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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree that she’s not at all progressive, but she is Centrist, and that’s too progressive for the DNC. I suspect that Biden made the call to make her VP independent of the DNC leadership, given that he’s generally had his own circle of confidants and friends.
I don’t personally consider someone who is a centerist to be progressive at all. Maybe just me though. She is exactly as progressive as Biden which is why her messaging after Biden announced he was stepping down didn’t involve and real progressive moves other than some minor tax cuts and legalizing cannabis. She lost because she is just the woman version of Joe Biden. Not that she gets much say until she is elected, but she could have come out swinging a lot harder to the left instead of joining up with Liz Cheney who also isn’t known to be that progressive. She is exactly who the DNC wanted running, which is why they didn’t hold an abbreviated Democratic primary for 2024.