Dear god, no. This is an abjectly terrible idea. Dems aren’t going to win until they stop being the other party of billionaires who are centre-right at best yet claiming to be for the working man. Come on, learn something from this election. We want a Sanders or AOC, not this milquetoast rejection of the full scope of the Overton window.
This is going to be a crazy four years, and to suggest we come out on the other side wanting a return to the same bullshit that held wages and lifestyles back for, by then, 50 years, is a failure to read the room. No one wants what the Democratic party currently offers, and I don’t see her suddenly becoming progressive. We don’t need another president on the cusp of getting Social Security when elected.
We want that for ourselves after paying into the system for so long, but that’s not going to happen. Find a new standard-bearer or die. Learn. Adapt. Run on real change, not the incremental shit that was resoundingly rejected and so generously provided us with the shitshow we’re about to endure. Voters stay home when you do that, and here we are.
I mean, how many CEOs need to be killed before anyone gets the message that what they’re offering has the current panache of liver and onions? Doesn’t matter how well it’s prepared; the world has moved on, and whoever gets the nomination in '28 needs to as well. Harris is not that candidate.
They didn’t run Clinton after she lost to trump, why would they think this is any different? Harris was not picked twice for a reason, the first time in the 2020 democratic primary and the second time after the last election. PLEASE move on to someone who hasn’t lost yet for a real change and a real hope to win.
She lost the first primary bc she had progressive ideas. The DNC wouldn’t allow that.
She lost the first primary because she ran a terrible campaign. People forget, but there were rumors of poor management and staffers not getting paid right before she dropped out.
This. Her campaign was godawful, finances aside. She couldn’t find a message and quickly fizzled. Historically, and I’ll use the Reagan/Bush example, you want your closest runner-up. This also works for Nixon/Ford, though that wasn’t exactly your run-of-the-mill situation. But that’s Watergate under the bridge.
Ford was never on the ticket, he was appointed after Agnew resigned. He’s the only president to never be elected to either the presidency or vice presidency.
I was worried when I said that that I was wrong. I forgot about Agnew and the whole morass. One generally doesn’t like to present a single data point. I was wrong. Thank you for clarifying.
That may have been a thing. Her platform was decent, though. She wasn’t as cool as Booker or progressive as Yang. She certainly didn’t have Bernie’s appeal or recognition.
And here we see the problem with adopting slightly right of centre positions. She pleased no one. Obviously, her race and gender were not exactly the fallback plan.
She lost the
firstonly primary.
While Bernie certainly didn’t win the primary, I would argue he was slightly more progressive and yet got farther than Harris. Please reconsider your position on that. I don’t think the DNC did her any favors, but they certainly aren’t what kept Harris from winning.
I’m saying that’s why she lost then. She was in a field of better progressives as well as the status quo rep.
She lost because she was progressive, but at the same time you’re saying she lost because she wasn’t actually progressive enough.
I didn’t say “more” I said, “better.”
After you said she lost because she was progressive, and in the same comment where you say there were better progressives, implying if she had been more progressive she would have won.
If not please try explain.
Because she was neither.
The dnc was always going to push Biden liked they pushed Clinton.
She also didn’t win progressives bc there were better ones.I’m done clarifying. Have a good day.
Here you go:
-
She was never very progressive, which made her less appealing in an open primary like 2020 (to actual voters) than other options like Sanders
-
She was still too progressive for the DNC to back her, until Biden dropped and they were left with the prospect of a snap primary they couldn’t exercise control over, at which point they backed Harris running with a platform that was significantly less progressive than her 2020 primary platform
After Biden dropped out, if she had been more progressive, more voters would have backed her, but if she was more progressive the DNC would never have backed her. You need both the voters and the party to back a candidate for them to win. The DNC refusing to move leftwards towards voters is why they’ve lost 2/3 of the previous elections.
-
She lost the
firstonly primary.
This, like the Democratic party for the last few decades, is a bad joke.
What pisses me off the most is that I didn’t even get to explain it. It’s always funnier that way.
I am not from the US but always felt the world would be so different if Bernie was up against Trump instead of Hilary.
Is there a younger member of the Democratic party with a similar vibe to Bernie?
Yes. AOC.
Nah. I was optimistic for her at first too, but she’s been a disappointment really. I would say at a minimum she has gotten less radical with time, and votes like the rest of the neoliberals in the party.
Maybe I have rose-tinted glasses. What’s recently changed? (I’ve not been in a newsroom for far too long.)
Recently? Her vote in favor of a bullshit definition of antisemitism, and I saw an article yesterday about her pledging to change her ‘rebel ways’ to fit in better with the dem party line (meaning no longer support primary challenges to incumbents)-- and then Pelosi passed her over in favor of another decrepit dinosaur for a spot on the oversight committee.
The first sounds plausible, but I’ll have to wait for morning to look it up. “I saw an article” in our media landscape holds as much water as a colander, with ‘scare quotes’ adding holes. Pelosi for Bingo!
More CEO’s will die until moral improves.
Morals are inconsistent with capitalism. Morale, on the other hand … well, it’s not high.
the most plausible explanation I’ve seen so far - credit to this post (from one of the hosts of the 5-4 podcast) where I saw it first:
my suspicion is that Kamala is floating a CA governor run or 2028 run not because she thinks she has a chance but because it will help convince wealthy donors that it’s still worth buying influence with her and thus help her fundraise to pay off her campaign’s debts
but also Kamala ending up as the nominee wouldn’t surprise me. if it’s not her, there’ll be a different “establishment” Democratic candidate that the DNC puts their thumb on the scale for. 2028 seems likely to be yet another “this is the most important election of our lives, it’s crucial to the future of the country that you vote for whichever Democrat we tell you to vote for, now shut the fuck up and stop complaining”.
Yeah, this is what I’m resigned to. Which is pretty much Trump-lite: No structural change, just nibbles around the edges. Great for cunnilingus, not politics.
Didn’t she run basically the most well funded campaign ever? How is there still campaign debt?
She could definitely win as governor I think. President is a long shot.
If we do have a 28 election, surely they’ll have a primary and not just run whoever the leadership picks and proceed to campaign on our civic duty to prevent fascism (every 4 years)
Prevent fascism? It’s been here for decades
You’ve not truly experienced fascism until you’ve heard it in the original German.
My speculation is there will be a cooling off period for voting. I’m often wrong.
I hate saying it but I don’t think a woman can win. There’s too many patriarchial fucks in this country that might vote democrat, but not for a woman.
I recognize this as a factor but I don’t personally think it’s a result changing factor except in the closest races. I think it’s because the 2 women that have had the closest opportunity have positioned themselves as defenders of the status quo when the people clearly want change.
Frankly, this was always going to be where a two-party system would end up. Citizens United simply accelerated things. What the people want is irrelevant to the ruling class. I didn’t want to be homeless for the past year, and yet here we are.
Maybe we should try running women who aren’t republican lite before we say that the issue is just that they’re women.
I’ve always found this an odd argument, but as a switch, maybe I’m biased. Sometimes, I want a woman to take charge.
I hate the democrats sooooooooo much. They are just gods damn out of touch.
Holy fuck nty. Anyone noticed how invisible she’s been the election? Not really a galvanizing, new generation defining leader. Just another ambitious party member playing her role. Make room for someone who will do better for us.
…
Don’t.
hahahaha! god their even more stupid than I thought. maybe they should go look for other candidates. Seems like half the country doesn’t want a women as president. They sure as heck don’t want a person of color either.
Gender or race had nothing to do with her losing, she’s a right wing POS posing as a progressive
Alternate take: She was told to move to the right by advisors. Politics is nasty business.
Cops are always right wing
and AGs are not cops. Stop repeating the propaganda designed for morons to repeat ad nauseum
She locked up people, she was a fucking cop
You have quite the hole in your understanding of how this system works. No.
No
Her pattern this campaign was the same as her pattern in the primary, start out as a mainstream progressive talking about changing the system and fighting Republicans, then after getting phone calls from donors and listening to establishment advisors abandon it all for overly restrictive benefit programs and empty words. Almost every time she said something good she’d walk it back over the next week.
This doesn’t mean she should try again but finally buck her advisors and be her true self. Her deference to the sensibilities of rich donors is part of who she is.
That was bad advice then – the right already have a party, and it isn’t the Democratic one.
The rich are never happy with one of anything.
The editor in me has so much to say about that.
Nah, the bigot vote isn’t nearly as important as the fact that people are sick of establishment politicians. People want change and they see that in Trump but not in Harris.
deleted by creator
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but does the average American voter see it this way, or do they judge him based on his demeanor and the things he says?
But he sometimes says what people want to hear in the middle of an incoherent rant. Trying to cover him the first time was … about as one might expect. Now, it’s just depressing.
No
It’s pretty clear to me that a woman can’t win. As a woman myself it makes me angry, but there is just too much misogyny out there and I think n a less qualified man cough Joe Biden cough an beat Trump where a more qualified women like Hilary can’t.
(I’m not saying Hilary or Kamala is my choiceor that I like them, only that they were better candidates than Biden)
We do not need Sanders or AOC, they are both party sheepdogs whose sole function is to keep disenfranchised voters rounded up in the party with the illusion of they stick around long enough they will have a seat at the table.
Correct. Doesn’t mean Sanders was wrong or couldn’t have wide appeal. Dude’s a fucking independent. So, no financial backing. Follow the money, said everyone, especially W. Mark Felt. He had the opportunity to speak to the working class in the general, and we simply couldn’t have that. What was he supposed to do? Run in the GOP primary or be as rich as Perot?
I like OP’s opinions because we’re roughly aligned toward the same political ideals but he’s just a touch more invested and less cynical.
Less cynical? That’s my first laugh of the day. 🤣 With apologies to Humperdinck, try running a newsroom sometime.
