- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
…
Don’t.
More CEO’s will die until moral improves.
Morals are inconsistent with capitalism. Morale, on the other hand … well, it’s not high.
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.)
She will run into the same problems as Clinton. The right has spent a decade attacking her at every opportunity so that she is a polarizing figure, whether she deserves it or not.
You might be right but it’s worth a shot. I’m not sure who we’ve got that’s a better option at this point.
Tim Walz? I mean, he’s another old white man but he is fairly progressive and he won’t quite be at retirement age yet by next election. Plus people loved him and what he had to say before the Harris campaign started muzzling him.
Didn’t learn the first time around, huh?
Apparently the Democratic moto is: “We are shocked and devastated by this turn of events and we will learn absolutely nothing from this.”
Thoughts and prayers.
Everyone has 4 years to learn, including you. What/who is your viable alternative?
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.
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”.
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.
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.
And the ratchet clicks like three full rotations
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.
Or you could learn any kind of lesson at all and run a candidate that’s actually worth being enthusiastic about instead of a centrist who’s still going to be seen as the second coming of Stalin by the right.
youre right, but choose a candidate because theyre good, not someone based on how the right will respond. Literally any candidate is going to be portrayed as Stalin by the right.
I said that because they’re picking centrist candidates as a fig leaf that’s just going to get shit on anyway. It’s time to start putting actual leftists in office, not only because they should be there but because this “strategy” of trying to bridge the gap with modern day McCarthiests is stupid.
I agree completely
I’m sure several democrats will run?
I even gave it some time to see if somebody else would point it out for me but the Democrats are who I was talking about.
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
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.
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.
She lost the
firstonly primary.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.
I don’t care who is in the primary but we need to get rid of the superdelegates
After 2016, the DNC already halved their influence. I’d argue they are a necessary evil to prevent various scenarios where bad actors try to hijack a primary.
But more generally, the entire point of a political party is to express political preferences via a platform, and to back candidates which support that platform. I don’t really understand this idea otherwise… if a dozen Republicans decided to run as democrats to “troll” the primary, you’d want the party to step in, right?
In 2008 Obama was the outsider candidate but he was actually popular enough that the party had no choice but to back him in the end. That’s how the process is supposed to work.
its always going to be an issue though because its not as democratic. If the trolling thing were so easy the democrats have more ability to do that and it does not happen. What would be great is if the party went to an auto runoff / ranked choice for primaries.
RCV is the only solution. But guess who has to approve that?
for primaries the parties setup their ballots. It should just be a matter for the democratic commitee doing it.
Of corse she should run!
So should a bunch of other democrats, some with different ideas. All the party has to do is stay out of the way and the people will choose better than they could.
Oh, you sweet summer child. Gather 'round the fire while I tell you the tale of 2016. The DNC did not stay out of the way.
I love how people act like Bernie wasn’t out voted.
He was, but it wasn’t without Hillary controlling the DNC to weigh everything against him, including by using the funds that were meant to go to whoever was the elected candidate, during the primary. But don’t take my word for that, that’s straight from Donna Brazile, who became head of the DNC at the end of the 2016 election cycle: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
I love how people act like the end result of a highly manipulated primary somehow means the manipulation didn’t happen.
This is 2024, we’ve now had three primaries in a row where the Democratic Party employed different tactics to push their favored milquetoast neoliberal to the seat. They cleared the field, smeared the opposition, and refused debates to push Hillary. They flooded the field, continued their smearing, and then collectively backed out to prop up boring old Biden in exchange for cabinet or VP positions, and then this last time around they functionally skipped the primary entirely.
Twice that has resulted in Trump winning. 33% is a failing grade.
Functionally? They were explicit. “Shut up, plebs; we’ve got this.”
Easy enough to make it look that way with the full might of the DNC making sure he doesn’t win. Do you really think voters matter to them?
I’m not against her running in the primary. It’s somewhat of a foregone conclusion that she’d be running against Vance in the general, though. Let’s just say he’s not the most … appreciative of women who step out of the kitchen, and we need full detrumpification before anything makes sense. And that’s using SWF language.
Yeah, I think they just want to lose at this point. Maybe that was always the point.
I really want us to stop throwing the same candidates back at the wall over and over.
I do think Harris got the short end of the stick, elections internationally show a significant “we’ll take the other guy” vote (regardless of who the other guy is). I wish the people voting paid a bit more attention to who “the other guy” is and what they’re actually proposing.
I don’t have nearly this distaste for the party’s platform that you do; I actually really like it … we just need to get enough people in office that they can actually legislate without having to caucus with Republicans or on the edge Democrats.
Honestly though, I think Sanders or AOC would get obliterated. They’re beloved by progressives but this country is just not a country of progressives. I think the last election showed undeniably that the economy rules when it comes to US elections.
Edit: intentionally -> internationally (dumb phone)
We’re not a country of progressives because … guy in the clouds who really likes capitalism and had a leftist son. Draw your own conclusions from that dichotomy.
GOPers are always historically worse for the economy.
If campaigns were run purely on facts, the GOP probably wouldn’t exist at this point.
Probably? Facts are the GOP’s kryptonite.
Yeah, but they’re way better at marketing that they’re good for the economy. This election was lost (I’m convinced anyways) on the grounds that too many people thought Trump would be good for the economy.
Anyone who thinks Trump will be good for anyone other than Trump is delusional. But it’s the sane who get committed.
OK, what’s their platform? Because if you’ve seen one recently, I’m willing to drive to find it.
We need full-on systemic change, not just saying we’ll be nicer than Trump. If we have an election in '28, that’s not going to hold a lot of water. This is FDR shit time, not saying oligarchs should totally have the power they’ve amassed, and maybe I can get an extra $5.
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.
Maybe we should try running women who aren’t republican lite before we say that the issue is just that they’re women.
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.
Disgusting but true. Most voters won’t look at policy; they just want the illusion of a “strong man”.
I have an ex whose parents are like that. Voted for Obama twice, I’m sure they voted for Trump three times. They literally moved out of our state (Colorado) because we elected a gay governor (Polis) and my ex’s mom was terrified God would punish the state for that.
Narrator: Colorado’s economy boomed.
I’ve always found this an odd argument, but as a switch, maybe I’m biased. Sometimes, I want a woman to take charge.
