324
Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi
(www.theguardian.com)
I'd still take her over MAGA, any day.
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
324 points (97.4% liked)
politics
28770 readers
2457 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good for you, that is irrelevant because empty centrist, corporate politicians like her will never win against MAGA.
If she's nominated, it's a fix. Classic authoritarian playbook: maintain the illusion of democracy by propping up an opponent that you aren't likely to lose to. Then, stuff the ballot boxes anyway.
Cute that US still think they will have elections after the orange buffoon. November will be very interesting, and maybe an eye opener for the remaining septics: I'll say it here now, trump is a fascist, a pedophile, a narcissist, and a dictator. He will not leave. He will use putin's playbook. The rest of the world needs to wake up now and consider the US as an antagonist, same as Russia and China. I would be delighted to be wrong, wait and see I guess.
He’s already looking to disenfranchise many tens of millions of voters if he’s unable to cancel the midterm elections wholesale.
I’m sure that if there ever will be elections again, they will be purely performative and with a foregone conclusion, just like how North Korea has “elections”.
I'm not saying she should.
But the "I fucking told you so" campaign strategy might actually be somewhat effective for a certain percentage of swing voters.
assuming that fair elections are still a thing at that time i'd say she would be guaranteed the win.
which of course is exactly why they're bringing this Dem stooge back.
after all it is her turn
I'm not actually convinced that she actually lost the last one, with Musk's shenanigans and other jerry-rigging all over the electoral college.
But I generally don't bother dwelling on conspiracy theories. It is what it is, so we'll see what happens.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Democrats need to learn that they need someone that doesn't come off like a "party person" if they want to attract voters. Kamala could have had that, but her refusal to burn Biden for his failures in office while on the campaign trail the last time did a lot of harm to her chances of ever escaping that image to the average swing voter. She is no more electable to the Presidency now than Hillary Clinton.
So another billion dollars spent on a losing campaign?
So far it's Harris and Newsom. Cool. Cool cool cool.
No, I'm not worried at all. Who said I'm worried?
No. Just no. Other countries cn rise above misogyny, but not us. Dems need to drop this whole "please the right" schtick too. We need someone actually progressive, someone who doesn't ride the Israeli money train, and alas - is male. Bonus points for not playing the "we need to forgive and forget" card either. It didn't work, and a lot of these assholes are just regurgitating the South. They lost, but never faced punishment. If we let racism slide, we let them build confidence and organize.
Nope, there is NO evidence we need to be sexist like this.
The issue is that Kamela is not progressive and in the pocket of money & AIPAC.
Dems need to drop this whole “please the right” schtick too
What "please the right"??? Pleasing the right was Trump campaign.
Campaigning with Cheneys, promising full support for a zionist genocide, backing off from universal healthcare and trans rights. Need I go on?
Considering that Trump won, that wasn't actually pleasing the right wasn't it?
But dems are free to go full in on these things and fail the second time.
I think it was pleasing enough to right-wing billionaires (sorry for the tautology) - both the campaign itself and the ultimate failure.
Imagine you are so hated you are the runner up to Trump and then not having self realization and needing to get it reiterated to you at the expense of the well being of the entire country.
That's rather optimistic, that she assumes there will still be elections in the near future.
"I gave away the presidency to Trump, so I'm going to try it again"
Oh for fuck sakes! C'mon lady! Sacrifice! Let a new face do it! There's 300 million of us. I'm sure someone else can be better than you know who. Go do something else to help democracy. I'd vote Beyonce.
Who would be your alternative?
EDIT: if you say Hillary is your alternative then you're smoking crack. This is an important question because the Democatic Party is the most likely group to succeed, so who then would you vote for if you had to decide? Geriatric Sanders? Centrist Newsome? Unlikely to be elected AOC? There's a lot of people who could be candidates, but few who I feel confident could win.
I want the democrats to put forward a good slate of candidates, have them discuss issues in a reasonable and informative way, then have us vote on our favorite. There are people whose jobs are to know who would make a good candidate. Most people, myself included, don't have enough information to say who should run. I do think that most people can name a few who they don't want to run and I think Kamala and Hilary are both high on most people's lists.
Someone saying "please don't run Kamala" shouldn't mean they need to offer an alternative. That is the job of the democratic party.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I think AOC is highly electable. Good speaker, good positions, attractive, not old. Vs Kamala bad speaker bad positions moderately attractive, not old and Hilary moderate speaker, bad positions, ugly, old. Vs Newsome good speaker, bad positions, attractive, not old. Vs Republican field bad speaker, bad positions, likely ugly or unattractive, racist(positive for their base) likely not old.
I think AOC fires up the left and gets out the vote (most important Democrat quality), the moderate left and centrist independents votes for her over the right, the moderate right stays home (moreso than normal) and the far right goes Republican
Kamala bad speaker
Kamala had a LOT of issues. But her public speaking talent was not one of them.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Pritzker. Relatively progressive. Pro union, pro building up housing, pro worker's rights, pro higher minimum wage, unrestrained in his support of lgbtq, and yet still Measured and budget conscious, which helps him be more palatable to the big stage.
I think he's the best possible option that still has a good chance to win.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I think both parties should split
Either there will be a socialist president in 2028 or democracy will be dissolved by 2032.
Sure doesn’t feel like a democracy.
People seem to have forgotten the only reason she was the candidate was because Biden dropped out and she was the VP.
She got practically no votes in the primaries.
To be completely fair, Biden dropped out after almost all of the primaries had happened. Harris didn't get many primary votes because the person she was replacing dropped out after the primaries.
She wouldn't have won any of the primaries though. Ive reminded my friends irl before that she ran in 2020 and dropped out really early because no one liked her campaign a lot of dem voter in 2024 were under the impression she made it a lot further in 2020 then she did because that was the only way that her campaign to cope with the fact that she wasn't that well liked and it was the only way that people could be hopeful leading up to the election.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›