Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive
What are they talking about
How odd…a candidate that seems to give a shit about us is leading.
We generally need like 50 more AOC’s please.
How?
Good, carry on AOC!
genuinely she’s the only worthwhile candidate I can imagine. I really hope she does it.
Well her or Bernie. But… you know, age and all.
I’d still vote for Bernie, but I don’t think he wants to run again. I’d also vote for Sen. Warren.
I generally don’t (think I) vote based on demographics. I am more interested in platform (primarily) and past performance (secondarily).
Yeah no one would vote for an old guy
He was pushing it the last time he ran
I agree but I heard him in a recent interview and man is it wild how much sharper he is than Biden and Trump
Hey, I’d still vote for him… he’s proof that it isn’t an age problem when it comes to understanding today’s needs.
He is way smarter than Trump (low bar) and has much better instincts than Biden (low bar), but time is a bitch. The presidency is a 4 year assignment and the next term starts in 2.5 years.
Trying not to idolize any politicians but I think he’s too good a person to run at his age. I’d be surprised if he did it. Look what Ruth Ginsberg did.
I’m consistently surprised at how differently people can behave at their ages. We sometimes have someone come in and look like they’re struggling to think and function and they’ll be 50, and then someone else comes in looking dapper and fit and even attractive and they’ll be like 85.
If she throws her hat into the ring I fully expect the DNC to sabotage her at every opportunity.
They will destroy her, she’s worse than Bernie because she’s not in her 80s, so they will sabotage her in every way possible. It’s almost as if their entire scam depends on it keeping people like her out of office. They will at least be sure to keep her out of any leadership role.
I’d love to be wrong, as an Independent I will vote for her over any other person serving in office now. At least she’s held an actual job.
The Democratic party is a private institution and won’t be swayed by anything as silly as votes.
They’ll play nice and keep it on the down low and then pull some Obaman, secret, backroom Super-Tuesday fuckery to steal the momentum and likely nomination from
SandersAOC and give it to a center-right, corporatist shill like Buttgiggle or Shamala.One party state where everyone has to get through the republican primaries? Big problem!
Two party state where everyone reasonable has to get through democratic primaries? Totally cool, totally legal.
Super excited to watch the blue conservatives show us how to really get that incremental change when there is a one party system. Ready to take notes!
Jefferies will never recover from the AIPAC Shakur nickname. Absolutely wrecked him.
Meanwhile, we all want AOC and Bernie. If Bernie wants to VP, I’m all in.
I’d also vote for Bernie (VP or Pres.), still. But, I think there are younger progressives that could fill the role quite well.
I’d even take someone more centrist for the VP role, since that might make it easier for them to attract (Super)PAC monies.
Yeah, there has to be someone out there who is presidential grade and not a total asshole or a party bitch. You know like “we’ll raise your taxes to build schools, but we’ll raise them triple to billionaires” vs “what schools? You look Hispanic we’ll send you to Honduras but after a 3 year sentence”.
He’s too old.
Yeah, just let him be VP for as long as he is useful. If hr wants, I’d vote. But better someone else like AOC who can look out for the present and future of our country. There have to be others like Bernie who can do good for us and not start wars.
He can be in the cabinet, but he’s too old to even be the VP.
i dont care about his age, but his position on Palestine has always been weak and shameful. im not an AOC head, but im hoping for her at this point too.
I have zero hope she’ll win the primary, but I’d bet money she’d win the general if she got to it. The next problem after that though is if she ends up being president in 2028, she’ll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.
We’d see her win and the american left would get the largest blackpill ever as she gets fucked over and gets barely anything done, is blamed, and then we get Cyber-Trump in 2032.
AOC vs Rubio, you’re getting someone of Hispanic heritage whether you like it or not!
lol … what is this comment?
I love her but I would rather to have her remain in legislative branch. She does amazing works in committees and more. She can do more for goods in legislative branch (years) than she would in executive 4-8 years plus being resisted by propaganda).
she’ll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.
Using the Trump precedence, she can ignore Congress and SCOTUS.
And she can start by having Thomas indicted for his obvious & open corruption.
Shes going to need to get really creative for that to work. Trump manages to do shit without congress because of corruption, corporate backing, and being nihilistic, impulsive, and being surrounded by yes men.
AOC would be entering a hostile environment and likely wouldn’t be able to tame it, would try to be careful not to do more harm than good, and would be surrounded by well meaning but likely stifling voices of bureaucrats/proceduralists, scientists, and dissenting activists, etc. And she would try to actually listen to all of them, slowing her down and making her easy to undercut by snakes.
The cynicism is strong with this one…
Indeed. See the literal first word of my profile’s description.
but I’d bet money she’d win the general
What in the last 10, if not more, years of American history makes you think she’d win the general?
Mamdani and Obama’s smashing victories? Not like Obama isn’t a war criminal, but he ran a campaign on change and progressivism (even if he didn’t enact said progressivism and in fact bombed children) and he smashed his two terms, and Mamdani literally defeated the Democrat party apparatus which attempted to sabotage him by throwing the Cuomo wrench in the elections.
Running a young “change” candidate on a (false but USA) premise of progressivism is incredibly popular.
Most democratic voters who always vote blue don’t care whether they’re a moderate or leftwing. The ones that are more likely to refuse to vote are the lefties, and while there are some lefties who dislike AOC, most of them would be willing to vote for her and might even be excited to.
Centrists, apolitical, indie voters are all dumb as rocks and don’t pay enough attention and generally just vote on gut feeling. Thus the anti-incumbancy bias will favor any democratic candidate the shove out in 2028.
Make no mistake, the Democrats can still lose, because they’re Democrats. Its just 2028 specifically favors them enough and AOC would move them to be even more favorable, thus worth betting on.
Centrists, apolitical, indie voters are all dumb as rocks and don’t pay enough attention and generally just vote on gut feeling.
You require their votes to win any election. Your party is at 30%, just like Republicans; Independents are now 40%.
Why some Democrats think insulting the majority of the electorate will do them any favors is beyond me… where I’m from, that’s the exact opposite of smart. But I’m sure you’ll figure it all out, professor.
Why some Democrats think insulting the majority of the electorate will do them any favors is beyond me…
Because that’s what they’ve done to us for decades. It’s only wrong and stupid when we do it?
Nate Silver endorsed this polling in 2024? That makes me trust it LESS not more 😭
The democratic party funded by AIPAC will rather see Trump for a third time than having AOC as president.
Gotta get the red Dems out.
AOC is doing her best to keep friendly with the J-Street Israel lobby lately.
Rather than having a woman as president*
They’re run 2 candidates that lost to the GOP that were women already. Where is the idea that the Dems won’t run a woman coming from?
Well, perhaps it is concern that the Dems shouldn’t run a woman, not that they haven’t. The reality of the situation is that there is still plenty of closeted (some less so) misogyny among Democrats such that a woman is going to have a harder time winning than a man (all other things being equal) in the general. Add a racial minority, socdem, and 8 years of GOPedo vilification on top of that and you have an even harder path forward than Clinton or Harris, especially if the GOP nominee in 2028 is an outwardly reasonable, straight, white, male. I still think that the GOPedos stole the 2024 election, but I also think that their steal may not have been successful if a straight, white, male had replaced Biden instead of a brown woman. Not that I want any of this to be true, but I think it is where we are currently.
Fair point, but it feels bad to accept.
Ideologues that vote solely on what genitals a candidate has
Even the chuddiest chuds I know don’t express anything remotely like that opinion. Racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia are all either open topics or simmering just below the surface of political discussion, but not the sex of a politician. Nevertheless, the hand-winging centrists are sure there’s a wellspring of otherwise gettable voters that are driven by that single issue. And its salience magically rises and falls depending on whether there’s a popular female progressive.
This is why you lose elections
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought your original response was mocking that take. I try to assume good faith so someone writing that sincerely didn’t make sense.
Or something more nefarious at foot.
Why the down votes for this comment?
Cuz they already ran a woman for president, twice. So saying the dems don’t want a woman president is just categorically false.
Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive, and that Ocasio-Cortez could face the same problem.
Who’s this “many”? Kamala lost because of her Joe Biden neolib policies, her hard heel-turn to the right, and her “nothing will change, we are the most lethal military” stance on the Middle East.
Instead of reassuring the masses who she thought were a shoe-in, she tried to appease the “I’ll never vote for a black woman” crowd, which alienated the former and would never have worked on the latter.
It was either the greatest miscalculation ever, lead by Third Way focus groups, or someone tugged the leash. Either way, with the GOP rat fucking that was almost certainly happening to some degree.
Pretty shitty of Newsweek to pretend that progressive policies are unpopular with a majority of Americans.
I remember during the Trump/Harris debate when Israel came up and they both took turns declaring they could suck off Israel harder than their opponent.
I do not consider Harris a progressive.
She literally campaigned with Liz Cheney. Too progressive? Lmao no one believes that shit except brainwashed magats.
Crazy how every rag shifts between blaming gaza voters for her loss while simultaneously claiming Harris was “too progressive”.
We’d prolly know for sure if they released the report. Ken Martin needs to be fired.
its almost like all legacy media is inherently fascist
Harris was progressive? Really?
Progressively endorsed by Dick Cheney
Excited to see George w bush on the campaign trail with Gavin Newsome!
Essentially, she showed herself as who she truly is: an establishment Democrat more intent on maintaining the status quo instead of listening to the left and helping push the party further towards progressive policies and reshaping the party into something that represents the modern constituency.
Yeah that.
You think Walmart Americans thought this deeply? She lost because she is annoying.
Many = the author. Every time.
In fairness to Newsweek, based on the sentence before this, I think they mean, “many in the party establishment,” not, “many people in general.”
She brings significant energy to the primary among younger voters, but some in the Democratic Party establishment believe her progressive policies could alienate swing voters in the general election. Many believe Harris lost in 2024…
they do this every time though. The centrists fail, so obviously the answer is more centrism.
More centrism to the right, of course, never to the left.
Yup.
However, the immediate effect of not voting for the lesser evil is either not voting, meaning the right wins, or voting for candidates with no chance of winning, taking votes away from the more left ones and allowing the right to win. “More right” is better than “all the way to the far right.”
If you’re not going to change direction, the speed at which you’re moving right isn’t really important. You’re getting there anyways.
It is important, because continuing that way isn’t a foregone conclusion, despite you acting like it is.
Sure thing Charlie Brown, one day you’re gonna kick that DNC football!
It seems American voters want right wing vs far right.
She came out look ling like Darth vader in one of the televised things she did and did the war hawk dance. Fuck off forever, you lost to Donald Fucking Trump after spending 1.5 billion.
The 1.5bn spend is the DNC payday.
I’m pretty sure it was the opposite. I still voted for her cause Trump was worse. But I felt then like I do now. She’s a Republican. Her policies are conservative and Republican.
Agreed she’s Republican Lite. Socially liberal but fiscally she acts far more like 1980s republicans.
Socially liberal
And just like most “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people, she just thinks we should “follow the law” about trans people.
Personally, I think it is because there was no Democratic Party primary. Biden stole the time that any potential candidate could have used to prove their mettle to voters.
Yeah, I would also actually lay more blame on Biden over Kamela, despite Kamela being a pretty terrible candidate
DNC has already shown they aren’t taking that as the lesson learnt. They won’t even release the 2024 autopsy cause they don’t like what it says
It was obvious the party was cooked in 2018 - when, in response to regaining power after losing in a great upset to an insane game show host, they kept the exact same leadership.
They fucked over Hogg too, don’t forget
Yeah, it was shown in NYC as well, vote blue no matter who only goes one way with them
There are many contradictory opinions on why Harris lost. These opinions usually boil down to “Her policy positions weren’t close enough to my policy positions, and that’s why she lost.”
And every other leftist on this site seems to believe that she would have won, had she just pandered to them more. Completely ignoring the fact that leftism essentially doesn’t exist in this country, and Lemmy isn’t an accurate representation of American voters.
Well, it’s pretty obvious that running for the Liz Cheney voter did not work.
It’s hard to tell if allowing Cheney to campaign for her helped, hurt, or had very little impact at all. I suspect the latter, but we’ll never know because we can’t rerun the race.
Again, looking at the 2024 race, it is obvious it did not work. Because she lost. And badly.
In that sense, everything she did “didn’t work.” Centrists will site her progressive policies as the culprit and say those didn’t work, because she didn’t win. The fact is, neither of you know what the but-for cause of her loss was, but you want to believe it was the one that serves your position.
You did fall out of the coconut tree
Yeah, major miscalculation for sure
Having seen it with Gore, Kerry, Obama (post win), Clinton, and now Harris, it’s not a single mistake. The Dems would always prefer to lose to the right than win to the left.
Biden had COVID, so it’s just outside the norm.
Right, because there is no proper left in this country, and Democrats are centrists who want to continue the status quo
Yup, and so they ratchet in what the right has done. As the status quo is not a static thing.
No, she lost because she was black and a woman. People always underestimate just how racist and sexist the US is. Don’t fall into this trap.
Women won senate races in three of the swing states she lost and a Hispanic man won a fourth. It’s hard to imagine an explanation more out of line with actual evidence.
You’re in the trap unfortunately
Just bad luck a woman has never been president in the US in your mind?
I’ll pray for you
You and all the other rednecks in that backwards country. May your God have mercy as long as you pay him every week.
Lord have mercy on this lost sheep
Case in point: your bullshit comment.
“Oh, it couldn’t possibly be her shitty policy positions; it had to have been because of her race and gender!”
Fuck all the way off with your soft bigotry of low expectations.
Yeah, that’s not true.
But if it was, then you need to be asking why, in an election they claimed was existential, the Democratic Party anointed a black woman to run as their candidate against Trump.
Because that’s the conclusion of the excuse you’re making - that the Democrats can only nominate men, or they’re choosing to lose.
No no, that’s the trap of their narrative. “The Democrats are always just bending over backwards trying to promote minority candidates even when the deck is stacked against them, because they’re just such true believers in progressive ideals.”
The reality is, by playing up the “progressiveness” of a candidate’s inherent characteristics, they can be quietly used as a vehicle for conservative policies that make their donors happy. This is a strategy that’s very played out around the world, even Pakistan once had their own version of Margaret Thatcher, and Japan just go theirs recently.
From the perspective that progressive politics are completely off the table, picking a minority candidate was a tactically reasonable choice. A candidate’s race and gender are about the only “concessions” they could give to the left, while courting their donors.
But the problem with that is that second-wave feminism, the kind that tends to see Thatcherites as a win, never caught on in the US like it did in the UK, and third-wave, which is more popular these days, accounts for that failure and focuses more on systemic issues and policy than individual leaders.
But any strategy that might work to get progressives to bend the knee to neoliberalism will be tried again and again, and if it fails they’ll just chalk it up to sexism or whatever other bullshit.
You don’t think they chose to to loose? No matter how you look at it seems they made a poor choice in retrospect. Anyway, I didn’t say a black woman couldn’t win or that a smart choice would be to pick the candidate based on race or gender. I do think that no poll will ever show the laten state of racism in the US though and that this sadly probably hurt Kamela and helped Trump. There’s a reason politicians in the US hardly ever even talk about a platform anymore. Most people vibe vote from a very uneducated position and didn’t know shit about her thoughts on Isreal.
A THIRD of people, only slightly smaller than the third that voted for Trump, voted for Harris based on the fact that she WASN’T TRUMP. Another third didn’t vote because they felt her stance on Israel wasn’t enough to offset that she wasn’t Trump. I don’t feel it had anything to do with her race or gender.
Everyone looks at the third that didn’t vote as if it would magically change everything. But even if they did vote it wouldn’t change the outcome all that much. It’s like everyone just ignores the Law of Large Numbers.
Pretty crazy to write that the third that didn’t vote, did so because of Israel lol
It’s more like the tenth that sometimes vote simply weren’t excited enough.
The polls say otherwise. She was leading after her announcement, when she was still talking about healthcare reform, economic justice, taxing the rich, etc. For about three weeks.
Then she talked to her business rep corpo brother, and shifted gear to espousing pro-corporate policy, defending the wealthy, calling leftists Bernie bros, etc, and fell behind.
I agree that Palestine made little difference, btw. It cost her around half a million votes, but she lost by three times that. That’s looking at state by state, too.
She lost because she turned herself into Biden 2, instead of what people wanted her to be, which was Obama (until he became President. He lied very well, then governed well enough that we forgave him for being friends with the corps).
It’s possible that it she was a white man, and absolutely nothing else was different, that she very well might have just barely eeked out a victory. That’s still a failure. It should have been a blowout. It was a failure of a campaign, racism and sexism against the candidate by the general public was a component, but the least relevant one.
Exactly. People forget that Biden in 2020 under performed polls, and it’s pretty clear that absent COVID he would have lost.
Yeah. Her argument was that she was Joe Biden, but younger and more diverse. But Joe Biden was LOSING. Even before his debate performance. And he only barely won in 2020, which also should have been a blowout.
It’s not the blackness or the femaleness, it’s doubling down on shitty uninspiring politics. An old white male Joe Biden was going to lose even worse than the middle aged black female Joe Biden.
I agree, even if Biden was 20 years younger I think he would have won. If he was 20 years younger and female and Indian he would have lost just as Harris did.
It was definitely policy that hindered them, but also the sexism and racism.
No, she lost because she was black and a woman.
“Kamala Harris ran the perfect campaign, she was just stabbed in the back!”
KHive is the new Freikorp
Maybe if the Friekorps confined itself to shit posting on Facebook
I dunno, they seem to have had at least half the Trump assassination attempts so far?
You couldn’t mention her name around here without a bandwagon of “She’s the literal genocide queen and a vote for her is a vote to murder Palestinian children.”
I mean, she did support the genocide. Which murdered tens of thousands of Palestinian children. What is your point?
Thank you for illustrating my point. And I’m sure you feel like Trump is doing a fantastic job with human rights, at home and abroad (when he comes up for air while gargling Bibi’s balls, of course).
And I’m sure you feel like Trump is doing a fantastic job with human rights
Why don’t you just go have a nice tea party with the little strawman you’ve created?
The only thing Trump is doing a great job at is destroying the US. Whether that’s good or not, debatable.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”
Yes! Thank you. This is exactly my point. You’ve illustrated it perfectly 😘
Since you mentioned the name, I did notice quite obviously the disrespect everyone had toward Kamala Harris in the news and online comments simply due what they called her.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
I suspect it was either due to her being a woman, or due to her being Indian (Kamala sounds a lot more foreign than Harris).
It was always “Kamala vs Trump” never Harris vs Trump or Kamala vs Donald.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
Because that’s the more unique and thus memorable part of her name. Just like “Bernie” is more memorable than “Sanders”.
It wasn’t a sign of disrespect, sexism, or othering to call Bernie by his first name, and it wasn’t in the case of Kamala Harris either.
Anyone who says otherwise is likely grasping at straws to explain away the fact that it was mostly her policy positions and allegiance to Biden, corporations, and Israel over the people she was SUPPOSED to represent that lost her the election rather than bigotry.
I assumed it was the woman aspect, hadn’t even considered the foreign aspect.
https://news.asu.edu/20170721-solutions-asu-mayo-study-how-female-doctors-introduced
I have a really hard time remembering how to pronounce her first name because I know someone with the same spelling but different pronunciation, (and I read the news, don’t watch it) so to avoid saying it wrong I only ever said Harris.
That sounds exactly like something those Sandersbros would do, they’re basically indistinguishable from r/TheTrump.
But “around here” is representative of what? 5% of voters? 16% of democratic voters max? Let’s not pretend Lemmy users represent a sizable number of democratic voters.
Only on Lemmy
The DNC is not gonna be happy about this… 😆
the REVOLUTION is finally here!
oh oh oh OOOOOHHH!
Fuck the DNC man. Fire the establishment. Get progressive blood in there
Sure they will be. They’ll look at the poll results, throw them in the garbage, and run Newsom like they were already planning to
And then: OH noes! Democracy is in danger. Give us $10.
And then: OH noes! Democracy is in danger. Give us $10.
And then they get $1.5b+ again and lose again or at best scrape a narrow win against either Trump, Vance, or another profoundly incompetent and obviously fundamentally corrupt candidate.
ilovedemocracy.jpg
They weren’t happy about Bernie and look at the fucking mess they caused.
They’re gonna have a harder time painting all progressives as sexists and racists when we’re going apeshit over AOC. I like her even more than Sanders.
It’s well past time to ride roughshod over them.
If I can humbly suggest another solution . . .
The DNC is currently up shit creek. Many other major Democratic organizations are out fundraising them by a wide margin. Many “true blue” Democrats are pissed as hell at DNC leadership and how utterly spineless and opaque they’re being. I don’t think we’re going into this next election cycle with a DNC that’s powerful enough to thumb the scales in that way
They are protecting the Epstein class
I.E. protecting themselves.
They’re going to love having a fresh face to attract people to the party, donate lots of time and money, and stick around to get scolded with “Vote Blue No Matter Who” when progressives are rug pulled in Iowa and New Hampshire.
“Vote Blue No Matter Who”
I thought this was over after the DNC ran a spoiler candidate in the NYC mayoral race.
God if she had a chance.
She does have a chance. Progressives are actually winning primaries now. People are sick of choosing between psycho magats and backstabbing “moderates”
I’d laugh so hard if the backlash against trump was an AOC presidency!
I would start spending money in the US again
Well, there is a thing called counterculture. One generation didn’t like the prevailing culture they grew up in, and so they go against it and set new values. This then leads to the following generation disliking that new culture and go against it.
Rinse and repeat.
Counterculture requires the existence of a monoculture.
Since the 2000s, there’s ONLY split cultures that all consider themselves countercultures. Hell, Republicans think they’re rebelling against the elites and deep state.
Pendulum effect
LoL, pendulum? What is the clock laying on its side or something?
AOC President with Bernie as Senate Majority Leader.
And I would NEVER let any maga family live it down. Everytime would be like that Asian surgeon from Scrubs.
I should watch Scrubs again
New season either just came out or is about to.
Simpsons predicted it.
As you know, we’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump
THERE IS ANOTHER ELECTION BEFORE THAT.
It’s two years away. It’s not even the next election! And this is all presuming that there even is another election, which is far from given.
There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.
They run polls on potential 2028 primary candidates all the time. This was the first one AOC has led in. It is notable.
The point of these polls isn’t to predict who the Democratic candidate for president will be in 2028. The point is to gauge what the Democratic primary electorate is currently feeling/prioritizing. They’re moving away from “just give me a safe white guy who can win the general” and toward “give me the most progressive one you got.”
There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.
Speculation on the 2028 presidential race began five minutes after the 2024 polls closed.
The Forever Campaign is much like the Forever War, in so far as it is a suffocating political miasma that strangles any other conversation.
What are you talking about? The headline clearly says she’s winning the election.
It’s just a buzzworthy headline, just for people to click so they can get more ad revenue.
She’s not even running.
Do people genuinely think someone running for a party that backed a genocide can be any good and that should be voted?
we have to compare her to those she runs against, friend. We can’t just create an ideal candidate.
You sound very young.
Idealism shows you a goal, pragmatism helps you get there.
What do you propose?
So vote for nobody?
Both parties are pro genocide either here or abroad, but one at least has a sizeable wing that is actually opposed to foreign wars instead of just paying lip service to a supposed world order based on rule of law.
Vote for the candidate not the party.
If you have a better idea that can actually gain some momentum I’m sure people would be thrilled.
I expect that US politicians who actually want to serve the public find themselves in the same predicament as voters who want to support good things for humanity.
The two-party situation is not only an emergent property of our voting system, but it is entrenched culturally as well.
So if you want to do good things in a government position, do you take up the label of a coalition that has plenty of shitty members and bad policies, or do you wear your independent badge with honor in obscurity?
Oh and the other party is WAY WAY FUCKING WORSE in every conceivable way and is not an option. Even the worst aspects of your potential party pale in comparison to what those other guys do on those same policies.
And the best part is that those way way fucking worse evil guys consistently get half the votes!
