102
Democrats eye Harris 2028 presidential run as they devise political comeback
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
102 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10191 readers
189 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:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
She lost the first primary bc she had progressive ideas. The DNC wouldn’t allow that.
She lost the ~~first~~ only primary.
While Bernie certainly didn't win the primary, I would argue he was slightly more progressive and yet got farther than Harris. Please reconsider your position on that. I don't think the DNC did her any favors, but they certainly aren't what kept Harris from winning.
I’m saying that’s why she lost then. She was in a field of better progressives as well as the status quo rep.
She lost because she was progressive, but at the same time you're saying she lost because she wasn't actually progressive enough.
I didn’t say "more" I said, "better."
After you said she lost because she was progressive, and in the same comment where you say there were better progressives, implying if she had been more progressive she would have won.
If not please try explain.
Because she was neither.
The dnc was always going to push Biden liked they pushed Clinton.
She also didn’t win progressives bc there were better ones.
I’m done clarifying. Have a good day.
I understood what you were saying 🤷
You didn't clarify anything, especially not the incorrect point you were trying to make. I hope you have a more enlightened day.
She lost the first primary because she ran a terrible campaign. People forget, but there were rumors of poor management and staffers not getting paid right before she dropped out.
She lost the ~~first~~ only primary.
This. Her campaign was godawful, finances aside. She couldn't find a message and quickly fizzled. Historically, and I'll use the Reagan/Bush example, you want your closest runner-up. This also works for Nixon/Ford, though that wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill situation. But that's Watergate under the bridge.
Ford was never on the ticket, he was appointed after Agnew resigned. He's the only president to never be elected to either the presidency or vice presidency.
I was worried when I said that that I was wrong. I forgot about Agnew and the whole morass. One generally doesn't like to present a single data point. I was wrong. Thank you for clarifying.
That may have been a thing. Her platform was decent, though. She wasn’t as cool as Booker or progressive as Yang. She certainly didn’t have Bernie's appeal or recognition.
And here we see the problem with adopting slightly right of centre positions. She pleased no one. Obviously, her race and gender were not exactly the fallback plan.