Summary
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, has suggested he may run for president in 2028.
Reflecting on the Democrats’ loss to Donald Trump and JD Vance, he admitted: “A large number of people did not believe we were fighting for them in the last election – and that’s the big disconnect.”
Walz said his life experience, rather than ambition, would guide his decision.
Though his VP campaign was marred by gaffes, he remains open to running if he feels prepared.
I’m not convinced there will be an election in 2028…
There won’t at the current trajectory. There won’t even be midterms.
I remember Republicans checking out on elections back in 2018 because they bought hard into the Trump “elections are rigged” propaganda. The GOP lost seven Senate seats that year as conservative turnout plunged.
I wonder if Democrats will make the same mistake in 2026.
No, I don’t think Democrats are ready to make new mistakes yet. They still won’t abandon their devotion to the old mistakes.
Not sure about rigged, but honestly, depending on how the next few years go, it may be straight up dangerous for non-republican Americans to vote. While that’s by no means a certainty, people should keep an eye on any electoral changes made in their state.
If Republicans experience a route like they suffered in 2018, it will likely be due to the mushy indie republican-when-its-convenient voters breaking ranks in droves, just like they did in prior Dem wave years. That’s what Harris was banking on in 2024 when she paraded around her pet RINOs Liz Cheney and Jeff Flake. She just failed to understand that these wishy-washy voters are chasing less war and less disruption and more protectionist economics, something Trump was able to dangle over their heads (twice!) to win the GOP primary / national election.
Republicans don’t really seem to get it, either. Which is why they think the midterm after a wave year is the perfect time to put Grade A psychos all over the down-ballots and end up losing statewide in Alabama of all places as a result.
The “we won’t be having any more elections” crowd is heavily invested in a theory that Republicans can get their own base to sit down, shut up, and follow orders. But the last eight years of Trump should be an indication of the exact opposite. The party is being lead by the base, which means the prior generation’s power brokers like the Bushs and Cheneys and Bloombergs no longer have a place in it.
This line of thinking has preserved whatever is left of my optimism. Let us hope my fellow Americans continue to function predictably.
That’s completely wishful and fantastical thinking. By midterms the base will be so propagandized again to just forget about the regime robbing them blind left and right. I want to believe it, but recent history has taught me otherwise.
By midterms the base will be so propagandized again to just forget about the regime robbing them blind left and right.
DOGE is currently lining up a big chunk of the Social Security Administration. There’s some speculation as to whether they’ll even be able to keep delivering checks in another few months. Onboarding new recipients will be functionally impossible.
Then you’ve got the seemingly routine instance of airplane collisions and accidents. Big historically conservative-friendly districts are losing whole swaths of their workforce. NASA is downsizing in Huntsville, Alabama and Galveston, Texas and Cape Canaveral, Florida. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
All the friendly Republican press didn’t save Congress in 2006 or 2018, and for good reason. You have a very different perspective on politics when you land on the unemployment line.
That said, if Dems fumble as hard as they did in 2002, its very possible they could hand the GOP a historic victory by disenchanting the entire liberal electorate with their cowardice and inaction.
Again, I want to believe, but recent history doesn’t provide that angle. During COVID there were people saying it was a government hoax as they were dying in the hospital. If they can be brainwashed to not believe their own fucking death, then nothing will change them.
I’m not talking about some of the moderates who don’t really mind Trump but don’t stay informed, by the way. I think some small percentage of these folks will be able to see the reality, just not in time.
Time to start over on Lemmy and use a VPN, sounds like…(?) been worrying about this kind of thing
I wonder if Democrats will make the same mistake in 2026.
i really, really fucking hope this doesnt happen, i’m going to fucking lose my shit if it does. Because unless things change, it’s not looking great for the trump midterms right now.
Shouldn’t be hard. All they have to say is “Remember the townhalls, and how they mocked you while you paid for them to make your lives worse? We’ll put it back.” They don’t even need to add anything, just try to rebuild. Anything would be a positive change when you’re sliding into the negative side of the scale (and in two years, it’ll be far far far to the left)
That makes no sense at all. 2018 was two years after Trump won in 2016, and he rarely claimed elections were rigged in 2016, because he won.
In 2020, however, he was gloating about how elections were rigged, and republicans did okay in the midterms later in 2022.
he rarely claimed elections were rigged in 2016, because he won.
He was highly outspoken in 2016 straight up until the elections closed, then did a number of interviews after the fact where he insisted he could have won in states like California and New York if the vote hadn’t been rigged against him. There was also a big wave of “RINOs are undermining the party!” discourse, particularly after McCain spiked the Senate vote on repealing Obamacare that lead to a ton of internal GOP drama.
In 2020, however, he was gloating about how elections were rigged, and republicans did okay in the midterms later in 2022.
The J6 riot was the product of four years of Republican discourse, insisting elections were rigged. Once Trump was out of office and banned from Twitter, his ability to amplify conspiracy theories was diminished. The Republican media machine was able to pivot back to a “We’re the majority! We’re going to flood the polls! Red Wave!” exuberance and away from the internalized defeatism post-2016.
There will, but it won’t be a fair one. They have “elections” in Russia, too.
There will absolutely be an election.
It will be a farce, a Russian election where there’s only one possibility to win.
If we’re not pitchforks in the street before then, I don’t hold much hope
Or maybe a Hungary-style election where the entire media landscape shills for the ruling class and people on social media are bombarded with misinformation and one-sided reporting.
sounds a lot like the last 12 years TBF
Sounds like you described the US process as well. May not be far from it now.
Certainly could never happen here, twice at least. /s
That’s close to what happened in 2024 tbh. Sites like Reddit, Instagram, and YouTube were heavily botted and full of bad faith actors to promote misinformation. Since there are no guardrails like BlueSky has for instance, the bots could show up early to every thread/post/video to set the narrative and then they’d be the last to reply before threads closed to get the final word in.
I believe the future depends on more Federated sites to become mainstream and for Federated sites to adopt the same moderation mechanisms used by BlueSky.
States run the elections, so I’m positive there will be one. But whether or not the results are respected… I’m not so confident in that.
I’m not confident the results in red states will be accurate to begin with.
There will be since elections are held at the state level. Many won’t be free or fair in the red states, but they’ll be good in the blue states.
If red states don’t hold elections, that’s fewer electoral college votes we need to win the presidency and we wouldn’t win in red states anyway.
Please, Texas and Florida. Oh, please, don’t hold elections. 🙏
The way I read it, electoral college votes are the one thing where individual states can somewhat easily cancel elections for President, as long as they do so before the election. States have broad discretion over the appointment of electors. All states currently appoint them based on the results of elections, but the rules around that are all set by State legislation, and can be reset by States as well. The only Federal requirement is that the rules don’t change after any election is held.
Prior Supreme Courts have ruled that things like the Equal Protection clause may be used to challenge any act where the legislature restricts voting rights once they have been granted. But who knows what this clown Court would make of that.
Congressional elections, on the other hand, must be held in order for those seats to be filled. So any state that unilaterally cancels elections across the board will be sending nobody to Congress (and likely any expired Senate terms as well). Some states may go the extra mile and cancel the election for President, but not for Congress. We’ll see how that turns out.
The one thing we have going for us is that Don’s dementia and age are going to increasingly make it difficult for him to hold his party together. And there is the chance one of those things will leave the GOP trying to field a new traitor to try and get the cult to consolidate around.
once he kicks the bucket, assuming they can’t find someone the republican base will support as fervently as trump, the entire party is done for, it will collapse into a blackhole of nothingness.
I’d like to believe that, I really would, but let’s be honest with ourselves. The current republicans (in leadership) aren’t stupid. They’ve gotten pretty decent at running with donald’s bullshit and spinning it. They also know that politics isn’t much different than sports teams for the vast majority of the voting public in america. They’ll not have trouble finding someone who is charismatic enough to spit verbal acid at opponents in a primary AND can be riled up against the demographic target of choice.
The only real challenge for them will be 1.) finding someone with donald’s ‘blessing’ or a connection to him to set it up as ‘taking over’ so the republican voters will find it so amazing, AND 2.) ensuring someone like musk doesn’t try to torpedo everything by using vast amounts of money to try to buy their way into the ring.
maybe, but you’re talking about finding someone who can win the graces of the people who like trump, who see trump as this historic figure. That’s a REALLY tall order. Even if you hemorrhage like 10% of your voter base, that’s enough to lose. If the republicans are smart they’re already working on grooming the next republican figurehead, but i doubt they are. Though they might end up playing their cards right, i’m not really convinced it’s a reliable determination to assume that they will find someone to replace trump, these things are just way too volatile.
Just like the dems. Who will we vote for then, the greens?
no, the dems, because literally who else are you going to vote for lmao. There is always a budding dem/left leaning candidate, we will never have that problem, we don’t play as aggressively on that.
because literally who else are you going to vote for lmao.
Well, I’ll leave the entry blank. And I dont agree that theres always a budding dem candidate. The party is sickly and captured by the donors, particularly aipac. There is no way it magically becomes uncaptured without losing elections. So thats what I’m working on.
protest voting is definitely an option, although i wish it listed actual numbers. Kind of ruins the point if it’s just worthless to do.
Losing elections to the republicans? You mean the party that most lefties accuse the dems of being in bed with? Seems like a bold strategy. Do nothing and, when you do end up doing something, make sure it’s something that doesn’t actually do anything.
Kind of ruins the point if it’s just worthless to do.
My vote and other voters like me made the point to the DNC that if they ignore the will of a large enough segment of their base, they will absolutely lose the election. If everyone thought like you did, the DNC would completely ignore the entirety of their base. They clearly operate from a completely amoral calculation these days. They dont care about much of anything. Not law, not human dignity. Nothing.
Even Russia has elections
Nah, there probably will. Whoever is taking control of the US really don’t care about MAGA’s and 3rd terms. They’ll just put another puppet there, the new way of doing things in post-capitalism still maintains and some people will continue to get increasingly very rich doesn’t matter who the prez is. We finally reached “the future”.
There will definitely be an attempt to eliminate or “postpone” them. I’m certain Trump is looking at Putin in power and other governments in a state of war without elections as inspiration.
The Harris campaign had to cover the governor’s tracks when he tripped up during a California fundraiser by stating that the constitutionally-mandated system used to select the president, otherwise known as the electoral college, “needs to go”.
How the hell is that a gaffe? It’s both the truth and exactly what people want to hear. Any lib who thinks like that needs to kindly keep their mouths shut for the next four years. This country needs radical change, the only choice you get is which one you want.
deleted by creator
Here, let me grab a sharpie and fix that.
The Harris campaign made a cowardly attempt to walk back the governor’s statements when he said during a California fundraiser that the broken election systems used for gerrymandering and enabling the double elections of Donald Trump, “needs to go”.
Just guessing, but it might be a gaffe because it could be skewed to sound like he doesn’t believe in democracy. Of course, this makes no sense because Trump has quite literally said that we might not need another election in four years.
A more careful statement might have been, “the electoral college needs to be replaced with a system where every citizen’s vote has the same magnitude.” If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy, I don’t know what is.
Edit: For you pedantic mathematicians, I’ll add that everyone’s vote should have the same magnitude, and that magnitude should be greater than zero.
The pearl-clutching Tone Police in the Democratic Party are nothing if not exhausting, that’s for sure.
The Republicans can and do say just about whatever the fuck they want, and that’s sanewashed, and overlooked, and brushed under the rug, sometimes even celebrated, but the tone police in the “liberal media” and the left, and the Democratic Party itself will be there, wagging-finger at the ready, if some Democrat misses a semicolon .
deleted by creator
i’m not even sure what that text is supposed to be referencing?
I assume it’s not literally the message itself, because that would be kind of broad. I’m guessing he just said it weirdly, and that bothered people, because of course it did.
Him calling the GOP weird was not a gaffe but the campaign made him walk away from that language because it might offend potential turncoats. The fact he is internalizing the criticism worries me.
My only “problem” with the weird-comments were that they were overused. While it is certainly true, and Waltz had every reason to call it out, supporters often kept repeating it in the context of “look how triggered Republicans are by this”. After a while it gave me the same vibe as people shoehorning “let’s go brandon” into every situation.
My only problem with the “weird” verbiage is that it was far too soft.
The GOP is far beyond “weird” and well into full-blown Fascist territory.
But we wouldn’t want to “alienate” anybody by speaking facts!
But the thing about the “weird” verbiage is that it pissed them off way more than the harder insults. Especially if you phrase the accusation correctly.
For example, here’s a good response to a MAGA shitting on trans children, “it’s really weird that you care so much about children’s genitals.”
It’s because they don’t have a defense for it. They can do mental gymnastics for the harder stuff pretty easily because those terms are in black and white. Weird is a very grey area term, and they have to explain why the behavior is normal.
They can do mental gymnastics for the harder stuff pretty easily because those terms are in black and white. Weird is a very grey area term, and they have to explain why the behavior is normal.
They also spend most of their time trying to argue that their political party is on the side of normal; so they find it very necessary to discuss at length how normal they are which only makes them look weirder.
It really was an effective line of attack. I guess that’s why it had to be jettisoned in favor of parading around with Liz Cheney.
Yeah, but they don’t care if you call them fascists. Calling them weird made them freak out, because not fitting in is what makes fascists target you next
They all think “if I were in charge of the world it would be great, and they’re all just like me! We just have to get rid of a few problems mucking up the works”
Weird works because if they were looked into even slightly, they’re creepy as hell. They’ve got all kinds of SA allegations, say creepy things they’ve been thinking about kids, and they go around accusing others of their kinks
They can shake off being called a Nazi, you could bring up their rape charges, but none of that matters
It’s vibes based, so you have to question their vibes before you can apply logic
The point was it was something you could say to someone in real life to let them know those political positions aren’t okay, without getting their defensiveness up. Just, “I dunno man that seems weird to me, want another beer?”
I guess.
Then again, I’m done “having a beer” with these cousin-fuckers, so
Yeah, but there’s a lot of people that were on the fence. And being social creatures we usually tend to float things with our friends to check the vibe. There’s no point in sharing a beer with a die hard MAGA supporter but your union buddy who is getting seduced by talks of lowering regulations?
After a while it gave me the same vibe as people shoehorning “let’s go brandon” into every situation.
Except that…worked?
One of the takeaways from the 2024 election is that if you have something that works, repetition is key for the idiot American electorate.
Yeah, interesting how the Harris campaign had all the momentum after the Waltz nomination, then pivoted back to neoliberal wonkiness and then crashed and burned again.
It was her perpetual problem too. She’d start out with energetic support for progressive policies, get momentum, and then a few days later (presumably after talking with advisors and donors) clarify that actually she didn’t mean it and what she really wanted was strictly limited neoliberalism. It’s why she failed in the 2020 primary and I wish she learned something from that.
Could she have given donors the middle finger and overcome lack of money to win through better policy?
deleted by creator
context of “look how triggered Republicans are by this”.
If you want to shake the cult’s faith in their cult leader, then yes, you want to trigger them. They’re triggered because they sense the loss of innate, automatic strongman support.
When you’re trying to get a political movement going, there’s no such thing as an overused slogan. The fact that it was getting used so much was evidence it was working, and part of that was because it got at the right in the same way that they try to other minorities
Tim Walz unleashed would have won this.
He was hamstrug by Harris. He’s likely the dem’s best choice for 2028.
So of course they’ll run Newsome or Shapiro or Hillary Clinton again because they’re a bunch of idiots.
And Harris was hamstrung by Biden.
She could have been better.
She is a cop. She dropped out in 15th place in the 2020 primary before she was embarrassed in her home state of California. They should have never ran her and that’s why they didn’t do a primary.
Hey check out this hotshot over here with a long term memory! No, didn’t you hear she ran a perfect campaign they just couldn’t get enough celebrity endorsements…
Some of us have a long enough memory to know that ozma’s whole schtick has been shitting exclusively on Democrats for like the last year. He’s not the guy you should look to for an unbiased opinion.
But they’re right. Harris did drop out of the primaries before they even started and she was unpopular in the polls the entire time.
She would in all likely hood not be on the ticket if it wasn’t for Bidens stubborn pride.
The one who kept warning for months that Biden would drop out, they’d put Harris in, and Trump would win again?
The one who got himself banned for explicitly saying all he wanted to do was post negative articles about Biden at an alarming rate.
Prosecutors are not cops.
I’m curious how you picture a society functioning without prosecutors. Please enlighten me.
Shit like this is why people don’t take the “defund the police” movement seriously.
She literally called herself the “Top Cop” of California… https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2016/user-clip-kamala-top-cop/4813155
“How dare you use her own words and political campaigns against her? That’s Russian propaganda!”
They did do a primary and Biden/Harris won. They had opposition even if you were unaware of it.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
It’s depressing how uninformed so many people are here of basic objective facts that are easily researched.
I’m not even sure how to respond to a lie that bold.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
No one is lying here. You seem to forget Dean Phillips ran against Biden. There was a primary.
Why are some on this site so aggressive while being so poorly informed?
She was the 4th most progressive candidate still in the 2020, solidly mid of the primary field, with some really terrible candidates behind her, and some really good candidates ahead of her.
I think she could have been the best president since Carter, but she certainly didnt run like it.
But again, none of this really matters.
Or she could have not played this game, that she willfully engaged in. Harris is the epitome of a career politician that rose through the ranks by doing what the party elites wanted her to do.
Once she was announced candidate, she had all the options to go for her own platform and grow a spine, if she has one. Also that is a quality that is crucial in a president, who wants to lead the supposedly most powerful country on earth.
And this shows, what the DNC wants. They dont want a strong leader. They want a puppet they can control. This is also why they were more than happy to have Biden go for another 4 years, not despite, but because of his declining mental state making him a great puppet.
I half agree. I think the Biden campaign hamstrung her more, than she hamstrung herself, but what do I know, and its all a bit silly. Her campaign is over in any case.
deleted by creator
Yeah, they would have blamed all the inflation on our first woman president and used it to denounce women for another half a century. If she helped Israel she would have been called out for Genocide just the same. If she didn’t she would have been called weak and emotional, unfit to be president.
Really it was a no win situation for her.
Edit: Fairly sure instead of Genocide Joe they would have called her Obamala Kamala.
And she chose not to.
The Democratic Party is finished, just like the GOP.
I saw a video of him sitting down to have an earnest conversation with hardcore Trump farmers and they left liking him a lot. He’s got that “common sense” Midwestern energy on lock and I can see him gaining a lot of ground with the blue collar and rural folks because of it.
If he has pro-hunting gun views like Bernie, he’ll be an amazing pick.
I think he hunts himself. Didn’t he say that during the campaign with Harris?
Yep. I remember a time when the Beltway insiders were acting like Amy Klobuchar was a rising star or some such, LOL.
Ah, Klobuchar. She is the prize senator from the DFL-- their only Sr Senator. She more or less runs it. The same Klobachar who threw out every single police misconduct case given to her when she was a county prosecutor, including the murder of George Floyd by officer Derek Chauvin. She just let him walk because he was a cop.
Running Hillary again
The fact that this is somewhat believable is so stupid
Pretty much any reasonable person unleashed by the Democratic party would have won.
No. Run AOC
Muricans won’t show up to elect a woman as president and y’all need to figure this out.
I love AOC but if she ran as president you’re gonna see exactly what happened the last two times a woman ran.
Gotta be realistic. It’s a shitty reality but it is the reality we live in.
Walz is a good candidate with a history of helping his citizens. AOC is a firecracker for sure, but the public isn’t going to elect a woman of color. They just aren’t.
Clinton was old guard. Harris was more or less trying to be a continuance of the same damn thing. I’d like AOC to at least be on the primary ballot.
I would too. I like her. A lot.
I just don’t think she would have as good a chance as we all wish she could.
Make no mistake, I would LOVE to be wrong here, I would love to think the Murican people have evolved enough to realize that a woman in charge would probably be in our best interest, I just don’t see it happening. At least not in 2028
I give exactly zero fucks that she’s a woman. I don’t think a woman in charge would be in our best interest. I don’t think a man in charge would be in our best interest.
We need a leader who has the actual ability to evaluate the system, figure out what’s broken with EVIDENCE, and can articulate it.
That’s you. You are not everyone
I don’t have a problem with it, either.
We are not the general public
Harris and Clinton are both hardcore establishment neolibs. Clinton had Epstein murdered in his cell to cover the rampant sex trafficking crimes of the elites, and Harris campaigned with the Cheneys and thought it was smart politics. It’s not their gender that turned people off, voters just didn’t want to show up for another corporate robot. AOC could be remarkably different here.
Clinton had Epstein murdered in his cell to cover
And how did she do that when his murder happened in a federal prison when trump was president, and the Department of Justice was run by William Barr?
I dunno, called Trump and asked? He was a regular client too after all.
Because she has such a wonderful relationship with him
I assure you Trump considers Hillary one of “his own” much more so than any maga hat wearing rube.
Anyway, this could all be cleared up if the radically transparent Trump admin would release the missing footage from inside the prison that night, and also all the remaining evidence on Epstein beyond flight logs we already knew of in ‘22. I’m sure they will do that approximately never.
We are living in some bonkers logic if you think Trump and Hilary have ever worked together on anything.
Even if those two had that kind of relationship where he would do her a favor, if he was also ‘a client’ of Epstein’s, why would Clinton need to ask trump to do something that he already wants to do?
If you think gender had nothing to do with it I’ve got some baaaaaad news for you, my friend.
Also, saying Hilary had Epstein murdered in his cell is a magnificent stretch, since there are literally hundreds of scenarios that could have led to his death. An unsubstantiated conspiracy theory didn’t hurt Hilary’s campaign, especially since Epstein was still alive at that point.
Are Americans tired of corporate shills? Certainly. Do we still have a severe misogyny problem? Most definitely. To say otherwise is just silly.
Three of the seven swing states Harris lost elected female senators. This is just a bullshit excuse to excuse Harris’s shitty campaign, because “the Democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed”
Don’t put words in my mouth. Stand on your own, and don’t tell me what my motivations are concerning why I draw my conclusions unless you have evidence to back it up
Harris ran an extremely imperfect campaign, I fucking hate the fact that the Democrats are the only other option we have, and a senator is a LONG way off from the leader of the country.
Huge. Fucking. Difference.
and a senator is a LONG way off from the leader of the country.
I love how this insanity is always what y’all turn to when confronted with direct evidence that you’re wrong. The guy who determines who to vote for exclusively based on gender, but only with the presidency, and is perfectly fine with evaluating women fairly in all other top government positions.
It’s just a way to arbitrarily limit the dataset to like two points in order to draw whatever conclusion you want from it. It’s difficult to imagine any possible world in which we have stronger evidence that Harris did not lose because of sexism than the one we live in.
But I understand that, as I said, it’s not about reason but fulfilling a psychological and rhetorical need. You’re not fooling me with this, “Actually, I’m super critical of Harris” in one breath and “she’s 100% my ideal pick” in another, it’s just a motte and bailey.
Someone is definitely coming to conclusions they need in this conversation.
Enjoy that.
I honestly don’t think it’s gender bias, just that they didn’t represent a change from the status quo which is essential in almost every presidential election. Could be wrong though, certainly a lot of shitheels crawling out of the woodwork these days.
She’s smart, capable, (imo) gorgeous and aggressive in her outlooks. This is threatening to a LOT of men and women alike in our society.
As much as many hate to admit, misogyny is a problem in both left and right wing circles.
Let me make this clear, she would 100% be my optimal choice for a presidential pick. I honestly believe she would be the best person for the job.
I’m also unfortunately keenly aware of how far we have to go when it comes to overcoming the severely deep rooted hatred of women a lot of our citizens (on both spectrums) have.
It sucks. Hard. But it IS a very real hurdle.
Then primary her.
I’m down.
I don’t think it will happen because
A) she’s a woman and they’ve tried that twice already
And more importantly B) she has said many times she doesn’t agree with a lot of the democratic party’s policies. She has beliefs that would undoubtedly vibe with a ton of voters but there’s been a very obvious pattern of both parties only primary-ing “fly right” candidates.
I think Bernie scared the crap out of them and they don’t want a repeat of that. Heaven forbid we get a candidate actually for the people!
Called this. “Harris lost because she’s a woman of color” was always a preemptive excuse for shutting out AOC.
The party is holding back women in order to hamstring one person, and it’s gross.
It wasn’t the singular reason she lost.
There were many.
But it IS a factor, an ugly one but one people seriously need to come to terms with.
But apparently I hate AOC for pointing this out
It’s not about the gender at all. Dems don’t seem to care about that. They care about having a reason to get off the couch. The only time Republicans win is when Dems can’t be bothered to get their asses moving.
What matters is having someone exciting enough to get the Dems to show up to the booth. Neither Hillary nor Kamala brought fresh energy or anything exciting except a continuation of the status quo establishment.
Please, no Tim Waltz either. I love the guy but my god, we need something fresh besides another sweet grandpa on the ballot.
Please, democrats. No. We have to do better. Biden barely slid by in 2020. Ffs. No more sweet grandpa’s scuffling around the debate stage.
We don’t “run” candidates. If you want someone else to run you need to speak with them.
Sorry if this seems pedantic but I’m getting tired of the language that suggests there’s some sort of cabal deciding who does or does not run.
The reason a lot of people think that way, is that any truly progressive candidate isn’t backed by the DNC.
Also, very recently, AOC was denied a seat at the table for a dying, cancer ridden old white guy. Granted, it wasn’t a spot in an election, but her own party looked the other way for a leadership role.
It’s worse than that, the DNC will pour millions into establishment campaigns to crush any progressive primary challengers.
Perfect example - we could have had a wonderful progressive win in Texas, Jessica Cisneros, a few years back. Instead Pelosi stepped in with millions to back Henry Cuellar, who went on to vote with republicans like 95% of the time.
Time after time this happens, and frankly it has completely turned me off to the idea that the democrat party can be “fixed.” The corruption is too endemic, we need to start fresh with a new leftist party to have any hope of meaningful representation in Washington.
What does committee seats have to do with running for office?
It speaks to who party leadership wants wielding power.
Yeah, but committee seats are where the establishment has explicit power. It’s easy to connect establishment whims with that very same establishment electing their choice. It’s a huge stretch to extend that to them dictating the votes of millions of people.
Or it speaks to the “norms” that Democrats slavishly adhere to.
AOC is relatively a junior member of Congress. I disagree with the “norms” nonsense in this day and age but the point is that not every action has a deeper meaning and those who keep parroting this belief have clearly never worked with a large number of people before.
It’s a litmus test for bigger things.
you’re right, we didin’t want hillary, the cabal wanted her, we wanted bernie, the cabal wanted harris, we wanted dean, the cabal said his whoop was too much…don’t be this naive dan
There was a primary. Bernie didn’t win the primary. The numbers were not there in any supportable way. Bernie had a nice lead in the beginning with early states like, I dunno, Vermont, but he didn’t pull in the votes.
Stop spreading disinformation.
I wanted Bernie, but the primary shows that, no, the US populace didn’t want him.
The primary was decided long before most voters get a chance to vote. Our bullshit staggered primaries disenfranchise most of the country.
While I understand your frustration, you could always try to get your state to primary as soon as Iowa. By canvassing and working within the local election system.
Oh, and fight for ranked choice voting, too.
We also didn’t want Hilary and got Obama. The cabal isn’t all powerful.
They weren’t all powerful. I’d highly recommend reading up on how the Clintons captured the DNC after Obama. They very clearly did not want him, and made sure that something like him couldn’t happen again.
If the DNC was that powerful Bernie wouldn’t have won any states. And it’s not like we’re seeing polling (even progressively aligned polling) with 65% for Bernie and then somehow getting Biden. He was in the 30-40% range the whole time and then got 30-40% of the vote.
The DNC will tilt the scales in favor of the centrist establishment, but they don’t dictate the result and saying they do is just a recipe for progressives to give up and check out rather than stay in the fight.
if the DNC was the powerful Bernie wouldn’t have won any states.
Exactly. If you go back to my original comment, all I said is that AOC needs to run if she wants to run. There’s no one picking the people who are on the ballot. If that were the case, the DNC would have blocked Bernie and Williamson. But they didn’t.
People run for office, at all levels. No one is deciding to “run candidates” like we’re choosing race horses to field for the day.
they don’t dictate the result and saying they do is just a recipe for progressives to give up and check out rather than stay in the fight.
Something keeps telling me that this is the goal of all the DNC Boogeyman talk.
17 years is a long time.
Which makes it less of a cabal and more of a group of people who have different opinions than some of us.
What’s the difference, besides the obvious skin color?
You think the only difference between Clinton and Obama is their “obvious” skin color? Wow.
Policy-wise, I don’t think there’s much difference there. We didn’t get to see with Hillary in office though, but I suspect things would have been run much the same way, by almost all the same people, had she won.
One difference, germane to the topic and not related to anyone’s skin color, is that the people actually wanted Obama.
It’s not a cabal, just plain old corruption. Harris was anointed when instead we could have had a contested primary just before the DNC to excite voters. Hillary colluded with Debbie Wasserman Schultz to steal the nomination from Bernie.
-
When was the extra bonus primary supposed to happen? People demanded that Biden step down while the rest of us said, “what’s your plan for when the front runner steps down?” Everyone ignored us yet immediately pivoted to this anointment narrative which is bullshit. The best we had was the delegates we elected in the original primaries making the best decision they could. As a bonus, the only other people running were shit-shows in their own right. Williamson or Phillips? That’s who you preferred?
-
It’s not collusion for the DNC to work with Democrats by definition. The DNC felt like Clinton was the best representative for the coalition. Bernie is an independent and as such literally not part of the party. Why would the party do anything other than support the front runner from the party.
All of these organizations are a loose, messy, group of humans and their actions can easily be explained as such. Stop believing Russian propaganda about back room deals and cabals.
-
That’s my first choice, personally, and if she wins the primaries, that’d be awesome.
Otherwise, I could still get pretty hyped about a Walz/AOC ticket, which would pave a more conventional path to a 2032 AOC presidential run.
Fuckin should have been the nominee in the first place - him or Sanders.
Give me AOC or Bernie.
Bold of him to assume there will be elections in 2028.
Thinking there is going to be a real election in 2028 is the most optimistic thing I’ve heard in a while.
It’s cute that he thinks there will be an election in 2028, or ever again, for that matter.
Walz was great in 2024. He had enthusiasm and actually answered the interviewers’ questions. I would have preferred the symbolic victory of a black woman president, but I like Walz better as an individual person. I think he could have won if he’d been the presidential candidate. Well, Harris won too, but I mean he could have won even with the voter suppression stealing all those democratic votes.
President Walz and Vice President Cortez is the future we need. But probably not the future we’ll get.
deleted by creator
Okay.
I love this response.
Just for shits and giggles, I’ll try giving an actual argument.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton was right. It was her turn. She won the popular vote. I hate everything about that woman. I hate that she’s part of a dynasty, I hate that she rigged the primaries, I hate that her campaign donated money to Trump because they thought radicalising the right would lead to an easy win.
But she was right. The people did want a woman president, and that’s what they voted for. Walz is a really nice, genial guy. I like him. If he were a woman, I think he’d be a different person, or he’d not be a politician. Because to be a woman in the heart of the patriarchy, you need to be strong. You have to have unbreakable armour with no cracks. If the sexist system is challenged, then maybe the next woman president can be a nice person like Walz. But if we keep on having this system where women have to fight to be taken seriously and then aren’t liked for being fighters, then we’re never gonna have equality.
I don’t really care all that much about how good Harris is with a spreadsheet. Her debate and interview performance is important to me in a primary, not in a presidential election. At that point, I’m thinking about the future. About the girls who are going to become women in government. I want them to have more role models. I care way more about that than if Harris is nice, or if her budget plan is perfect.
I think Harris can be what America needs better than Walz can. Personality is only important in an election, symbolism is important in the white house.
I also love this response.
Thank you!
Removed by mod
Are we playing the accuse people of having political views they don’t have game? Okay okay! My turn!
You’re a posadist. You want to encourage global nuclear war so society will collapse and communist aliens will save us. And I think your ideology is silly and look down on you for following it!
Removed by mod
It isn’t healthy to wish murder upon those who disagree with you about a military conflict they aren’t involved in.
Removed by mod
*Medicine
probably. Stupid brits stole words
How dare you say those things about my mother? I’ll have you know the chemical number for carbon is 6. You’re a fool for believing that vaccines cause autism.
Autism cause vaccine
Why are you bringing up her race when it isn’t a relevant factor here?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
He was VP. His espoused policy was effectively supporting Harris’. If you look at his record in MN and actually listen to his statements, his native policy positions become pretty clear. I don’t know when your day was, but people have been as politically illiterate as you since the fucking oongaboonga times.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/09/election-tim-walz-electoral-college
I think all of us know, the electoral college needs to go. We need a national popular vote.
It’s cute that they think there’s gonna be another election.
I’d vote for him, given that we’re still allowed to vote.
He’s got the stink of Biden/Harris on him, but he’s got four years to wash that off.
Let’s see if he does, or if he thinks cozeying up to establishment Dems is the ticket to victory.
Personally, I’m hoping Zelensky will run for US president after strong Dien in Ukraine. You might be thinking that someone from another country can’t be president. Well… looks at current situation in White House At least this one would be elected.
