115
Democrats eye Harris 2028 presidential run as they devise political comeback
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
115 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10192 readers
63 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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~~ only 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.
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.
Yet her being a progressive was not what lost her the 2020 primary, contrary to this person's original point. You just expounded on my point, thanks. At no point did she lose something because she was too progressive.
Just a friendly reminder that anytime you're using the second person in a nonidiomatic sense, you're engaging in an ad hominem.
I'm not smart enough to know what that means.
This ^ is what tacosanonymous said. I'm not sure where you are getting "lost something because she was too progressive" from that.
Literally from what they said
Too progressive for the DNC, for them to allow her to win. Not progressive enough for voters.
She was not progressive at all! I think the person was saying that she lost because she was too progressive as a misconception to why she was one of the first out in 2020.
She wasn't too progressive for the DNC to put her second on the ticket, a heart attack from a very old man away from being president. That's exactly why she was on the ticket. I am pretty sure she was one of the least progressive candidates, dropping out before 2020 even started.
I agree that she's not at all progressive, but she is Centrist, and that's too progressive for the DNC. I suspect that Biden made the call to make her VP independent of the DNC leadership, given that he's generally had his own circle of confidants and friends.
I don't personally consider someone who is a centerist to be progressive at all. Maybe just me though. She is exactly as progressive as Biden which is why her messaging after Biden announced he was stepping down didn't involve and real progressive moves other than some minor tax cuts and legalizing cannabis. She lost because she is just the woman version of Joe Biden. Not that she gets much say until she is elected, but she could have come out swinging a lot harder to the left instead of joining up with Liz Cheney who also isn't known to be that progressive. She is exactly who the DNC wanted running, which is why they didn't hold an abbreviated Democratic primary for 2024.
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.
I understood what you were saying 🤷
You didn't clarify anything, especially not the incorrect point you were trying to make. I hope you have a more enlightened 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 ~~first~~ only 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.