I thank everyone for posting their views. I see I am in a very small minority here wanting her to run again.
Because she’s too far right wing, apparently.
When they make the hop, step and backflip an Olympic sport, you’d be a good chance for the US squad.
As others have alluded upthread, this election was in no sense a battle of ideas.
It was about one side’s dominance of social media, and TV (despite the various memes of liberal bias), and having no scruples about using that to blatantly lie and play on people’s prejudices and ignorance.
Then you have stunts like the million dollar checks, and the two assassination attempts played well for him, especially since, again, they were happy to repeatedly tell the public that they were orchestrated by the democrats.
I’m not convinced that prime Obama could have won this one.
No, this entire thread is full of Democratic voters expressing identity politics. Most of the posts say “I want a female president”, the only question is whether it will be Kamala.
The real question should be why a woman, any woman is being considered as a candidate just because she is a woman. That’s identity politics.
Many posts are saying that the first and most important issue is that she be a woman, and then , yeah, it’s okay to consider whether her policies would be good for the country.
There’s a similar obsession with identity politcs among much of the Democrat’s post-election analysis of why they lost. People are bewildered and shocked with incomprehension, barely able to stammer: “Bbbbut…Hhhhow …could blacks and hispanics have voted for Trump?”
It violates their most basic concept of identity politics, that everyone must vote according to his ethnic group, not according to the issues. If, say, some Catholic hispanics are opposed to abortion, or some blacks and hispanics feel their jobs are threatened by cheaper immigrants crossing the border*, Dems too often ignore it, because they cannot imagine someone thinking and voting based on his individual concerns, instead of the color of their skin.
*(even if it’s not true, voters believe it, and the Dems must address those feelings, not ignore them.
Oh, Lord, no!! I think a lot of “isms” flourish in American society, but none more so than sexism. This country would probably elect a megalomaniacal malignant narcissist who has shown himself without a doubt to be a liar, a white supremacist, and a convicted felon before they would elect an intelligent, politically experienced, and democracy loving woman.
Oh wait … they just did. Nominating a woman for the run in 2028 is a sure road to yet another defeat.
We liberals have to get our heads out of the clouds and understand what the hell we are dealing with in regard to the American voting population.
No; people just overestimated the self preservation instincts and intelligence of many voters in those groups. When somebody does the equivalent of a Jew voting to re-elect Hitler its surprising.
And “Trump hates you and wants to persecute you” is an issue. They just decided to vote to destroy themselves.
Right; and in case anyone thinks that hyperbole, we can list all of the bigoted things said at the RNC rally (which of course followed “They’re eating the dawgs!”).
When we’re shocked about POC voting for Trump, it’s not because we expect some kind of voting based on “loyalty”. It’s the shock of people voting against their own interests, something which is true for non-rich whites too, but spectacularly true for e.g. non-rich hispanics.
I agree.
And I think Democratic primary voters in 2028 will be putting electability right at the top of their criteria.
And as seen in the thread, a whole lot of Democrats believe a woman is unelectable.
Put Harris’s history of having lost in 2024 on top of that, and there is little chance of her getting the nomination in 2028. My best guess is that a Hispanic man will get the Democratic nomination because that will feel the most electable to primary Democrats.
My only question is whether it would hurt the party for her to run in the primaries and lose. I lean strongly to her losing the nomination NOT being a problem. If she thinks she has learned how to be an even better candidate than she was this year, go for it. Show the doubters we are wrong.
Don’t forget that they had to lie about that too.
Many of the clips of her not answering a question which went viral, were spliced to cut out the bits where she went into specifics.
It’s why the various threads where people say Kamala just needed to do X are frustrating; while one side dominates the media and can write their own truth, your choice of words is largely irrelevant.
Very sad to hear this.
I hope and wish she does exactly this.
America needs to focus first and foremost on getting the Fascists out of office.
then we can debate the niceties of policies, including inclusiveness in all its forms.
But first we must win in a country where lots and lots of people are ignorant propaganda-besotted troglodytes.
FWIW, I always thought Harris was too far right to be viable in the general (why vote for a faux Republican when you can have the real thing?)
This exactly, Dems need to start being Dems. This move to the middle stuff doesn’t work, and isn’t what the party ought to be about.
I agree but can a candidate like Bernie or AOC win in the all important swing states. I highly doubt it. Biden won on a centrist plank, Kamala lost narrowly in the swing states on a centrist plank. Hell, Obama won on a centrist plank…in 2024 some winning democrat senators in the swing states went beyond centrist and adopted right of centre positions on some issues…even to the extent of distancing themselves from a centrist kamala in the campaign.
Imagine a liberal top of the ticket on the democrat side…the republican leaning media and X under Elon would have a field day taking more than just potoshots at him/her.
I think and some polls agree a plurality of americans are centrist…neither liberal nor conservative.
I understand now why Fetterman is going centrist/right of centre on some issues these days…political compulsion. Started speaking positively of Elon Musk (politically).
What?
Do you have any backup for the comment on the “benzos”? I think this is absolutely not true.
As for her lack of intelligence, again, that’s nonsense. Kamala is very intelligent and accomplished. And in fact, when she got on stage with Trump, she demolished him in the debate. It wasn’t even close. She lost an election, but geez, some of these comments are over the top, IMO.
Right. When people say they didn’t know her policies or didn’t know what she stood for, it wasn’t because she didn’t talk about her policies or articulate what she stood for. It’s because there’s probably half the country that doesn’t even listen to or look at any medium that would show talk about her policies or what she stood for. Instead, they’re watching about how she masterminded some “takeover” of the border by illegals or how she wants to make inflation worse because of “soshulizm”…I don’t think the candidate mattered all that much in 2024, personally. I think any Dem would’ve been swept away by the election/political environment, and particularly the right-wing bullshit-o-sphere.
I would say the insisting the candidate not be a woman is identity politics too. This triangulation that Democrats do (which is prominent in this thread) is such a huge turnoff to voters. You can’t just throw a Latino on the tickets and expect Latinos to come flocking back.
Harris ran a fine traditional campaign, but traditional campaigns don’t work that well in the current era. I don’t think it matters that much if they are progressive or centrist, though centrist is probably a bit better. I don’t think it matters much their gender or skin color. I don’t think it matters much where they are from. What you need is someone who seems genuine to most Americans and understands how to communicate to people who not use traditional media.
She should not even consider running again unless she fixes the terrible way she talks and campaigns, which is what made her such a loser in 2019 that she didn’t even make it to Iowa. I suppose she could try to replicate Nixon: Sitting VP from California loses, makes a run for California governor and loses, and then win in say 2032. But if she wants to try that she should get a dog.
The next candidate has to have the ability to get the media talking about them, get people to share stuff about them on social media, and get people talking about them in general the way we do with Trump. I go out of my way to avoid anything Trump, but I know a ton more about who Trump is as a person and what his policies are compared to what I know about Harris. A big part of that is that Harris just isn’t that exciting or charismatic. I’m confident she’d do a great job as president, but she’s not very compelling as a person. Politicians like AOC are what’s needed by the Democrats to generate headlines and get people talking. Because she can generate headlines and get people talking, I probably know more about AOC as a person and her policies than I do about Harris’. I’m not necessarily saying AOC should be the candidate, but Democrats should realize that they need to be able to create that kind of wide-ranging interest in them in order to win the next election.