In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
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.
We do not need Sanders or AOC, they are both party sheepdogs whose sole function is to keep disenfranchised voters rounded up in the party with the illusion of they stick around long enough they will have a seat at the table.
Correct. Doesn't mean Sanders was wrong or couldn't have wide appeal. Dude's a fucking independent. So, no financial backing. Follow the money, said everyone, especially W. Mark Felt. He had the opportunity to speak to the working class in the general, and we simply couldn't have that. What was he supposed to do? Run in the GOP primary or be as rich as Perot?
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.
hahahaha! god their even more stupid than I thought. maybe they should go look for other candidates. Seems like half the country doesn't want a women as president. They sure as heck don't want a person of color either.
Gender or race had nothing to do with her losing, she's a right wing POS posing as a progressive
The editor in me has so much to say about that.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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)
Am I the only person who thinks she’s got a chance? Sure there are hundreds of people I’d prefer, though.
Zero chance. She's too centrist for all involved. Stands for nothing and makes absurd claims like making groceries cheaper. If you're going to lie in the U.S., you have to do it in rambling speeches where you leave your supporters stranded in the desert.
Too centrist? Centrists would distance themselves from people like the Cheney's, wouldn't keep blowing Republican dog whistles like immigration, cops, and guns.
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've always found this an odd argument, but as a switch, maybe I'm biased. Sometimes, I want a woman to take charge.
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)
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.
GOPers are always historically worse for the economy.
If campaigns were run purely on facts, the GOP probably wouldn't exist at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No
Bold of them to assume they will be allowed to win in 2028.