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.
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.
Here you go:
She was never very progressive, which made her less appealing in an open primary like 2020 (to actual voters) than other options like Sanders
She was still too progressive for the DNC to back her, until Biden dropped and they were left with the prospect of a snap primary they couldn’t exercise control over, at which point they backed Harris running with a platform that was significantly less progressive than her 2020 primary platform
After Biden dropped out, if she had been more progressive, more voters would have backed her, but if she was more progressive the DNC would never have backed her. You need both the voters and the party to back a candidate for them to win. The DNC refusing to move leftwards towards voters is why they’ve lost 2/3 of the previous elections.
Yet her being a progressive was not what lost her the 2020 primary, contrary to this person’s original point. You just expounded on my point, thanks. At no point did she lose something because she was too progressive.
This ^ is what tacosanonymous said. I’m not sure where you are getting “lost something because she was too progressive” from that.
Literally from what they said
Too progressive for the DNC, for them to allow her to win. Not progressive enough for voters.
She was not progressive at all! I think the person was saying that she lost because she was too progressive as a misconception to why she was one of the first out in 2020.
She wasn’t too progressive for the DNC to put her second on the ticket, a heart attack from a very old man away from being president. That’s exactly why she was on the ticket. I am pretty sure she was one of the least progressive candidates, dropping out before 2020 even started.
Just a friendly reminder that anytime you’re using the second person in a nonidiomatic sense, you’re engaging in an ad hominem.
I’m not smart enough to know what that means.
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.