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

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

115

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

138 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

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 21 points 5 days ago (1 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.

[–] Banzai51@midwest.social 5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I love how people act like Bernie wasn't out voted.

[–] doctordevice@lemmy.ca 37 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I love how people act like the end result of a highly manipulated primary somehow means the manipulation didn't happen.

This is 2024, we've now had three primaries in a row where the Democratic Party employed different tactics to push their favored milquetoast neoliberal to the seat. They cleared the field, smeared the opposition, and refused debates to push Hillary. They flooded the field, continued their smearing, and then collectively backed out to prop up boring old Biden in exchange for cabinet or VP positions, and then this last time around they functionally skipped the primary entirely.

Twice that has resulted in Trump winning. 33% is a failing grade.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 5 points 5 days ago

Functionally? They were explicit. "Shut up, plebs; we've got this."

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

He was, but it wasn't without Hillary controlling the DNC to weigh everything against him, including by using the funds that were meant to go to whoever was the elected candidate, during the primary. But don't take my word for that, that's straight from Donna Brazile, who became head of the DNC at the end of the 2016 election cycle: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 13 points 5 days ago

Easy enough to make it look that way with the full might of the DNC making sure he doesn't win. Do you really think voters matter to them?