206

Majority of Democrats think Kamala Harris would make a good president, AP-NORC poll shows (apnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by givesomefucks@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

131 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 98 points 3 months ago

Honestly. I don’t give a fuck at this point. Just give me a D who can get to 270. Fuck the republican traitor filth.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

People are begging for that D. Just give them the D!

[-] CodingCarpenter@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

What's 270?

[-] eselover@lemmy.today 29 points 3 months ago

The number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency

[-] UnpledgedCatnapTipper@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 3 months ago

Electoral college minimum majority to win the election.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

The only number that matters. Unfortunately, the number of people that want a President doesn't matter in our goofy, slave-era Electoral College.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

The number of electoral college votes to win. Each state has a number of votes based on the census population data.

270 is half the EC.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Is it sad that to be a "good" president, all one has to do is beat trump at the polls (ok the electoral college), and then do nothing else?

A great president would beat trump then roll back the immunity ruling (somehow ;) ) codify roe v Wade, and resign.

[-] zigmus64@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

Why would they resign and present an undue opportunity for the far right to come to power again?

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

Would make the vice the president, who then could/would pardon the resignee, making anything the resignee did an official act, and if not then the pardon is the official act.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What are you on about ?

Why are you dragging the goalposts down the field ?

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 27 points 3 months ago

Can these fucking articles actually link to the data? I appreciate including the sampling information but right now I really want to see the actual questions being asked because push-polling absolutely has been used by some of the other outlets.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Okay I found the poll and it's fucking awful...

https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/July-2024-W1-topline.pdf

For Approve, Disapprove, Undecided, Null they have:

Harris: 30, 49, 20, 1

Newsom: 17, 31, 51, 1

Whitmer: 15, 21, 64, 1

Harris clearly has the best name recognition but 49% disapproval is insanely high. And they didn't include any other potential candidates like AOC, Warren, or Whitehouse.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 6 in 10 Democrats believe Kamala Harris would do a good job in the top slot. About 2 in 10 Democrats don’t believe she would, and another 2 in 10 say they don’t know enough to say.

The undecided can be convinced during the campaign.

But I doubt I'll start thinking Kamala would be a good president...

I do think that she'll be able to beat Trump in the election at least. Which is better than Joe.

[+] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[deleted]

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

What has she done to make you feel she is a psychopath?

psychopath

/sī′kə-păth″/

noun

A person who engages repeatedly in criminal and antisocial behavior without remorse or empathy for those victimized.
A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be especially prone to violent and criminal offenses.
A person diagnosed with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder.

[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don't know the thoughts of the other user and idk if this makes her a psychopath, but she did oversee an effort to deny prisoners parole just to keep them in California's prisoner firefighter program to combat wildfires.

The program itself is fairly repugnant to begin with, as the prisoners don't really have a choice in the matter, it's tantamount to slavery, and her trying to keep people locked up to bolster it is vile. While California needed more firefighters to combat their wild fire issues, I don't think slavery is the right solution.

Does that make her a psychopath? I'm not sure. Our definition of anti-social behavior is fairly restricted to what is legal and what isn't and what she did was legal. But it damn sure is without empathy or remorse and, in a just world, promoting slavery would be considered antisocial behavior, in my humble opinion.

load more comments (27 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yeah, "not 20 years past retirement age" is a pretty low bar to clear, but at least we did it.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] blahsay@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

49% disapproval rating.....ye gods that's high. Pick literally anyone else. Even Biden yeesh

[-] tinfoilhat@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 months ago

I'd pay big money to see a prosecutor debate a criminal.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I am voting party not person this election.

Get the fuck on board. We gonna out party that cult.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

I think she'd be shit, but I would still vote for her over Trump if that's literally the only other option, because as bad she may be it'd still be better than Trump.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 10 points 3 months ago

And I would love to watch her smear the crap out of Trump at a debate.

[-] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

No chance Trump debates again if it’s against Harris. He’s way too scared of a gasp woman making him look bad.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Based on what I've seen most people could make a good president if they pick good folks to give them advice and don't act like douchebags.

[-] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 4 points 3 months ago

Just a UK guy here, but she does seem like a pretty sensible swap. I know there's some controversy around her because of her time in the police system, but I haven't heard anything bad about her at all during her time as VP, she's basically been off the radar (compare that shit to Pence).

A couple good speeches here and there, some reasonable policies to offer people, and Biden's endorsement, and you've got a really solid replacement.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024

206 points (84.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers

3962 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News