this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
15 points (85.7% liked)

Politics

11458 readers
53 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:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Oh, for fuck's sake ... this again? Even a grocery store knows that when a product doesn't sell, it's time to put it on clearance and take it off the shelf.

I have no personal issue with Harris, but promising to continue the status quo was not what voters wanted in 2024. So she's now in the position of the GOP stance of "if we roll back the clock, everyone will be happy."

Which is obviously poppycock.

Unless you're proposing single-payer healthcare and concrete solutions to the housing crisis, as well as ending all fossil-fuel subsidies and pulling the U.S. out of needless wars (corollary: stop spending on the military when citizens are suffering), you've lost the Zeitgeist.

Anyway, enough ranting ... here's a snippet:

Kamala Harris said she is “thinking about” running in the 2028 presidential election.

“I might, I might. I’m thinking about it,” the former vice-president and 2024 candidate told the crowd at a gathering of the National Action Network (NAN), a civil rights organization founded by Al Sharpton, on Friday in New York City.

Expanding on her response to Sharpton’s question about a potential presidential bid, she added: “I served for four years being a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States … I know what the job is and I know what it requires.”

She said: “I’ve been traveling the country the last year, spending a lot of time in the south and many other places, and the one thing I’m really clear about is … the status quo is not working and hasn’t been working for a lot of people for a long time."

Speaking about the presidency, Harris added: “It’s got to be about the American people and that’s how I think of it. I am thinking about it in the context of … who and where and how can the best job be done for the American people. I’ll keep you posted.”

Oh, you almost got there. Thing is, you're the status quo.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 16 hours ago
[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 8 points 15 hours ago

Well the only reason she got to be a candidate last time was that there was no primary. If she runs again she’ll probably just lose the primary again unless the dnc decides to use their super delegates to just anoint her like they did Hilary

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Not a good idea.

I think Kamala got totally screwed over by Biden, I think there is a chance if he had stepped out earlier that she could have had more time to differentiate herself from Biden, but there just wasn't enough time. A significant amount of voters didn't even know Biden had dropped out it happened so late in the process.

That can be true along with the fact that Kamala is not the right candidate now and she won't win. I say this as someone who criticized her heavily on certain issues but still voted for her because yeah Trump is a fascist.

Also.... it isn't because she is a woman it is because she doesn't have a track record of being genuinely for everyday issues like housing, healthcare and genuinely progressive reform. There are better people for this moment. We need people like AOC, Rashida Talib, Ilhan Omar etc...

We have a lot of amazing women in politics in the US right now all the way to nearly the highest levels of power, Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton just aren't the right people for the moment, it isn't about them being women though yes the US is sexist as hell still.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's astounding to me that the DNC still trots out "well, she lost because she was a woman."

Slightly different tone than in 2008, when the argument was "a Black man can't get elected."

It's about the fucking policies! If they only work for corporations, it matters little what letter is after the name.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Why do people think the majority or even a large percentage of people in the US at this point will die on the hill of their sexism and racism?

Some of those people exist but most people want to hear a politician speaking to real things, they don't have the energy to engage in the degree of identity politics bullshit the DNC and DC class of pundits seem to think everyone does. Even if you are somewhat sexist or racist if someone is promising you well thought out cost of housing policy reforms at a certain point you have to look after your family and support it to keep a roof over your head.

Sure MAGA cultists won't or at least won't get caught doing it but that isn't the point. It is about speaking to everyone else.

A woman can absolutely win the next presidential election, there is a good chance our best option is a woman. It comes down to how the next presidential candidate can speak to the issues that are crushing everyday people.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago

I think there are a large percentage of those people. I think they're all MAGA though. There's close to zero cost from anyone that would vote for Democrats though.

Charisma and policy are the two tent poles. Put someone up who has the charisma to navigate gotcha questions and policy that makes people think their lives will improve if they're elected. Oh, and don't do absolutely repugnant things like support genocide.

Identity is a flavoring at most. We know that because Barrack Hussein Obama was the best performing Democratic candidate in decades.

[–] Steve@communick.news 2 points 15 hours ago

She'd be able to seperate herself? She didn't want to seperate herself.
She was specifically asked what she would do differently, and said she'd do nothing different from Biden.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 6 points 16 hours ago

JFC, of course she did. She will be the DNC sweetheart and fall flat on her face again. They may as well hand the WH to Vance if they run her

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 1 points 11 hours ago

She can think all she wants, but I'd rather she not actually run.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I remember a time that when you lost a national election, you were put out to pasture.

.....time to bring that standard back

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 14 hours ago

But then how can I bitch to pundits on Fox News to pretend the election never ended?

[–] Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

It really seems to me that the Democrats are quite similar to the Republicans in the sense that they will quadruple down regardless of what everyone else thinks or what might actually be beneficial.

I imagine this is a symptom of benefiting from the system regardless of what they do