No. She CANNOT win.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
122 points (96.9% liked)
Slop.
482 readers
654 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
HAHAHAHAHHAHA IT WAS A DEBATE! IT WAS A DEBATE! AND THERE WERE JOURNALISTS THERE COVERING THE DEBATE. AND IN A DEBATE WHEN YOUR OPPONENT FOUGHT FOR SEGREGATION YOU CAN'T WIN THE RACISTS OVER. SO YOU PRETEND TO BE SLIGHTLY LESS RACIST
you don't understand having a strong and lethal military is the cornerstone of right and left wing ideologies
Someone arguing about how she lost when pointing out she ran on a mostly gop lite platform
Unless they just decide not to run primaries there's no shot. She couldn't even win her home state last time and dropped out to save herself the embarrassment
Unless they just decide not to run primaries
... Again
Maybe she can put out another staged video of Obama talking down to black men for not wanting to vote for her.
She didn't have name recognition back then and the party didn't have a reason to rally around her. Now, especially if she becomes governor of California, she's the path of least resistance.
Name recognition is important but she's also the only Democrat to have lost the popular vote in my lifetime so worth considering a blank slate is better
the path of least resistance.
Smh so much for #resist
straight up dropped the day before California's deadline to have your name removed from the ballot
Damn I didn't remember it was that blatant lmao
The dems will run Harris because they want to lose in order for them to not be at the helm for WW3.
Democrats will do literally anything other than demand that the genocide end.
I'm starting to wonder if they ran her in 2024 because they wanted to not be at the helm of the continuing genocide
That would be more plausible if chuck and others weren't out saying they were just in power to make Israel look good/do PR
100% accurate Simpson's take on the DNC
spoiler
the apples are bad politicians
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
They Learned a LOT! AND if you Donate a Couple more Dollars they'll Learn even MORE!
This is facebook tier boomer rage bait material
perfect for hexbear then 
gottem
Deeply unserious
awesome. hope she loses again
she would eat shit in primary tbh (if it happens)
Last one that wasn’t a proven sham was in what, 2008? Not holding my breath for Dems to be democratic any time soon.
Can AOC just run already?
You're still supporting that genocide-loving succdem?
.ee
remember when she did an hour-long livestream going to the mat for Biden when the decision to replace him had already been made behind closed doors? absolutely amazing political judgment on her part. funnier than the first time they kept her off the oversight committee and chose a terminal cancer patient instead.
They won't even let her win a committee chair, you think they'd let her win a presidential primary? Even after fully compromising all the beliefs she pretended to have?
-- and the fact that she literally did nothing to stop a genocide won't factor into it at all.
Yup somehow that's still our fault.
Watching liberals barely contain their glee about what's happening so they can say "we told you so" even though nobody thought they wouldn't do that has really reaffirmed my belief it was the right move.
More then that, she actively supported a genocide
She was the second highest ranking us official during the start of the recent gaza genocide. She was already an accomplish when she ran for president.
Is this satire, please tell me it is satire. Do they want to lose?
I'm not against her specifically. I'm against her nonsense DNC appointed policy. Running to the right had never once been a winning strategy. The entire Schumer Strategy is a unmitigated failure.
Run on progressive policy and you cannot lose. It took the entire Democratic machine to stop Sanders.
The DNC is a Corporation. It's full name as shown in court documents is the DNC Services Corp. They are controlled opposition. If they lose, it's because they chose to. It is a conscious decision on their part. They have the numbers. The analytics. The polling. They know how to win. They know how to keep control indefinitely and they actively choose not to because their own interests as a corporation line up with republican fiscal policy. Tax cuts and empire. Those are the frontline policies that matter to them. It's why they appear toothless. It's why Schumer is sending "strongly worded" letters to Chump instead of rallying democrats to play hardball. It's why they're all desperate to stop David Hogg from going after those do nothing democrats.
I'm not against her specifically.
Why not? Her history as DA and AG is terrible, even if her policies weren't outright absurd she's proven herself to be irredeemable and untrustworthy.
Given the pool of candidates the dems want to draw from, is irredeemable and untrustworthy really all that specific?
No. Not in the slightest.
view more: next ›