Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi
1d 7h ago by sopuli.xyz/u/supersquirrel in politics from www.theguardian.com
So long as there's a proper primary I don't see the harm in this, not really. I can't see her running a good enough campaign to make it through the primaries, at least not without also having a good enough campaign to beat the fascist party after Trump.
the key here is “proper primary.” I can’t remember a time when they’ve had one that wasn’t fucked up in some way.
2024 was the only year recently we didn't have a primary.
neat. i have been voting for longer than that. there have been years where there was only one person on the primary, which efficiently means “primary votes are cancelled” - when the dnc say they want the incumbent.
that is a de facto cancellation. telling the people who could vote that they are ignored.
my point stands: the dem side needs to do a better job.
I've been voting since I was 18 and I've never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.
yeah. see. i disagree that incumbents should be given anything. earn it. primary every time.
i have been voting since 1997.
I agree with you, but as devil's advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent's name. Take Biden for example: either he's doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he's not doing a good enough job.
So primaries are only so politicians can choose their voters, and not the other way around? I was told only MAGAts are the cultist?
Parties shouldn't have that kind of operational control over our elections.
why? imho because its supposed to represent the current situation and overton window not be a reminder the parties are “clubs” that set their own rules.
From what I've read the reason primaries aren't done on incumbents is because every single time it's been tried the incumbent lost the actual election and the seat went to the other party.
? If incumbent wins the primary its the same as if they didn’t have one but at least the party members chose.
primaries are separate by party.
It's not a thing that happens often, but as far as I can find every single time the incumbent president has had someone try to primary them, the incumbent's entire party lost the seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge
I mean, in the current system if there's enough desire from within the party to push to primary the incumbent president, they were already pretty unpopular.
It's not the primary that's causing them to lose, it's that the party had thought a primary was even necessary because they were already likely going to lose.
interesting. maybe a spread in focus leads to loss.
My assumption is that primary related mud slinging depresses enthusiasm among the public for the incumbent, combined with attempts at it only being made when the incumbent is relatively unpopular anyway.
Sure, but a proper one? 2020 and 2016 were both ratfucked. 2012 was an incumbent year. So we'll be at 2 decades since the last time we had a proper primary.
What was ratfucked about 2020? 2020 didn't feel that different from 2008 or 2004.
In 2020 Bernie and Biden were the front-runners, and then all the other candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden. So it wasn't ratfucked in an illegal way, but in a "torpedo a popular leftist in favor of a right-of-center establishment neolib" way.
Biden wasn't even in the top 5 for the first like 4-5 races. He did ok in one, then the whole orchestrated dropout occured to manufacture consent
That's absolutely not true. I've been voting since 2012 and the only presidential primary I've voted in that had more than one candidate was the Hillary-Bernie primary. That's the only one.
It absolutely is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
In 2012 Obama was the incumbent, which again as I mentioned, incumbents typically aren't primaried if they are doing a decent job and up for re-election.
Since then there was 2016, 2020, where both years had a primary for the DNC. 2024 was just a fluke because Biden should have dropped out. Or even stuck with his original campaign promise of not running for re-election. You're young and your sample size is 4. My sample size is 5, but it's been consistent in years prior.
Depending on your state. In mine, there was a single candidate. That's a primary in the same way the USSR had elections. If you lived in one of the states that had two candidates in 2020 then good for you. I didn't.
1992? 2000? 2004? 2008? 2020?
2008. They were NOT expecting Obama to oust Hillary, and took steps to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again. Allegedly the new DNC head or whatever his title is wants fair primaries, so I guess we’ll see.
What about 2008? It wasn't fair?
As far as I know/remember it was, at least as fair as any primary with superdelegates can be. Or rather, it was still using an unfair system and enough people turned out so that the system to keep nominations “in check” didn’t work.
Cynthia McKinney was elected as a Democrat in Georgia around that time. iirc she was looking at a presidential run. You might have seen her on here yesterday for her latest tweet. (Spoiler: super bigot)
Which is to say, if you open the field to everyone in the country you will spend a certain amount of time winnowing the contenders from the stunt candidates. Republicans don't do that because they're all the same candidate. So they spend almost zero time (since Perot) dealing with that.
Superdelegates aren't great, but an alternative to achieve that aim of not having to platform every trust fund kid with a boot on their head might be good.
She ran as a Green Party candidate, not a Democratic one. I’m not sure how she’s relevant?
She was pretty suspect even in 2008, so I’m not sure I buy that if we don’t have superdelegates and let voters decide who the candidates are, then the stupid masses will just pick whoever.
Oh man you’re right I’d forgotten that.
I don’t think superdelegates are to prevent popular candidates (see Obama), I think they’re to get a comprehensible slate of candidates to focus on issues and themes and not on turning the Iowa caucus into something bizarre by claiming to be a Democrat who just happens to demand we all live in the sea or something.
Again, republicans don’t have this problem, and they’re well known to fund ‘spoiler candidates’ with the intention of wrecking momentum or message or other campaign aspects.
They can't remember.
Even 2016 was pretty fair. The nomination went to the person with the most votes and the majority of the non-super delegates. Bernie lost because people didn't want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn't "fair". If more people voted for him he would have won.
No, Bernie had the nom stolen by Hillary and DWS via corrupt back room dealings and superdelegate shenanigans. Everyone was voting Bernie and for the corporate elite that was a problem. They solved it by ratfucking the primaries, a tried and true dem tactic.
Ah yes, super delegate shenanigans like the majority going to the candidate who had over 3 million more votes than the other. The only way Bernie could have won with super delegates is if he got almost all of them. And if he did then the candidate who got 3 million less votes would have won the nomination and we would still be facing people saying the democratic primaries aren't "fair".
Now don't get me wrong, DWS was biased as fuck. But if the voters simply turned out and voted for Bernie then bias wouldn't have mattered. The RNC was biased towards Jeb bush and Ted Cruz but you know how that turned out.
In the 2016 WV Democrat Primary, Bernie won every single county, 40k more votes than Clinton, but Clinton won the state. Your math isn't mathing.
Nope Bernie won the state. He won and got 18 delegates and Clinton got 11. But then at the convention Clinton got the 8 super delegates from the state which put her at 19 delegates to Bernie's 18 but Bernie still won the state. Here's my source.
So do votes count towards winning or do delegates? Cause 19 sounds more than 18 to me.
You win the majority of the delegates that were up during the primary by voting in the primary. Which Bernie did. But when the convention rolled around and Hillary was 3 million votes ahead of Bernie country wide and significantly closer to the nomination delegate threshold, the super delegates came into play to decide things. But that doesn't change that Bernie won the state. Those 8 super delegates are from West Virginia but they were only allocated at all because neither Bernie nor Hillary had reached the delegate threshold needed to win the nomination.
I honestly can't believe you're making the case that Bernie won 18-19. I don't even know how to argue that, and it's the first time I've ever heard it.
This seems to be a complete misunderstanding of how the primary system works. I am saying that Bernie won West Virginia and got the majority of those delegates that could be won that day. That is winning the state. The super delegates get lumped in but they aren't a part of the same process. Bernie won WV because he got the most votes even if he didn't get the super delegates he still won the state. You could literally look at my source I provided and you'd see that he won.
I'd recommend separating the super delegates from the situation and look at it just for what the delegates were up at the time of the vote. Thats what determines who won the state.
Even better, just look around this wikipedia article to see who won what states and everything. It's all right there. I'm just repeating the literal reality of how it went down.
I think @DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com’s point is that if one doesn’t receive the most votes from the State when it’s all said and one they didn’t really “win” that State. They may have gotten more voter votes, but the they didn’t win the overall vote count from the State (voter+superdelegate) so it’s not really a “win” Bernie took 2nd in WV votes that mattered.
So Clinton got more total delegates if you just separate the vote count from the equation? Is that what you're telling me. Because that's literally what I'm trying to say to you. That votes don't matter(or at least didn't in the 2016 dem primary) and even if a candidate wins 100% of the counties in a state, they can still lose in the thing that matters, delegates.
You can't use the result of the ratfucking to explain that there wasn't ratfucking...
She couldn't have cheated, she had more points
Clinton literally controlled the DNC treasury during that election. The party was low on funding due to mismanagement during the Obama years, she lent it money in return for control, next thing you know, media is flooded with articles talking up Clinton having all the superdelegate votes so being so far ahead before any real votes were cast...even when Bernie won states, it was all "doesn't matter he still can't make up for the SDs"
Bernie lost because people didn't want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn't "fair". If more people voted for him he would have won.
Uh oh
(I agree, although DWS really screwed up everything including discussing this)
Yeah this is something that really bothers me about my fellow leftists and is pure revisionism about the 2016 primary. Bernie lost fair and square and all we had to do to make sure that didn't happen was get more people to vote for him. But according to many people on here if the candidate fails to win then it's their sole fault because they couldn't convince voters to go with them. But I guess that doesn't apply to Bernie.
Also I hate how DWS screwed up talking about this all because she was biased as fuck towards Clinton. Her bias wouldn't have mattered if more people had voted for Bernie but her having a bias at all must mean Bernie was cheated out of the nomination.
I think where a lot of this comes from is that HRC had locked in the vast majority of the superdelegates right from the start. The media consistently represented Bernie as having no chance to win, due to all the superdelegates being in the bag for Clinton, regardless of how people voted. This depressed progressive turnout, as a Clinton victory was apparently a foregone conclusion. Absent the superdelegate system, and the lopsided media coverage it engendered, many would argue the result would have been different. Obviously, there's no way of knowing at this point, but it's not as if these claims have no basis in reality.
See now that's an actual conversation to have! Not saying that Clinton cheated and/or was always going to be the candidate but that how the media represented the race depressed turnout. That's a thing that continues to happen from the media trying to suppress progressive turnout and it often works. But those things still don't change that if those progressives hadn't been so easily suppressed and had continued to go out and fight and vote regardless of what the media said, just like trump voters did, then Bernie would have won the primary and the super delegates wouldn't have mattered. And then likely would have won versus Trump, in my opinion.
Indeed. Conversely, if the GOP had had superdelegates, Trump may never have won the nomination. Superdelegates are inherently anti-populist, which cuts both ways.
If you call wall to wall Propaganda about how it doesn't matter how Bernie is winning all these states, all the superdelegates are going to Clinton and she wins basically by default?
Like that wasn't designed to dissuade voters?
Does this mean if Trump enforces voting via Real ID, and millions of people get removed from their right to vote, and Trump wins in '28, that more people should have voted for Democrats or that Trump shouldn't have purged the voter rolls of as many people as possible that wouldn't vote for him?
It’s so nice to see a sane take on that. Thank you.
Just to terrify you a little bit. In the 2020 election, Harris and Biden only had one candidate that regularly polled worse than they did, which was a culty Tulsi. And if you remember, out of that large field, Biden won.
The DNC has a gigantically fat thumb on the scales.
Remember when the media decided that Biden winning the south Carolina primary was basically a coronation.
Three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton
It sure looked like Bernie was gonna kick her butt until the DNC decided they didn’t like a Democratic Socialist possibly winning. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned for a reason.
I don’t trust the primaries to be fair. There is too much money and power at stake to let “the people” actually decide the candidates. To me it’s the major reason everyone says both parties are the same. It’s because both candidates are picked by the same people, at least at this level. Yes I know they aren’t the same, especially now. But have you ever noticed how feckless the Democratic leadership seems to be? It’s because the billionaires are really the ones in power.
If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.
First Past the Post voting in the primaries favors moderates and extremists, but an issue with moderates is that they don’t excite voters with big life changing policies. So no one, except people already bought into preventing the worst option, show up to vote in the general elections. Which makes it harder for everyone.
More states need to get forms of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, specifically STAR or Ranked Robin voting if we want to see more progressive wins.
Which is why several states are banning ranked choice voting...
Notably all red states as well. There’s other voting systems I’d suggest but I believe it’s worth waiting till they can’t ban them first.
If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.
Shame the fascist GOP is making RCV illegal wherever they can.
The only purpose of the staggered primary is for them to slowly manufacture your consent for who they want. The only way we're going to get an honest primary is if the entire country did it on one day like we do the general
a regular primary with enough debates, and where superdelegates are shun till the end, should be bare minimum
How about just no super delegates and the people decide.
How about a primary where superdelegates get no more/better votes than anyone else?
What am I thinking? That might result in someone who isn't on the corporate teat!
Super delegates need to go
All delegates need to go. The electoral college and all the historical reasoning behind it are no longer valid.
If you want a more fair election, ranked choice, with weighted votes like a Borda system. Borda is good at finding broadly acceptable compromise candidates because it rewards strong second- and third-place support instead of only first-place votes. It’s good at finding better consensus candidates but even this can be gamed by deliberately ranking strong candidates last. No system is perfect, but there are lots better options than what we are currently using.
Why would the Democratic Party operate like that when it risks allowing a Bernie-style candidate to go all the way to the general?
They're going to crowd the field with slop candidates, like Tulsi Gabbard and Liz Warren and Beto were in '20, then consolidate the rest of the field around whatever neolib shithead demonstrates a significant popular appeal. The roadmap was laid out in '76 and repeated in every open primary since then.
Keeping populists like Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders out of the top ticket slot is absolutely a feature, not a bug.
If the dnc had proper primaries we would have had Bernie.
So long as there’s a proper primary
Hahahaha. Good one. That'll totally happen.
If there is a primary hopefully she will perform the public service of prompting the others to distance themselves from Bidens handling of Gaza
Are you fucking stupid? You lost to Donald Fucking Trump—you know, the racist, fascist pedophile rapist? You lost to that guy, and you'd be running against his specter and his legacy, the racist and xenophobic sentiments that still run deep in this country.
What is uniting the American people, however, is a rising class consciousness, not establishment Dems like you. We already tried voting for "not-Trump," and y'all squandered the opportunity to appease the wealthy, expand the police state, send more bombs to Israel, and treat all the people shouting "Danger!" like children, rather than securing our democracy and standing against genocide.
Fuck. Right. Off.
As long as we have a primary, I don't care who runs. The more the better in fact.
I mean, she'd be better than Trump. But that's such a ridiculously low bar.
Surely the Dems can come up with a better candidate that her, Gavin Newsom, or some similarly uninspiring/greasy candidate. Right? Right???
That isn't the question, the question is over whether the DNC and the ruling class allow any other candidate to run against Trump.
Well, we're in luck, the new chair of the DNC (Ken Martin) wants more candidates like Zohran Mamdani, and he has complete control over the DNC until August 2029.
He's also pouring money into local races, supporting the local democratic parties the previous few DNC chairs mostly ignored.
He does???
He's backed progressives in the recent state elections. I don't know if he actually cares or not, but he seems to want to win, and that's how you win these days.
There's this interview;
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democratic-national-committee-zohran-mamdani-endorsement-nyc-mayor-rcna237025
I was going him saying he wanted more zohrans rather than him smartly endorsing him.
Oct. 11, 2025, 11:05 AM CDT / Updated Oct. 11, 2025, 2:53 PM CDT
Or something more recent from Ken. Couldn't find anything other than his campaign slogans for why he should be next dnc chair
Fair point.
But Harris is the best candidate… For the interests of the wealthy members of the DNC.
She will keep things exactly how they are, but act like they have changed for the better. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get assaulted by police.
Why would the DNC give a single fuck about the desires of anyone but themselves? They suffer no consequences for their actions.
A chimpanzee with a switchblade would be better than Trump. At least it wouldnt start a war in Iran ... or participate in a child sex trafficking ring.
Your opponent being ass is no excuse to slack off.
The trafficking ring are the ones sending the monkeys into the fight.
Yeah but can you name Any One Candidate who's better and would win?
Bernie Sanders or AOC, for a start.
Bernie Sanders
WTF is this US fetish for old people. Saunders will be 86 by 2028, if he gets to that age.
America will not elect a woman. Not a young woman, and not a young, latina woman. Pale, Male and Stale or its another 4 years of the GOP. Stop pretending you are some progressive European country.
Even so, he would be better. Also shut up with your sexist racism.
Cool well I guess we will just stay in our lane then.
Your argument against Bernie is that he's an old white man, so no AOC? Are the Trans-investigators getting to you?
Jesus Christ woman, get a fucking clue. You lost the presidency to the worst piece of shit on the face of the planet. Why in the fuck do you think you have any chance against anyone else?
People that lose to Donald fucking Trump should fuck off forever.
At this point, that's pretty much all of us
They'll do everything but what will actually get them elected willingly. Neo-liberals need to wake up and realize it's either going to have progress away from capitalism or just all of us drowning in fascism because they refuse much needed and necessary change.
Or progress back to it ... modern corporatism is a long way from the rights-respecting free trade that was originally meant by capitalism.
Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian school of economics, writing in the 1920s ...
No chapter of history is steeped further in blood than the history of colonialism. Blood was shed uselessly and senselessly. Flourishing lands were laid to waste; whole peoples destroyed and exterminated. All this can in no way be extenuated or justified. The dominion of Europeans in Africa and in important parts of Asia is absolute. It stands in the sharpest contrast to all the principles of liberalism and democracy, and there can be no doubt that we must strive for its abolition. The only question is how the elimination of this intolerable condition can be accomplished in the least harmful way possible.
name a more iconic duo than libertarians and clinging to a dead ideology
Libertarians and wanting to reduce the age of consent?
No.
Edit: Actually, let me be less succinct. Capitalism has always been about exploitation of the many to benefit the few and there's not a thing you can change that would stop that from happening. So absolutely not.
modern corporatism is a long way from the rights-respecting free trade that was originally meant by capitalism.
After seeing it cited multiple times in Das Kapital, I've recently read "The Condition of the Working Class in England". Read it for yourself to see what "was originally meant by capitalism".
Modern-day corporatism is not the worst form of capitalism (for the USians themselves), due to workers organizing and literally fighting for their rights in the past century.
While it's true that the ideology of liberalism "has its heart in the right place" - by that I mean it does advocate for human rights and development - it also promotes capitalism which is in direct contradiction with those ideals.
I'm once again reminded of the secret attack plan from Blackadder 4.
Capt. Blackadder: We all climb out of our trenches and march slowly across no man's land?
Capt. Darling: How do you know that Blackadder? It's classified information.
Capt. Blackadder: It's what we did the last time, the time before that and the previous fifteen before that.
General Melchit: Precisely! The absolute last thing the watchful Hun will expect is for us to do the exact same thing as the past seventeen times thus catching him entirely by surprise!
Baldrick and Blackadder are easily far more wise, empathetic, and pragmatic than the loons running our asylum. I want to get off this ride. 😒
No. Just no. Other countries cn rise above misogyny, but not us. Dems need to drop this whole "please the right" schtick too. We need someone actually progressive, someone who doesn't ride the Israeli money train, and alas - is male. Bonus points for not playing the "we need to forgive and forget" card either. It didn't work, and a lot of these assholes are just regurgitating the South. They lost, but never faced punishment. If we let racism slide, we let them build confidence and organize.
Nope, there is NO evidence we need to be sexist like this.
The issue is that Kamela is not progressive and in the pocket of money & AIPAC.
I think you're just projecting your own sexism onto the electorate as a whole.
Dems need to drop this whole “please the right” schtick too
What "please the right"??? Pleasing the right was Trump campaign.
Campaigning with Cheneys, promising full support for a zionist genocide, backing off from universal healthcare and trans rights. Need I go on?
Considering that Trump won, that wasn't actually pleasing the right wasn't it?
But dems are free to go full in on these things and fail the second time.
I think it was pleasing enough to right-wing billionaires (sorry for the tautology) - both the campaign itself and the ultimate failure.
We're referring to the rhetoric that happens every single time the Democrats get a smidge of power. "We need to reach across the aisle", "It's time to let the healing begin" and my all time favorite, "impeachment is off the table."
THAT shit has to stop and we won't get it by re-electing establishment Democrats.
The last Dem to get a smidge of power for 2 years was Barack Obama and he passed the weakened ACA with it. He maintained his all-important legacy as a very white-seeming non-controversial black man.
People seem to have forgotten the only reason she was the candidate was because Biden dropped out and she was the VP.
She got practically no votes in the primaries.
To be completely fair, Biden dropped out after almost all of the primaries had happened. Harris didn't get many primary votes because the person she was replacing dropped out after the primaries.
She wouldn't have won any of the primaries though. Ive reminded my friends irl before that she ran in 2020 and dropped out really early because no one liked her campaign a lot of dem voter in 2024 were under the impression she made it a lot further in 2020 then she did because that was the only way that her campaign to cope with the fact that she wasn't that well liked and it was the only way that people could be hopeful leading up to the election.
Eh, I don't think comparing 2020 to 2024 is a fair comparison. In 2020 she was extremely disliked due to her political past and her general demeanor. In 2024 she had had several years out of the lime light and a concentrated effort to improve her image. If, from the get go, Biden had stepped out of the way, and the Democratic political machine had been behind her, I believe she would have had a better chance.
We're in a bit of the same situation now. Whoever is going to be the next candidate the party kind of needs to coalesce around now. They need to be having pre-primaries, they need to be publicaly building a candidate. If they wait until the primary season they will already be 3 years behind.
Eh I dont see a reason for anything like a pre primary. They just need to choose someone that the working and middle class will like. The issue with the dem party is that they have super votes that allow those with money to get more of a say in who is the dem candidate. That's a HUGE issue because it leads to these mediocre candidates being chosen that won't change anything. One of the big reasons why trump won was because the dems kept saying things are ok and that the status quo is fine but the issue is that it's not. people are not making enough money and the rich keep getting more money. Trump was able to lie and say that he would fix the broken system this led to a lot of people voting for him because he atleast is saying he wants to change the broken system. The dems just need to choose the person that is popular and wants to change things to improve the lives of the people. Literally if someone ran on a plan to give Medicare for all, break of mega corps, and raise taxes on the rich they would easily win because those are very popular ideas across the country. The issue is that the dems won't choose someone like that because their corporate donors and super voters will choose the boring person.
I agree with the statement about supervotes, but I think if Democrats wait until the primary to find out who is their go to candidate they will lose too much time in leading up to the election. The Democrats need to pick a successor now to begin laying into Trump and his campaign so that when we get to the primary they are already being attacked. Right now the GOP has 2 years to pump Trump or JD while Democrats need to be pumping their candidate.
How would this pre primary work? Would it still be a vote or would the dems establishment choose it? Just based off of how the dem establishment is currently wanting. I dont think its would be a good idea for the pre primary because if it's similar to how they are pushing Gaven Newsome then we will be in the same boat that we were in 2020 with a mid candidate that will only win because people are upset with trump not because people really want him
I don't know that there was enough time at that point. Wasn't it AUGUST when he lost the debate/his mind?
Get. The. FUCK. Out.
Don't come back. The country, or what's left of it, can't afford her. She's fine as a milquetoast corporatist, but she has proven she can't do it.
If the Democratics run Harris or New some I might actually lose my mind. have we learned nothing from the past decade?
absolutely not
Theres a bad idea
Yeah but Dems love those
Easier to fund raise AND don't have to actually do anything. Win win for them
Ok so NOW we are JUDGING ideas?
Liberals won't stop until they have judged every last one of us.
Idiot
Either there will be a socialist president in 2028 or democracy will be dissolved by 2036.
Sure doesn’t feel like a democracy.
Please no. I was excited for her last election but that failed and now I don't wanna hear from her ever again.
Are you shitting me that the dnc (or should I say the billionaires backing the dnc) can't find someone else???
It isn't that they can't, it is that they don't want to. Long as the money trough is topped off, the democratic leadership are content pigs.
So this means JD Vance will be president in 2028?
So sick of the US's neo liberals masquerading as left. A lot can change in a few years hopefully there will be enough change. In the end all that matters is if people wake up to the lies before it too late. It's incredible how bad it has to get before people wake up.
The MAGA movement is crumbling but only time will tell if it's enough. A lot of delusional neo liberals think things will just go back to normal if they get in office next term
The MAGA movement is crumbling but only time will tell if it’s enough. A lot of delusional neo liberals think things will just go back to normal if they get in office next term
Yes, it is terrifying to see, like watching the tide recede before a tsunami and being helpless to convince people to stop wandering out onto the exposed seafloor... while being condescended by those same people.
The MAGA movement is crumbling
Yep! Since 2015 at least!
I, personally, think that what Germans did to get corporate money out of government is miniscule compared to what Americans will have to do.
Yeah cause we want a former prosecutor to head up the ACAB crowd. Democratic party is shit.
Oh for fuck sakes! C'mon lady! Sacrifice! Let a new face do it! There's 300 million of us. I'm sure someone else can be better than you know who. Go do something else to help democracy. I'd vote Beyonce.
Who would be your alternative?
EDIT: if you say Hillary is your alternative then you're smoking crack. This is an important question because the Democatic Party is the most likely group to succeed, so who then would you vote for if you had to decide? Geriatric Sanders? Centrist Newsome? Unlikely to be elected AOC? There's a lot of people who could be candidates, but few who I feel confident could win.
I want the democrats to put forward a good slate of candidates, have them discuss issues in a reasonable and informative way, then have us vote on our favorite. There are people whose jobs are to know who would make a good candidate. Most people, myself included, don't have enough information to say who should run. I do think that most people can name a few who they don't want to run and I think Kamala and Hilary are both high on most people's lists.
Someone saying "please don't run Kamala" shouldn't mean they need to offer an alternative. That is the job of the democratic party.
I 100% agree, but in the world we live in it feels like there are no decent alternatives. It feels strange to live in a world where no one seems to be able to think of a good potential candidate and we're all just waiting for one to be shown to us.
I'll offer one, then. As a Coloradan, I'd vote for Joe Neguse.
Oh cool, I'll look into him. We need informed voters to start talking about candidates now rather than in 2027.
It would be great if the media could quit trying to push Newsom down our throats, too. He's not the absolute worst but I don't want him as president. How about we quit calling him the "front runner" until we've seen who else might want the job?
Pritzker. Relatively progressive. Pro union, pro building up housing, pro worker's rights, pro higher minimum wage, unrestrained in his support of lgbtq, and yet still Measured and budget conscious, which helps him be more palatable to the big stage.
I think he's the best possible option that still has a good chance to win.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll look into him!
I think AOC is highly electable. Good speaker, good positions, attractive, not old. Vs Kamala bad speaker bad positions moderately attractive, not old and Hilary moderate speaker, bad positions, ugly, old. Vs Newsome good speaker, bad positions, attractive, not old. Vs Republican field bad speaker, bad positions, likely ugly or unattractive, racist(positive for their base) likely not old.
I think AOC fires up the left and gets out the vote (most important Democrat quality), the moderate left and centrist independents votes for her over the right, the moderate right stays home (moreso than normal) and the far right goes Republican
Kamala bad speaker
Kamala had a LOT of issues. But her public speaking talent was not one of them.
I hate to say it, but 2008, 2016, and 2024 have left me unconvinced that Americans are ready for even a potential woman President. It's wrong, it's prejudiced, but there hasn't been sufficient evidence that American's will support a woman for president. Republican's predominantly seem opposed while Democrats are either unconvinced or insufficiently motivated. I think AOC could win her own state primary, but I'm not convinced she would beat Newsome or any male candidate in the conservative state primaries.
Hilary and Kamala didn't inspire the left AOC would.AOC could talk circles around Hilary and Kamala.
I think Pete Buttigieg is more likely to win than any of the women, sadly.
We will have an openly gay president before a woman
They were terrible candidates regardless of them being women. Nobody liked them. AOC is likeable if you don't hate women and will get young people to vote. I don't think there is any name or there right now that is likely to get more people to the polls than her.
Not Hilary either. Anyone. The neighbor Lady.
I was thinking of Marianne Williamson
Who would be your alternative?
Bring up a new face. Young 35y old dude with experience in law or administration. Start promoting him now, so he's well recognized by the time of next presidential elections.
The Governor of Pennsylvania, Shapiro. The Jewish thing is the only hurdle in this country and maybe not even given how the anti-semites are now super pro-Israel.
Hillary Clinton
So far it's Harris and Newsom. Cool. Cool cool cool.
No, I'm not worried at all. Who said I'm worried?
Ugh. Maybe Mark Kelly will run? Who knows
Imagine losing twice the orange shit heel. Like getting back up, looking in the mirror, taking full stock of all your pro cop and ideal stances and thinking "no I was on to something the first time. I'll make them see"
I can't anymore with this place. Release me
I love the take where the legal system is our enemy. If you want anarchy, follow McCandless.
So do you boil the boot leather first or just raw dog it
Don't go complaining when the police firebomb your neighborhood.
Judging by that comment alone and what you think anarchy is, the things I want would freak you the fuck out. You're not in my tax bracket, don't winge about anarchy to me.
If she's nominated, it's a fix. Classic authoritarian playbook: maintain the illusion of democracy by propping up an opponent that you aren't likely to lose to. Then, stuff the ballot boxes anyway.
Its been a fix....
The first part of that was Hillary Clinton's entire campaign strategy. None of the Republicans wanted him as their primary candidate.
No, you are all wrong here. Let her in, and tell her to be stubborn and stay in until the end, no matter what.
With any luck, she and Gavin will split the Clueless vote and there will be room for someone sane to sneak in there, in spite of the DNC....
2016 Republican primary vibes.
The fact she only pops up so occasionally, says basically nothing then goes back into hiding.. doesn't show she is going to do well with the voters that matter. She better get on the warpath and actually do something of consequence. But that will require a democrat with actual integrity. I doubt the oligarchy will all that.
What was the highest number she reached in the polling during 2020 primaries?
Afaik she has never won a single delegate in an actual primary.
She had to drop out before a single vote was cast. Oddly enough, Tulsi wrecked her Presidential run that year.
And vice presidents elected to president in the last 50 ish years... Bush sr. And Biden. Both lame duck 1 termers. Vegas odds says this is not a winning strategy. Plus how many times have the Dems tried to run a woman? America's politicis is a social backwater. Play to the crowd.
Cute that US still think they will have elections after the orange buffoon. November will be very interesting, and maybe an eye opener for the remaining septics: I'll say it here now, trump is a fascist, a pedophile, a narcissist, and a dictator. He will not leave. He will use putin's playbook. The rest of the world needs to wake up now and consider the US as an antagonist, same as Russia and China. I would be delighted to be wrong, wait and see I guess.
Let's say that he won't run for a third term.
JD Vance becomes POTUS.
Trump wouldn't accept being VP.
What position can he take within a cabinet, assuming that no one prosecutes him and throws him in a cell where he belongs?
He’s already looking to disenfranchise many tens of millions of voters if he’s unable to cancel the midterm elections wholesale.
I’m sure that if there ever will be elections again, they will be purely performative and with a foregone conclusion, just like how North Korea has “elections”.
you are not wrong. What many people are missing here is that Trump is currently the most powerful human being on earth and everyone outside his power circle is wasting their time if they think they can influence his decisions. He has routinely demonstrated the law does not apply to his government and may even run for 3rd term or outright, cancel the elections because "we are at war". He already replaced the president in Venezuela, and will do the same for Iran and Russia. China and India are actual paperweights with the illusion of a billion count human population each. That will not faze him.
I'd still take her over MAGA, any day.
Good for you, that is irrelevant because empty centrist, corporate politicians like her will never win against MAGA.
empty centrist, corporate politicians like her will never win against MAGA.
Biden did
Barely? It should have been a landslide and Biden was able to scrape his way into office as an old white guy DEI hire because of how catastrophically Trump dropped the ball on Covid.
And then he went on to destroy the democratic party base with his bribe-induced genocide support. Centrism was mistrusted before biden and now its reviled.
Biden won because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic. If another centrist Democrat with no vision is elected in 2028 than it's just a matter of time before another fascist is elected.
MAGA is bankrolled and directly entirely by corporate.
Yes, and so is the controlled opposition.
Democrats learned nothing from Clinton and Harris attempts of trying to ram candidates down voters throats.
Imagine you are so hated you are the runner up to Trump and then not having self realization and needing to get it reiterated to you at the expense of the well being of the entire country.
Yeah I knew Democrats were in on this shit but if they run Kamala in 2028 then they're 100% complicit. There's 0% chance she wins
The Democrats need to learn that they need someone that doesn't come off like a "party person" if they want to attract voters. Kamala could have had that, but her refusal to burn Biden for his failures in office while on the campaign trail the last time did a lot of harm to her chances of ever escaping that image to the average swing voter. She is no more electable to the Presidency now than Hillary Clinton.
"It's time for change!"
"What are you going to do?!"
"The SAME THING!"
"Woooo!!!"
Seriously, who strategized this thing?
Democratic establishment is too far up their own asshole huffing their own farts to every listen to us lowly members of the American electorate. They see as ignorant whiny losers for daring to be upset about a horrible economy where the bottom 90% of the population is losing ground.
And all their financial donors agree with them. Kamala is the DEI candidate of their social justice wet dreams. If only she was trans she'd be a Triple Hat diversity hire! They don't care that American public doesn't care about any of that and just wants a likable candidate that actually addresses their concerns about the economy.
Trump lied but he told people he would fix shit, and they voted him in for it. It's not hard, but Democrats simple refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the American electorates grievances that fuel who their vote for. But Kamala refused to acknowledge things were shit because it would be 'disloyal' to Joe Biden... and let's not forget his dipshittery in saying he would not run again and then he wasted half the campaign year doing so...
oh god no
Sometimes you take a step back and realize how crazy stuff is because of what's currently assumed. Like people here are already assuming Trump is gonna run. Which is wild because like, whether he even can is highly debatable from a legal standpoint, but we also know that he doesn't give a shit about the law and neither do his followers.
I just hope the Dems have a proper primary for once.
It's not debatable from a legal standpoint at all. He can't legally run. That's all.
And that's a problem how, exactly?
It's a problem when people act like there's some potential legality in him running, because no the fuck there is not?
Strictly speaking, does the law say he can't run, or can't be elected again?
If you're ineligible to be elected, you're ineligible to run.
You know how there's theory, and then there's practice?
Sorry, forgot to put sarcastic quote marks over "highly debatable"
I just hope the Dems have a proper primary for once.
What? Now is not the time, how dare you expect that!
To be fair, Trump has already said he spoke with Mike Johnson and agrees he cannot run for office. If Trump were to go for another term he already recognizes that he would have to use another means (such as the speaker of the house switcheroo).
Even more wild is they assume there's going to be a real election.
I won't be voting for her, but only because she isn't authentic or left enough. We need real change.
We have certainly, the question is whether our voices will be listened to and empowered or not... and that is much harder to be optimistic about.
The average person in the US I think has changed a lot, you can see it in the way that Trump didn't even try to sell the Iran War, people don't want it and will tear any excuse Trump or his bullshit administration tries to stick to up into shreds and so they see no point in even trying. That feels cynical but on the flipside it also exposes their desperation, the US public is not biting when it is supposed to be biting and as hopeless as we all feel right now that does mean something, it means something big is changing.
For some reason your use of the phrase ‘Iran war’ in this comment hit me all of a sudden. JFC, we’re at war with Iran folks. Like, just think about how fucked up that is. I mean I’ve been talking about it nonstop for days, but I don’t think I’ve noticed this phrase in use until now.
"I gave away the presidency to Trump, so I'm going to try it again"
I think both parties should split
Please do! But, let's have a completely fair primary with lots of other great candidates to choose amongst as well.
What, this doesn't spark joy?
Please do not come
Please don’t.
Hubris not serving be American people is the only reason why she would run. Sorry but by trying to jump the gun you ruined your prospects for life. Find another line of work.
Of course she will. That's the plan. They are a team, this is how they support their fascist buddies.
I'm not saying she should.
But the "I fucking told you so" campaign strategy might actually be somewhat effective for a certain percentage of swing voters.
assuming that fair elections are still a thing at that time i'd say she would be guaranteed the win.
which of course is exactly why they're bringing this Dem stooge back.
after all it is her turn
What do you mean fair elections? AIPAC would still get their puppet. Just from the other side of the aisle.
I'm not actually convinced that she actually lost the last one, with Musk's shenanigans and other jerry-rigging all over the electoral college.
But I generally don't bother dwelling on conspiracy theories. It is what it is, so we'll see what happens.
That strategy would be effective in pushing them toward candidates and parties that don't them swallow their ego and admit mistakes as a condition of support.
Fuck off Kamala. You failed to trump 2. You're the biggest and most impactful failure in the history of the usa.
No, that would be Trump. She's not far behind on the leader board though.
Jfc they really gonna make me vote for the pig sympathizer again?
Pick someone else in the primaries.
Well yeah
If she ends up winning the primary, he's gonna get a third term. Then we'll get obama again.
It's amazing how much we've already normalized the blatantly unconstitutional idea of Trump running again.
If he's still alive in 2028, they'll have Donald Trump Jr on the ballot, but still have rallies with him like they do now, and it will be obvious that Jr's dad is still pulling the strings to continue the grift
What are they gonna do, tell him no?
Blue states won't put him on the ballot; red states will. I have no idea what will happen after that, aside from giving it 50/50 odds that it devolves into civil war.
This is a not unheard of scenario regardless of who comes out of the DNC. Voter suppression efforts are pretty far wide spread rn. Hard to predict the landscape in 2028, but it doesn't look great right now
I'll never forget what they did to bernie.
I truly wish we would get some younger representatives across the board and term limits... but I know it will never happen.
My state fucking did it to him. Sent the super delegates; in what was generally a state with some Dem support, given the right circumstances and candidate, there is basically 0 hope for a Dem to come out now in a federal position.
So another billion dollars spent on a losing campaign?
Happens every 4 years...
I dont think the dems will get a billion this time.
nobody wants that tho
I don't get why people are saying, "no" in here. Let her run, we will get to check out all the options and decide in primaries. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Because the DNC will try to fuck over any potential progressives with her if she runs
Won't they try and do that with any candidate of their choice? Maybe we should just, I don't know, vote on it?
I guess you forgot what happened to Bernie.
Nope. This is a good example of the DNC always pushing who they want and that's my point. If it's not Harris it will be someone else. People need to vote in the primaries.
We're also seeing a shift in who people vote for and voter turnout (see NY and TX).
This is, unequivocally, the real answer.
Ultimately the DNC is the arbiter of candidates and they're never going to allow a candidate that rocks the status quo.
I'm not from the US but I can see how her running would also end up hindering any other more progressive candidates by dividing the voter pool, due to the crappy FPTP system the US has in place
Ah well, last week she gave her kiss of death to Crockett in the Dem Senate primary in TX. And I think Crockett, had she been nominated, would have gone on to lose in November...so all the better.
But it would be interesting to see how the numbers would differ without Harris' endorsement.
Crockett is doing great work already, in her district where we have reasonable hope she will stay in office.
A statewide run would be much more challenging.
I’m just going to say right now that I won’t vote for her, not even for supposed harm reduction purposes. Democrats have to do better.
You must struggle with evolution; and also pragmatism in general. True?
I’m just responding to the fact that never expecting democrats to actually field good candidates has cultivated a party that actively enables the fascist republicans. I have 40 years of evidence for this. As currently constituted, democrats only ever expect their electorate to cater to them. I’m not doing it anymore. The party needs to come to me. If that feels strange to you, or other democrats, I suggest you change your party name.
That's rather optimistic, that she assumes there will still be elections in the near future.
Americans are going to vote for Trump again anyways no matter who is the Democratic nominee. They'll fall for whatever particular issue that makes them think they'd rather have Trump than the Democratic nominee. Just like in 2024. Terminally stupid country in the last days of its empire.
he’s term limited
He's term limited from being elected. But election is not the only way in which a person can become president.
There is no constitutional requirement that the Speaker of the House be a member of Congress. After the 2028 election, the incoming Congress can elect Trump as the new speaker on January 6th, making him third in line for the next presidential term. They can then certify the presidential election.
If the incoming president and VP are not inaugurated on January 20th for whatever reason, or they resign immediately after the inauguration, Speaker Trump becomes president again.
Everyone loves a redemption arc.
Nope. Hate to say it, but the Democrats need to launch a white guy to the top of the ticket. Someone that the disaffected MAGA voters will be able to opt for, because even if they're getting sodomized by the Republican/Trumpist politics, they'd still choose bend over and spread their asscheeks rather than vote for a black woman.
Just no.
Kamala is an awful choice, but your reasoning is not supported by evidence.
Knock it off with the liberal apologia. Harris lost because of her shit policies, not her gender or race.
Yeah.. okay. Hate to bring it home, but her color WAS the deciding issue for tons of the right leaning registered Independent mouthbreathers I know and was working with at the time.
So, let's not play that Gaza or her support for Israel meant a damn thing to the morons that saw nothing more than a female version of Barack Obama on the ballot.
It's not just Democrats and Republicans that vote.
I propose having Mike Pence win the Democratic primary. He has all the demographic stuff covered, and the story is perfect: Once aligned with the GOP, he broke away and now sides with the Democrats to seize the Presidency from Trump. The Blue No Matter Who people will sail Pence through the primary and the general. It's the perfect plan!
This is deeply jaded, but it'd probably work.
There's a lot of people who don't know what a binary choice is.
She actually has a much better chance of winning next time, because she'll have 4 years' worth of "I fucking told you so" to back her up.
Still, it's not like there aren't better options...
Terrible reason. Bernie has had that since 2016 and it has done fuckall for his electibility.
Bernie is the perfect example of why a person with good ideals doesn't see wide spread success. I like Bernie, but in congress he gets almost nothing done. It's the difference between being ideologically correct vs being ideologically functional. Success in US politics revolves around either convincing or bullying your own party or your allies into compliance. Democrats and progressives rely on convincing while Republicans rely on bullying. Unfortunately one is more effective.
In 2005, Rolling Stone magazine called Sanders “The Amendment King”. He could get more roll-call amendments passed than any other congressman during the period since 1995.
As an independent, Sanders could form coalitions across party lines.
As a member of the Congress, Sanders sponsored 15 concurrent resolutions and 15 Senate resolutions. Of the ones he co-sponsored, 218 made it into law.
Doesn't seem like he has been totally ineffectual.
I'm just going to point to the AI here.
"Bernie Sanders has a low success rate in passing sponsored legislation, with only 3 of his 421 sponsored bills (0.7%) becoming law during his career. While he has a high volume of cosponsored bills, indicating a willingness to work with others, his legislative record is often described as having minimal impact on Capitol Hill compared to his peers. Key details regarding Sanders' legislative record and success rate:
Low Passing Rate: As of early 2020, only 0.7% of his sponsored bills became law, which is the second-lowest ratio for any current senator who has served across 10 or more sessions.
Average Passage Rate: His average for passing sponsored legislation through at least one chamber is 1.9%, the third-lowest overall among senators with 10+ sessions.
Cosponsorship Activity: Despite low passage rates for his own bills, Sanders has heavily cosponsored legislation, ranking in the 78th percentile for senators with over 10 years of service.
High Missed Vote Rate: From 1991 to 2026, GovTrack.us reports that Sanders missed 12.9% of roll call votes, significantly higher than the 2.8% median for senators.
Committee Action: In the 118th Congress, 9 of his bills made it past the committee stage for consideration.
Alternative Success Metrics: Some analysis, such as that from Brookings, suggests that while his direct legislative impact is low, he has been a strong proponent of reform, often acting as a "reform warrior" in his political career.
While he has not been highly successful in passing his own, original legislation into law, his career has been marked by a high volume of cosponsorships."
You want him to get shit done, you need to vote in more people that back his policy.
Were she to oppose, not back, Netanyahu's genociding, .. I think she'd be good.
But there won't be any 2028 elections, of course, because Trump's going to be removing all such "woke" democracy, this-year..
so this is just fantasy-indulging,
but as a thought-experiment, it's fine.
_ /\ _
You dumbfucks had your chance to avoid the paedophile murderer war criminal.
Suck it up and get over it. If you get any chance to change things, and at this rate I doubt it, do it you fuckjng retards. Stop throwing tantrums about problems you caused.