- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
She lost the first primary bc she had progressive ideas. The DNC wouldn’t allow that.
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.
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
firstonly 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.