this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
112 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10192 readers
61 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:

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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 5 days ago (27 children)

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.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 39 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This, like the Democratic party for the last few decades, is a bad joke.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 11 points 5 days ago

What pisses me off the most is that I didn't even get to explain it. It's always funnier that way.

[–] Fourth@mander.xyz 10 points 4 days ago

Holy fuck nty. Anyone noticed how invisible she's been the election? Not really a galvanizing, new generation defining leader. Just another ambitious party member playing her role. Make room for someone who will do better for us.

[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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)

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 days ago

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

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 23 points 5 days ago (1 children)

More CEO's will die until moral improves.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 15 points 5 days ago

Morals are inconsistent with capitalism. Morale, on the other hand ... well, it's not high.

[–] knokelmaat@beehaw.org 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 19 points 5 days ago (5 children)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 11 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 01011@monero.town 24 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Didn't learn the first time around, huh?

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 18 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Apparently the Democratic moto is: "We are shocked and devastated by this turn of events and we will learn absolutely nothing from this."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 21 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 18 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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".

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 11 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 5 days ago

And the ratchet clicks like three full rotations

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 14 points 5 days ago (4 children)

I don't care who is in the primary but we need to get rid of the superdelegates

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

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)

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 16 points 5 days ago (2 children)

GOPers are always historically worse for the economy.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If campaigns were run purely on facts, the GOP probably wouldn't exist at this point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 10 points 5 days ago

Anyone who thinks Trump will be good for anyone other than Trump is delusional. But it's the sane who get committed.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 13 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rescue_toaster@lemm.ee 13 points 5 days ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Brodysseus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 5 days ago

Yeah, I think they just want to lose at this point. Maybe that was always the point.

.....

Don't.

load more comments
view more: next ›