Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I find it odd that the only people complaining about how the Democrats replaced their candidate are folks who are going to vote for the Republican.

I mean, if she's such a bad candidate, shouldn't you be HAPPY that she's the replacement? If the Democratic voters were really upset about how their new candidate was selected, I'd think they'd stay home in protest and not vote for her.

Unfortunately, I think I know what is really happening here. You're all just mad that the playbook got flipped. As long as Biden was in the race, you could be happy about your guy facing the old, senile candidate. Now your guy is the old, senile candidate.

No because I’d rather vote for somebody who more closely aligns with my values. I feel like we were robbed of being able to choose as a people what candidate we vote for, instead the DNC elites like Pelosi picked their horse. 

I find it odd that the only people complaining about how the Democrats replaced their candidate are folks who are going to vote for the Republican.

I mean, if she's such a bad candidate, shouldn't you be HAPPY that she's the replacement? If the Democratic voters were really upset about how their new candidate was selected, I'd think they'd stay home in protest and not vote for her.

Unfortunately, I think I know what is really happening here. You're all just mad that the playbook got flipped. As long as Biden was in the race, you could be happy about your guy facing the old, senile candidate. Now your guy is the old, senile candidate.

I know a few democrats who are not pleased with how things shook down. So, I would not overgeneralize it that manner.

I have yet to make up my mind on who I will vote for, but I do know who I'm not voting for.

Two things:
1) Pelosi did not pick Kamala. Word on the well-informed street is that she wanted some competition, and was surprised at how fast Kamala shored up her support. What Pelosi did want--and got--was Biden dropping out.

2) Speaking as a left-leaning, but not "progressive" Democrat, I would have much preferred a normal primary to this. I don't think Harris would have won the nomination that way (and I wouldn't have voted for her). That said, her role is literally to take over when the President can't do something, so it's not a crazy outcome for her to take over for him in the election when all of the influencers in the party are telling him to back out. On the plus side, it's very possible that the Democrats came up with a more centrist Democrat because they didn't use the primary process. This is how Schwarzenneger became the last Republican to win statewide office in California--he didn't have to run in a primary, he ran as the replacement for a recall vote. He never would have made it through a Republican primary; he was too centrist. I know people here claim that Harris is far to the left; she isn't. Did she move left in the primary in 2020? Yes, but even then she wasn't nearly as far to the left as several other mainstream Democrats. And that's what candidates do in primaries--emphasize their credentials for the base; then in the general they move back to the center. I can't think of a politician--Trump included--who hasn't done this. This idea that she's a progressive is flat wrong. It's a good narrative for the right, but they would say that about any Democrat--like Walz, for instance. 

I'll vote for her now, and it's not even a remotely close question. Honestly (and I recognize I live in a bubble out here on the left coast), it is very hard for me to understand how this election is close. But I suppose people on the other side think the same thing. And no, you don't need to try to convince me why I'm seeing this wrong. :-)

Yeah, but I'd say you were robbed by [Jill] Biden thinking he [Joe] was well enough to run for reelection. Not by the "DNC elites".

There was no time for the Democrats to run a primary after the debate. It was Joe releasing his delegates before the convention, and then those delegates were free to vote for whoever they wanted, but they all coalesced behind Kamala.

If the delegates really had a problem with it, they could have given their votes to someone else at the convention, and made it a spectacle.

I think the replacement should have been decided at the convention.

I'm fascinated by Democrats wanting such an early debate.  I'm fairly sure they knew what would happen as a result.

It was. That's when the delegates voted and she became the nominee.

Of course, I know what you mean. You wanted the Democrats to flail around for 7 weeks between the disastrous debate and the convention, unable to coalesce around a candidate, with multiple candidates trying to raise money and with massive uncertainty about who would emerge at the end of it. Probably with a lot of infighting and the candidates giving the Republicans even more ammunition to use against the eventual nominee in the general. That's the sort of disarray all Republicans voters would have wanted from their opponents.

Nah.  I am glad it is Kackles Mckeepads v Orange Man.  We deserve it.