DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus President Biden to Drop Out of POTUS Race

Trump wanted it early so it wouldn't be past Joe's bedtime.

Your assertion was it was trump who asked for the early debate. That's simply false. He brought up having debates early in the process but left not only when they should debate but where they should debate up to Biden. FATE and I don't often agree but it's always been plain and obvious who actually had control over the timing and coverage of the two presidential debates. It was Biden...............

While some details still need to be hammered out, it appears the Democratic and Republican candidates will face off twice, on 27 June and 10 September. Usually the debates are in September and October. From the source FATE provided........

Mr Trump, who has for months been calling for a debate "anytime, anywhere", got what he wanted. Mr Biden, meanwhile, got to set the terms of their meetings.

Now we have an idea of the agreed terms, here's a closer look at how the debates could benefit, or damage, the two campaigns.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69023014

There's plenty of legitimate things to point the finger at trump about, but blaming him because Joe made the decision to debate in June isn't one of them. Trump not only didn't call for a June debate, he didn't call for CNN to moderate that debate.

You're seriously not making any sense. There will always be a first person to challenge the other, that has nothing to do with the process used to iron out the details. In this case, all details were proffered by the Biden administration. Full stop.

This is like saying the victim of a car accident is at fault because they left for work earlier than usual.

You seem to keep missing the "anytime, anywhere" part. Context has meaning.

Again, you’re wrong.

Trump issued the debate challenge back in April. Biden setting the terms for the debate isn’t him issuing the challenge; it’s him accepting the challenge.

There wouldn’t be a debate in June if Trump didn’t challenge Biden to said debate in the first place.

I’m trying to be nice but you’re over here arguing something that’s been well documented.

And you just quoted the same article that said Trump got what he wanted when he challenged Biden to a debate. It can’t get anymore clear than that, yet here you are….

How? Trump is the one who challenged Biden to the debate FIRST. Biden didn’t challenge Trump first, he accepted the challenge and set the terms good the debate to happen.

So FATE and PiT, I challenge you guys to a debate anywhere anytime. If you guys set the terms of the debate, that means YOU issued the challenge first and not me?

Y’all are ridiculous

I challenge pit to a street race anytime anywhere. But because he determined what street we was gonna race on, that means he issued the challenge and not me.

That’s not how it works.

What does "the challenge" have to do with anything? There have been debates in every election since 1972.

No? Really? Ya don’t say?

Read my original comment again. There’s always been debates. But Trump issued the challenge BEFORE any of the traditional debates typically start. I brought it up before on this board that I found it strange Trump issuing a debate despite there always being 3 debates. Trump wanted a debate early on that had nothing to do with the 3 traditional debates presidents have.

So your claim is since it was trump who first challenged his opponent to a political debate in April, while at the exact same time telling him "anytime, anyplace", he is somehow responsible that Biden himself actually chose to set the date of that debate in June? I don't care if you are nice or not but a reasonable sense of accuracy here would help.

Yes he did want to debate Biden, "anytime, anyplace". Which has zero to do with setting an early date by Biden. Let me ask you why you think trump is responsible for the early date Biden chose when he plainly stated he didn't care when or where it was?

Yes, Trump challenged him early, so we got an early debate. I don’t understand why that is so difficult to understand.

Biden doesn’t set the debate in June if Trump never issues the challenge in the FIRST place. Then we have the 3 debates like we traditionally do AFTER the party conventions.

I can not be any more clearer than that.

Biden does not set a debate for June if Trump never issues the challenge in April.

I got it. You claim trump is responsible for Joe setting the date of the debate early because he challenged him early and stated any place any time. trump never asked for the date of the debate to be set early. In fact told Biden he could set the date any time he wanted to. But it's trump's fault Joe selected June. Yeah, I think I got it.

Alrighty then.

I keep hearing that if Harris is at the top of the ticket that campaign can use the money, if she is the VP then it is a murky maybe, but if Harris is not on the ticket then it is a no. Something about the money the FEC filing.


Found this: Per Reuters:

What happens to Joe Biden's campaign money?
By Jason Lange and Stephanie Kelly
July 22, 20241:07 PM EDTUpdated 2 min ago


WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden's reelection campaign had a massive bank account when he dropped out of the race and it could benefit Vice President Kamala Harris' White House run or that of a different Democratic nominee, but some experts expect legal challenges over how the money is spent.
Biden, an 81-year-old Democrat who was in a tight race with Republican challenger Donald Trump, endorsed Harris when he ended his reelection bid, and Harris quickly took control of Biden's campaign accounts and is now racing to lock up the Democratic presidential nomination.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue

HOW MUCH MONEY DID BIDEN HAVE?

Biden's campaign reported to the Federal Election Commission on Saturday that it had $95 million in the bank at the end of June, a significant sum though less than the $128 million the Trump campaign reported to the FEC.

HOW DID HARRIS TAKE CONTROL OF BIDEN'S MONEY?

Immediately after Biden dropped out of the race, the campaign filed, opens new tab forms with the FEC scrubbing Biden's name from registration documents and changing the official name of the presidential campaign account to "Harris for President" from "Biden for President."
Advertisement · Scroll to continue

CAN THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF $95 MILLION BE THAT EASY?

Experts on campaign finance law disagree on whether Harris could be vulnerable to legal challenges. Saurav Ghosh, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan watchdog group, said because Harris was already part of "Biden for President" as the vice presidential candidate, her claim on the money should be secure. "Anyone challenging the legality of this move has slim odds of success," Ghosh said.
Charlie Spies, a prominent campaign finance lawyer for Republicans, said Republicans will likely challenge the transfer of control of the money to Harris, arguing Biden was the only legal candidate. "It was raised under his name," Spies said. However, Spies and Ghosh agreed that election regulators would be unlikely to resolve the issue before the Nov. 5 presidential election.

WHAT ELSE COULD GET IN THE WAY OF A DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE HAVING CONTROL OF THE MONEY?

While Harris has secured numerous endorsements from party leaders, it remains possible that another candidate could emerge and win the party's official nomination. Because of rules limiting the size of campaign contributions, a new Democratic ticket could only accept a few thousand dollars directly from the former Biden campaign account.

Harris would have the option of refunding contributions to donors or transferring an unlimited sum to the Democratic Party which could spend the money supporting the party's nominee. Not all of that spending could be coordinated with the nominee's campaign, and the Democratic Party's spending might face higher costs than the campaign which is legally entitled to heavily-discounted television advertising rates in the last 60 days before an election.


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/91-million-question-what-happens-bidens-campaign-money-2024-07-18/

That's the way I understand it as well even though you can be sure Republicans will fight it in court to try and tie up those funds even if Kamala is at the top of the ticket. Mike Johnson is already indicating Republicans will be filing legal papers to keep her off the ballot in at least some if not several states. But I feel rather confident we will have some self appointed legal expert come along and break this all down for us here at some point.

Kamala Harris takes over war chest as Biden campaign becomes Harris for President
Because the money was raised for both Biden and Harris, she can use it for what is now her campaign for the presidency.

By JESSICA PIPER and HAILEY FUCHS
07/21/2024 06:33 PM EDT

Kamala Harris is inheriting the tens of millions of dollars that filled Joe Biden’s campaign coffers.

Biden’s presidential campaign formally renamed itself “Harris for President,” according to paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission within hours of Biden’s announcement. The change heralds the transformation of Biden’s campaign into an operation to support the current vice president’s candidacy, as Harris assumes control over its funds. As of the end of June, the campaign reported having $95 million.

Biden’s endorsement of Harris earlier Sunday paved the way for a relatively uncomplicated transfer of money, on the heels of weeks of chaos among Democrats. Because that money was raised for Harris, alongside Biden, the money may be used for her own campaign for the presidency. Other Democratic candidates could not use the money as their own, although the campaign could instead transfer it to the Democratic National Committee.
“The campaign account, though we think about it as Joe Biden’s campaign account, actually belongs to both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,” Daniel Weiner, a lawyer with the Brennan Center and former FEC counsel, told POLITICO prior to Biden’s dropping out.

Biden’s decision to drop out set off a scramble in the party’s fundraising apparatus to support Harris. The campaign quickly moved to call for donations to Harris’ campaign.

'I'm still riding with Biden': DNC Chair on Biden's withdraw from 2024 race

One Democratic donor adviser was working to get a lawyer on the phone moments after Biden’s announcement to understand how the party’s fundraising apparatus could proceed legally — and to ascertain whether donors who maxed out giving to the Biden-Harris campaign could do so again under a new campaign configuration.
There is no comparable situation to Biden’s withdrawal since the advent of modern campaign finance law in the 1970s, but federal law states that: “Any campaign depository designated by the principal campaign committee of a political party’s candidate for President shall be the campaign depository for that political party’s candidate for the office of Vice President.” That opened the opportunity for Harris to take control of the campaign account.

Allies for Harris were rallying donors and preparing to support her, including by collecting donation pledges, even before Biden dropped out of the race. One women’s organization had already been working to ensure that messaging was ready to support Harris as a presidential contender.

Shortly after the announcement, Shekar Narasimhan, a Democratic donor who founded AAPI Victory Fund, said he was already texting other donors. He planned to start calling people Sunday night to ask for donations to Harris’ campaign or allied groups.

Even if Harris picks up all the existing funding in the campaign coffers, the election will require significantly more money, Narasimhan emphasized. Still, he said, Harris’ likely ability to inherit the campaign was reassuring, and he expected money to come in after Biden’s announcement — although questions around the ticket still remained.

“I do think the wallets open up,” he said. “And I think we’ll see significant movement in the next three days, but it simply depends upon are there other entrants, or is this a fait accompli?



https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/kamala-harris-biden-campaign-funds-00170136

As I stated, that's how I understood it was supposed to work. But I don't think we've heard the last of it.

GOP eyes legal challenges as Harris assumes control of Biden’s war chest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/21/biden-harris-campaign-dollars-legal-challenge/

Thanks

Surprise! Donald Trump Previously Donated Money To Kamala Harris
Jennifer Bendery
Mon, July 22, 2024 at 11:55 AM EDT·1 min read


WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s campaign has already begun bashing Vice President Kamala Harris, now that she’s on track to become the Democratic presidential nominee. But before Trump starts getting predictably ugly in his attacks on her, remember one thing: He previously donated thousands of dollars to Harris when she ran for another office.

Trump gave a total of $6,000 to Harris’ campaign for California attorney general. He gave her money twice, once in 2011 and another time in 2013.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) on Sunday flagged one of Trump’s previous checks to Harris, made out for $5,000.

“Was a wise investment,” Moskowitz wrote on social media.

Your Yahoo privacy setting is blocking social media and third-party content
See details
It wasn’t just Trump who gave to Harris; his daughter Ivanka also donated to Harris’ attorney general campaign. Ivanka Trump gave her $2,000 in 2014.

In 2015, Harris donated all of that money to a nonprofit that advocates for civil and human rights for Central Americans. That was the year after she won reelection as attorney general and was looking into a run for U.S. Senate.

Aides to Donald Trump’s campaign and to Harris’ campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/surprise-donald-trump-previously-donated-155521475.html

This isn't hard.

It's not about who accepted or who set the date. Who was the first person to lay down and announce they wanted to challenge the other. Seems like some convoluted discussion over the meaning of the word "the" .... More than accurate to state Trump challenged Joe. He just wasn't in a position to set a date or even force the challenge to be accepted.

No, none of this is hard. Maybe you missed what this entire thing is about.....

Here is the assertion Swish made from the beginning.....


Nobody challenged Biden to have "an early debate". It was Biden himself that decided to set the debate before the conventions. Nobody was "rushing" Biden to have a debate. Biden had the option to set the debates after the conventions. What actually happened is that luckily biden made the decision to set the date for this debate so early it gave democrats the option to change course. Not the other way around.

Anytime, anyplace means none of those assertions are true. Trying to change the narrative about what anytime, anyplace means isn't anything like debating what the word "the" means.

100%, as it was made clear in the past few cycles when Bernie was leading all polls, winning every primary, but the nominations went to other people.
The parties pick the candidates, the primaries are nothing more than market research for them to craft their final platforms.

Yep the parties pick the candidates with delegates. It usually gets real ugly when there is an open convention with multiple candidates. Which hasn’t happened since 1968 and it went bad for the dems that year. Nixon the crook won.

I really hope Harris goes deep in the paint hard on Trump for his weight, age, and fitness as well as his mental capacity.

How is when the debate took place "not about" the person that set the date??

The Biden campaign called all the shots. They wanted the debates to take place earlier. This has nothing to do with when they were "challenged".


Biden and Trump will debate in June and September. But the terms have changed
UPDATED MAY 16, 2024 10:43 AM ET

President Biden and former President Donald Trump have agreed to a pair of presidential debates hosted by television networks, circumventing the schedule and traditional format proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Biden and Trump will first debate on June 27. The event, hosted by CNN and announced by the network and the respective campaigns, will not feature an audience and will take place at CNN's Atlanta studios.

The second debate, hosted by ABC News, will be Sept. 10. A location has not yet been announced.

The dates were set Wednesday, hours after Biden's campaign announced he would not participate in the process that the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates had proposed. The campaign laid out their own terms instead.

Trump responded to Biden's call in a post on his Truth Social platform, saying he was "ready and willing" to debate Biden, and his campaign called for additional debates in July and August as well.

On Thursday, the Biden campaign said that it had accepted an invitation from CBS News for a vice presidential debate on either July 23 or August 13 — dates that fall between the Republican and Democratic conventions. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond about whether it would accept the invitation or dates.

Both campaigns are shunning the Commission on Presidential Debates
The Republican National Committee had said in April 2022 that it would quit the Commission on Presidential Debates because of concerns about the timing of debates and over accusations of bias.

Biden campaign chair Jen O'Malley Dillon said the president was willing to take part in two debates hosted by broadcast organizations. But she said the commission — which has hosted debates since 1988 — is "out of step with changes in the structure of our elections and the interests of voters."

The commission had announced back in November that there would be three debates in September and October. But O'Malley Dillon said its schedule begins too late, after tens of millions of people have cast their ballots in early voting, and said the commission failed to enforce debate rules in 2020.

Biden's campaign also objects to the audiences — which it described as "raucous or disruptive partisans and donors, who consume valuable debate time with noisy spectacles of approval or jeering."

"As was the case with the original televised debates in 1960, a television studio with just the candidates and moderators is a better, more cost-efficient way to proceed," O'Malley Dillon said. Other terms include having microphones open only when it is the candidates turn to speak.

Biden's campaign ruled out other candidates in the debates

Biden's campaign also nixed the idea of including third-party or independent candidates in the debates, saying they "should be one-on-one, allowing voters to compare the only two candidates with any statistical chance of prevailing in the Electoral College — and not squandering debate time on candidates with no prospect of becoming president."

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an independent presidential candidate who has made it clear that he would like to appear on the debate stage, quickly blasted the campaigns' decisions on social media. "Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy," Kennedy said.


https://www.npr.org/2024/05/15/1251...september-and-names-terms-trump-says-yes

They should have allowed Kennedy to debate.

The two party system breaks down when there are more than two choices.

"Maybe you missed what this entire thing is about....."

Yes i did... And i appreciate you (pit) and fate giving me the full picture and explanation.i thought this was semantics about who first simply and publicly verbalized a challenge. Thanks for your patience .

For context.,.. I'm in dublin and had my first guiness at 12.00 noon local time... 🤪 It may have had an impact ....Cheers.

Manchin was interviewed this morning. He said he's done with politics. We all know that Politicians change their minds all the time, but this sounded very final.

Where's my Guinness, yo? 🤣

Been doing yard work and trying to decide between a Guinness and a Blue Moon. You just made my decision.

No, I think it goes back to the donors. They just can't give it to the DNC

I think this is funny. Even AI knows what I already stated -- if all else fails they would just change the rules.
I ask Perplexity AI:


what happens to biden's war chest of campaign contributions if harris doesn't run?

sources:
bloomberg.com favicon
wsj.com favicon
View 2 more

Answer
If Kamala Harris doesn't run for president after Joe Biden's withdrawal, the handling of Biden's campaign funds becomes more complex.
Here are the key points to consider:

Transformation into a PAC: The campaign funds could be converted into a political action committee (PAC). However, PACs have limitations on how much they can contribute to other candidates, which would restrict the use of these funds.

Reimbursement to donors: One option would be to reimburse the funds to the original donors. These donors could then choose to redirect their contributions to other candidates or causes.

Charitable donations: The funds could be redirected to charitable causes. This would allow the money to be used for public good rather than political purposes.

Super PAC transfer: Another possibility is transferring the funds to a super PAC. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts to support candidates, but they cannot coordinate directly with campaigns.

National party transfer: The funds could be transferred to the Democratic National Committee. This would allow the party to use the money to support its overall election efforts.

Legal challenges: The process of transferring or repurposing the funds may face legal scrutiny. Sean Cooksey, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Election Commission, suggested that any attempt to transfer the entire committee, including cash and assets, to another individual would likely need to undergo a process within the FEC and could face challenges at the agency and possibly in the courts.

Time constraints: With only 106 days remaining until the general election (as of the date of the search results), the limited timeframe poses a significant challenge for resolving any legal or procedural issues surrounding the funds.

Potential loss of funds: If a new Democratic ticket excludes both Biden and Harris, the situation becomes more complicated, potentially making it more difficult to access or transfer the funds.

It's important to note that this situation is unprecedented, and the exact outcome would likely depend on various legal interpretations and potential challenges. The handling of such a large war chest in the absence of the original candidate and their running mate would likely be subject to intense scrutiny and possibly litigation.

I'm torn on this.Before,when I would turn on the TV,I didn't know if I was watching the news or a Walking Dead rerun.Now,when I see kamala,I'm anticipating Ricky to walk in and and say "Lucy I'm home."

It's right here fool.

If you don't hurry Imma have to drink it too.

🤣

It's hard to stop drinking them in Dublin!

Thank god we won’t be hearing Biden, Biden, Biden. Is too old old old. Time to turn those chants on Trump.

Yes you will, it's Trumps tag line. Doesn't matter he's not running against Biden, he'll still beat on him. Hell, the damn fool still beats on Obama.,.

There you go being partisan again and arguing something not mentioned in the post you're replying to. You were flat out wrong. Man up instead of trying to change the subject.

I would like a candidate from outside the parties. You claimed Biden being the only possibility other than Trump was reality. It seems like you were the one living in a fantasy. It sucks when reality smacks one in the face. You seem to remain in denial. Are you secretly a politician?

Playing a seemingly endless stream of clips of Democrats lying about how sharp Biden was seems like it's inevitably going to be a part of Trump's campaign until the bitter end.

Should that be out of bounds? One month ago he was "sharp as a tack". According to everyone. In DC and in the media. He was working circles around everyone in the White House. Remember?

Bleh, I can hear the "you replaced the guy with someone who he was working circles around" jabs already.

I made it quite clear that one of the two major party nominees would win the election all along. Your claim was that a third party candidate could come along and win the presidential election. It wasn't mentioned in the post I quoted, but you did argue that point over and over again for days. You wouldn't recognize reality if in smacked you in the face.