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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
Maybe. I don’t know a ton about the guy. He had a few zingers but not sure what his background is and whether he’s authentic or not. I didn’t investigate him much because VP barely matters but if he runs then I will.
As someone from mn (where walz has been governor for a while now) I can assure you that he’s awesome. The only thing that concerns me about him is that hes been awfully quiet about Israel’s genocide so I don’t really know where he stands on that. Otherwise though he’s amazing.
He owns no stocks and no real assets to speak of. He lives exclusively in the govenors house and is relying on his state pension for retirement. He has passed legislation enshrining abortion rights in mn, blocking corporations from buying single family homes, providing free school lunches to all students, and funding college access for everyone state wide. In his free time he likes hunting, fishing, and working on his old 1979 International Harvester Scout Truck. When he fucked up durring his response to the George Floyd protests he immediately admited that he fucked up and vowed to do better next time. Durring covid he repeatedly chewed people out on both sides of the aisle for politicizing the pandemic while enacting common sense laws about it. Honestly I can’t think of a single thing he has done that I disagree with other than his response to the George Floyd protest which even he admits was wrong.
I am rabbid for this man. He would be a damn nice president. My only regret would be that if he became president then he wouldn’t be my state govenor any more.
Thanks for sharing, that does sound good. I really wish people would take a stand on Palestine though. That might be enough for me to vote for someone else alone if there is another option. We’ll see. It’s gonna be a long 4 years before we really dive into this stuff. I don’t want to fear-monger but there is a real chance the next election will be subject to major interference.
I think it’s more important to focus on organizing resistance to the new administration right now.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yeah, I think they just want to lose at this point. Maybe that was always the point.
I hate the democrats sooooooooo much. They are just gods damn out of touch.
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.
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 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.
She lost the
firstonly primary.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.
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 deviated by this turn of events and we will learn absolutely nothing from this.”
Thoughts and prayers.
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 intentionally 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.
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.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf
I don’t know why your saying “okay what’s their platform?” I’m criticizing Trump’s shitty ones. If you legit didn’t know, there were platform documents for the Democrats in both election cycles… there they are. Kamala’s campaign itself did not really make much of a platform… It was mostly housing assistance IIRC.
I was being hyperbolic. Of course they have a platform, they just never deliver anything. The GOP knows how to execute.
They’ve delivered plenty if you’re paying attention. They’d deliver more if they had the votes in Congress.
This is actually an important discussion to have, because they’ve delivered nothing for me personally. And that’s crucial in understanding the country’s rightward lurch. The only thing keeping me from leaning right is having the sorts of ethics and morals espoused by the New Testament despite being an atheist.
I’m homeless because housing costs are too high. I have a mountain of debt because I stupidly quit my job two months before lockdown. Yeah, the relief checks were nice and all, but more of a “hey guys, take five” sort of situation. I don’t have kids and got a vasectomy years ago to ensure that continues to be the case, so child tax credits mean nothing. ACA plans are about as affordable as COBRA. As an indigent, I have free healthcare that so far as I understand simply covers everything (and a free bus pass!) from the county. And I live in Texas. Applying for it consisted of answering questions for 10 minutes with an EMT on his tablet.
So, what have they delivered for me personally? Yes, the BIL facilitated much of the growth in renewables, allowing for my job, but that’s coming to an end because they failed so many people like me that Trump won.
GOPers are always historically worse for the economy.
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.
If campaigns were run purely on facts, the GOP probably wouldn’t exist at this point.
Probably? Facts are the GOP’s kryptonite.
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.
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.
And the ratchet clicks like three full rotations
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?
Bold of them to assume they will be allowed to win in 2028.
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.
