage Hillary had either. Hillary had baggage going back to 1992. Newsom has baggage from ~5 years ago? At that point there’s no one qualified to run, not even Biden.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s short enough time that a new nominee would literally be disqualified from the ballot in some states.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The only state that requires certification before the convention is Ohio. A state we aren’t counting on and have little to no chance to win unless we suddenly run Reagan 2.0.

          There’s 49 other states that would still be in play, including all of the normal blue states and swing states.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ohio even passed a special exception to extend the deadline to after the convention, though it’s unclear from the news I read whether there might be some risk of it being overturned by the court if Democrats needed it.

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

              Oh I don’t think anyone is really depending on Ohio to keep its word on that. But there’s definitely a cursed timeline where Harris is the nominee out of the convention, Ohio withdraws their promise, and Democrats get close enough with a write in campaign that it’s plausible she would have taken Ohio. Cue more political violence.

              At any rate I’m sure that has no chance of happening in our timeline, none whatsoever. Definitely not.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Well, they did pass the law. It’s just whether it can be invalidated in courts because they poisoned it with a provision to bar permanent residents (green card holders) from contributing to campaigns, which is likely unconstitutional. In a normal world, the individual ban would be thrown out, as it doesn’t really have anything to do with ballot registration, but there’s little reason to think the Supreme Court wouldn’t rule in a way that disadvantages Democrats.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is a lie. It’s been a lie, and you should know better by now rather than repeating it.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Nope, it’s a lie. The date to appear on the Ohio ballot is still in the future. A new candidate could appear on it without issue.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That’s for primary candidates. Maybe actually read the source you’re quoting before you “double down”. There are no states with requirements that would prevent a new candidate from appearing on the general election ballot.

                  Reporting you for misinformation.

                  Fucking LOL. Hears some trivia on social media that reinforces his biases and doesn’t wonder why no legitimate sources point it out as a problem and then jumps to calling the mods for “misinformation” when his wrong fact is rejected.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    There are no states with requirements that would prevent a new candidate from appearing on the general election ballot.

                    What as a fucking independent? As a “minor political party”? (deadline for those is Aug 7 btw)

                    The deadline has passed for anyone other than Joe Biden to be the Democratic nominee, and the deadline is rapidly approaching for ANYONE to be on the ballot, of any party.

                    I suppose the DNC could just nullify all its own rules and send a different candidate to the Secretary of State within the next 3 weeks. How well do you think that would play over? “DNC rigs its own process to force through [candidate name here]”.