Politics

10192 readers

63 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:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

remington@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

113

Democrats eye Harris 2028 presidential run as they devise political comeback (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 days ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

131 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] socsa@piefed.social 5 points 5 days ago (1 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.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

its always going to be an issue though because its not as democratic. If the trolling thing were so easy the democrats have more ability to do that and it does not happen. What would be great is if the party went to an auto runoff / ranked choice for primaries.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

RCV is the only solution. But guess who has to approve that?

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 4 days ago

for primaries the parties setup their ballots. It should just be a matter for the democratic commitee doing it.