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

Politics

10191 readers
278 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
[–] Didros@beehaw.org 15 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

More CEO's will die until moral improves.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 10 points 16 hours ago

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

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 hours ago

.....

Don't.

[–] knokelmaat@beehaw.org 18 points 18 hours 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 14 points 18 hours ago (2 children)
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Nah. I was optimistic for her at first too, but she's been a disappointment really. I would say at a minimum she has gotten less radical with time, and votes like the rest of the neoliberals in the party.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe I have rose-tinted glasses. What's recently changed? (I've not been in a newsroom for far too long.)

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

Recently? Her vote in favor of a bullshit definition of antisemitism, and I saw an article yesterday about her pledging to change her 'rebel ways' to fit in better with the dem party line (meaning no longer support primary challenges to incumbents)-- and then Pelosi passed her over in favor of another decrepit dinosaur for a spot on the oversight committee.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 8 points 18 hours ago (1 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.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You might be right but it’s worth a shot. I’m not sure who we’ve got that’s a better option at this point.

Tim Walz? I mean, he's another old white man but he is fairly progressive and he won't quite be at retirement age yet by next election. Plus people loved him and what he had to say before the Harris campaign started muzzling him.

[–] 01011@monero.town 19 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Didn't learn the first time around, huh?

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 13 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours 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."

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 11 hours ago

Thoughts and prayers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 15 points 20 hours 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".

Didn't she run basically the most well funded campaign ever? How is there still campaign debt?

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 8 points 19 hours 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.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 13 hours ago

She could definitely win as governor I think. President is a long shot.

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 22 hours ago

And the ratchet clicks like three full rotations

[–] ErsatzCoalButter@beehaw.org 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I like OP's opinions because we're roughly aligned toward the same political ideals but he's just a touch more invested and less cynical.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 4 points 15 hours ago

Less cynical? That's my first laugh of the day. 🤣 With apologies to Humperdinck, try running a newsroom sometime.

[–] 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Or you could learn any kind of lesson at all and run a candidate that's actually worth being enthusiastic about instead of a centrist who's still going to be seen as the second coming of Stalin by the right.

[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 10 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

youre right, but choose a candidate because theyre good, not someone based on how the right will respond. Literally any candidate is going to be portrayed as Stalin by the right.

[–] 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I said that because they're picking centrist candidates as a fig leaf that's just going to get shit on anyway. It's time to start putting actual leftists in office, not only because they should be there but because this "strategy" of trying to bridge the gap with modern day McCarthiests is stupid.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 1 day ago (16 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 (16 replies)
[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 day 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 19 points 1 day 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)
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 13 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] socsa@piefed.social 4 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

After 2016, the DNC already halved their influence. I'd argue they are a necessary evil to prevent various scenarios where bad actors try to hijack a primary.

But more generally, the entire point of a political party is to express political preferences via a platform, and to back candidates which support that platform. I don't really understand this idea otherwise... if a dozen Republicans decided to run as democrats to "troll" the primary, you'd want the party to step in, right?

In 2008 Obama was the outsider candidate but he was actually popular enough that the party had no choice but to back him in the end. That's how the process is supposed to work.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›