- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
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.
Didn’t learn the first time around, huh?
Everyone has 4 years to learn, including you. What/who is your viable alternative?
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.
This isn’t a terrible idea. Bush Sr ran twice before he was elected. I could say the same about Biden. Reagan lost before he won.
But most importantly, if she loses in 2028 it might actually be a good thing. 2030 is the next census, and the party with presidential power usually gets trounced in the midterm. So, I’m wondering, could we stand 2 more years of pain at the top for 10 years of progress at the state and legislative level?
That all is to say, if we still have fair elections :-(
Still? My friend, clearly you do not live in Texas. Land of the “local control … no wait, not that local.”
Biden didn’t win in 2020 because he was a great politician, he was just the default. Nothing about either that primary or that election suggests a talented politician who just needed to refine his message and keep trying. Most of the early primary was the moderate lane desperately searching for someone other than Biden, and then in the general he barely beat Trump in an election that should have been a cake walk.
What are you talking about? Biden beat by 6million votes. He got the blue wall plus Arizona and Georgia of all places.
Obama won by 10 million votes in 2008, and he wasn’t up against an incumbent with a (until Biden) historically low approval rating and in the middle of a crisis he was failing. Before the Democratic primary even started 56% of voters said they were definitely going to vote against Trump. Biden’s 6 million votes were by running up numbers in safe states, not a convincing electoral victory. The actual difference between winning and losing was 44k votes. Less than what would have flipped 2016 (80k), so unless you’re going to call Trump vs. Clinton a solid victory, Biden’s was a squeaker in an election that shouldn’t have been close.
I rwad the article and honestly I kinda wish I didn’t. This is stupid.
It’s not stupid so much as the definition of insanity. But oligarchs gotta oligarch.
And the ratchet clicks like three full rotations
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)
To be honest I don’t think Harris lost for that. Palestine and appearing as a corporate candidate screwed her. Maybe she could’ve limped by but she just made herself the establishment against an anti establishment candidate didn’t work. They really tried to run on nothing is gonna change and we’ll still bomb the brown kids. And if liberals can’t make change, they won’t go to vote
I hate the democrats sooooooooo much. They are just gods damn out of touch.
Yeah, I think they just want to lose at this point. Maybe that was always the point.
Bold of them to assume they will be allowed to win in 2028.
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.
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.
Right winger really. She got endorsements from the Cheney’s. She had nothing to say about Gaza, BLM, East Palestine Ohio, the housing crisis, ir anything else that mattered.
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.
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)
My speculation is there will be a cooling off period for voting. I’m often wrong.
Prevent fascism? It’s been here for decades
You’ve not truly experienced fascism until you’ve heard it in the original German.
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.
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.
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.
