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

Politics

10191 readers
271 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I really want us to stop throwing the same candidates back at the wall over and over.

I do think Harris got the short end of the stick, elections internationally show a significant "we'll take the other guy" vote (regardless of who the other guy is). I wish the people voting paid a bit more attention to who "the other guy" is and what they're actually proposing.

I don't have nearly this distaste for the party's platform that you do; I actually really like it ... we just need to get enough people in office that they can actually legislate without having to caucus with Republicans or on the edge Democrats.

Honestly though, I think Sanders or AOC would get obliterated. They're beloved by progressives but this country is just not a country of progressives. I think the last election showed undeniably that the economy rules when it comes to US elections.

Edit: intentionally -> internationally (dumb phone)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

GOPers are always historically worse for the economy.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, but they're way better at marketing that they're good for the economy. This election was lost (I'm convinced anyways) on the grounds that too many people thought Trump would be good for the economy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

OK, what's their platform? Because if you've seen one recently, I'm willing to drive to find it.

We need full-on systemic change, not just saying we'll be nicer than Trump. If we have an election in '28, that's not going to hold a lot of water. This is FDR shit time, not saying oligarchs should totally have the power they've amassed, and maybe I can get an extra $5.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If we do have a 28 election, surely they'll have a primary and not just run whoever the leadership picks and proceed to campaign on our civic duty to prevent fascism (every 4 years)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

My speculation is there will be a cooling off period for voting. I'm often wrong.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (6 children)

I hate saying it but I don't think a woman can win. There's too many patriarchial fucks in this country that might vote democrat, but not for a woman.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I recognize this as a factor but I don't personally think it's a result changing factor except in the closest races. I think it's because the 2 women that have had the closest opportunity have positioned themselves as defenders of the status quo when the people clearly want change.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago

Frankly, this was always going to be where a two-party system would end up. Citizens United simply accelerated things. What the people want is irrelevant to the ruling class. I didn't want to be homeless for the past year, and yet here we are.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Disgusting but true. Most voters won’t look at policy; they just want the illusion of a “strong man”.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

I hate the democrats sooooooooo much. They are just gods damn out of touch.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I rwad the article and honestly I kinda wish I didn't. This is stupid.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

It's not stupid so much as the definition of insanity. But oligarchs gotta oligarch.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

hahahaha! god their even more stupid than I thought. maybe they should go look for other candidates. Seems like half the country doesn't want a women as president. They sure as heck don't want a person of color either.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Nah, the bigot vote isn't nearly as important as the fact that people are sick of establishment politicians. People want change and they see that in Trump but not in Harris.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gender or race had nothing to do with her losing, she's a right wing POS posing as a progressive

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Alternate take: She was told to move to the right by advisors. Politics is nasty business.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cops are always right wing

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

and AGs are not cops. Stop repeating the propaganda designed for morons to repeat ad nauseum

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

She locked up people, she was a fucking cop

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You have quite the hole in your understanding of how this system works. No.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

The editor in me has so much to say about that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We do not need Sanders or AOC, they are both party sheepdogs whose sole function is to keep disenfranchised voters rounded up in the party with the illusion of they stick around long enough they will have a seat at the table.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Correct. Doesn't mean Sanders was wrong or couldn't have wide appeal. Dude's a fucking independent. So, no financial backing. Follow the money, said everyone, especially W. Mark Felt. He had the opportunity to speak to the working class in the general, and we simply couldn't have that. What was he supposed to do? Run in the GOP primary or be as rich as Perot?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›