If the Democrats were wise they would choose the next candidate now in order to get the party going in a specific direction, just like the Republicans have done unofficially from 2020 to 2024
If the Democrats were wise they would choose the next candidate now in order to get the party going in a specific direction
As though they haven’t already chosen both the person and the direction. It’s newsom and rightward, respectively.
I’m talking about officially doing their primary right now. Look at how it works in a parliamentary system, if a party loses its leader there’s an official interim leader taking their place until a new one is selected and that leader/interim leader is officially the one choosing in what direction the party is going. The party doesn’t spend 3 years leaderless leaving the other elected officials do whatever they want.
I’m talking about officially doing their primary right now.
Yeah, they’re not gonna do that. Not in public, at least.
perhaps, but democrats are held to a higher standard
any tiny misstep - or even correct step that the republicans figure out how to spin - over the next few years would poison the waters
By this logic the Dems held onto Biden and then Harris with the intent to loose the election. Which… kind of makes sense given how they were more focused on keeping progressives out, as these seem to be the real danger from their perspective, not the fascists under Trump.
sorta sounds like they needed to fix that problem
As a Democrat, no one has ever accused my party of being smart.
Aoc 2028
I want AOC to be President, but I think Americans are too sexist to vote for her. We’re a callow, superficial people.
We also thought Americans were too racist to vote for a black man.
IMHO, Americans will always prioritize swagger, the ability to clearly call bullshit, and the ability to generate hype and a sense of connection.
This is why Americans vote for celebrities and actors.
I kind of see where you’re coming from - there’s an imperfect fungibility of bigotry. If you’re bigoted against one kind of person, it’s not hard to make you bigoted against another, it just takes a little propaganda.
But it’s not a secret that young men broke for Trump by over 10%. I attribute that swing to the manosphere podcast circuit working round the clock this past election, and Elon Musk purchasing voters with his “sweepstakes.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Exit_poll
2020, Biden: 81,283,501 2020, Trump: 74,223,975
2024, Harris: 75,017,613 2024, Trump: 77,302,580
These numbers suggest that not only did more people vote for Trump than in 2020, even after living through the fucked COVID response, even after seeing January 6, more people chose not to vote at all. And it’s a 50/50 split: Trump converted 3 million votes from Biden, and 3 million more just stayed home.
And demographically, the biggest swing towards Trump was Latino men. It was like 18%, that seems insane to me. I don’t think “eggs and Palestine” is sufficient to explain what happened there.
The night of the election they say that exactly but Zionist want to blame Palestinians.
And if you really want to see an election where people stayed home. Check out 2016.
Not sure about that. I agree americans love the celerberties but Think women’s rights vs black men right to vote. Black men had more rights before women for like 50 years. Its gonna be a bit for the old folks to die off and even then we got those Tate trolls trying to keep status quo.
Also Obama wasn’t even “full black” and that was too much for some people. Probably sooner see a Hispanic dude than a full black guy or a woman. Its gonna be like that scene in head of state with people running to polls to stop Chris rock.
Maybe, but women do win places that have a lot of dumb misogynists. I think the ability to connect with voters, or voters wanting to be associated with someone interesting and cool, has a lot of power.
And at the end of the day, if you look at the folks who are right of center in the US, they’ve elected twice as many women as people of color.
Let’s hope so.
This line is coming from neoliberals who can’t understand why Hillary and Kamala lost and are blaming sexism because they can’t come to terms with the fact that the American people are turning away from the establishment in its entirety.
Yes, sexism is a problem in America. No, it is not why liberals are losing.
American people are turning away from the establishment in its entirety.
Biden won 2020, and I think it’s safe to say he was fairly establishment.
Edit: And as much as we want to forget, Trump was President of the United States from 2016 to 2020. He IS an establishment candidate. He wants the establishment of an authoritarian fascist regime that unlawfully, violently silences his critics and imprisons or murders the minority group of his choosing.
Call me what you like, but I think you have more in common with me than with MAGA. And if your IFF is malfunctioning, well, I hope you get it checked out soon.
Biden won 2020, and I think it’s safe to say he was fairly establishment.
Barely, and only coming out of Trump’s first term that had many people looking for a “return to normal.” The Democratic party will never succeed running another Biden every election. The people can see that the status quo is not working for them, and they’re fed up with corporate dems telling them that we need to preserve the status quo at all costs.
Call me what you like, but I think you have more in common with me than with MAGA. And if your IFF is malfunctioning, well, I hope you get it checked out soon.
I didn’t call you anything. I can see that you’re my friend, but the establishment and all the politicians who fight to preserve it instead of fighting the fascists in power are foes, and the sooner you realize that the sooner we can work together to change it.
Not all of us. Dudes for AOC!
I’m with you. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than being wrong.
I want AOC to be president, and think that the “Americans are too sexist to vote for a woman (now that a progressive woman might run)” argument is being used to hold back all women in order to hold back one woman.
I also want AOC to be president…starting now.
And also, it is Hillary her turn.
She will run, and the DNC will sheepdog her like they did Bernie, keeping everyone herded up in the party until they realized they got fucked over, again.
Bernie’s being doing some rallies with her recently. If I were to guess, Bernie’s not going to run for POTUS again, he’s going to endorse her.
Bernie could get the VP nod.
Personally, I prefer Bernie as the main - we need as many years of progressive presidencies as possible. Having 8 of them with him as the lead, and another 8 of AOC, would be a good start to reforming America. Odds are, though, we will simply have AOC replace Bernie during one of his terms. VPs are meant to be backups for when a president isn’t able to hold office anymore.
I would prefer Bernie as the main too, but given his age and heart condition, that’s not viable. :(
I have the impression the thing that determines an election, isn’t age nor ability, but the possession of a lively personality. I would say that Bernie has enough personality to bury Krasnov.
If we could stop floating ancient and/or billionaires, that would be greeeaat.
Bernie is the one exception though. The only exception.
I love Bernie and I would vote for him if he were on the ballot, but he has no business being president at this age. I think he recognizes that and that’s why he’s actively helping the new generation.
he has no business being president at this age
Things we can say now that biden is no longer running.
You ain’t wrong, but I said the same thing about him. Almost exactly. The biggest difference is I wouldn’t have to hold my nose to vote for Bernie, I genuinely like the dude and my policy quibbles come down to quibbles.
Rant incoming.
Hell, the DNC may run Bernie now that he’s old enough. Or they’ll pick a cop to lead the ticket where their side doesn’t like or trust the police. Anything as long as they don’t win. Their last big winners were Obama and Clinton, both of which were in their 40s. Can’t make that fucking mistake again I guess. Even on the R side it’s been middle aged people rather than geriatric motherfuckers since Reagan until Trump. When the fuck did someone decide that you can’t be president unless you were a billion years old? I want someone who represents the future and wants to take us there, not someone whose slogan is “I’ve seen the future, and it’s a better past…which I also saw because I lived through all of human history”.
The Great Sheepdog Tour
And both she and liberals will still keep defending the party after it.
Yes, she’s never questioned the party leadership or directions. :rolls eyes:
She’d be better in party leadership and not pursue the Presidency (yet).
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/04/24/mpeq-a24.html
It is from this standpoint that the World Socialist Web Site has exposed the fraudulent “Fighting Oligarchy” campaign mounted by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The large turnouts at their rallies, as well as the huge participation in the April 5 and April 19 protests against the Trump administration, express the social anger among millions of working people and their desire to fight back. But Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez never indict capitalism as a system or call for a struggle against it. And they supported and hailed the Biden administration even as it was presiding over the greatest-ever accumulation of wealth on the part of the financial aristocracy.
For all their fulminations against the oligarchy, they carefully avoid advancing any demand that would deprive the billionaires of their ill-gotten riches. They pretend that society can be changed without a drastic redistribution of wealth, which requires the expropriation of the billionaires.
I am so fucking sick of people demanding perfection. In this case, perfection is very much the enemy of good. AOC and Sanders are some of the absolute best people currently a part of our political class. Insisting on perfection - especially when your definition of “perfection” would likely alienate a meaningful amount of people who currently support them - is counterproductive to the degree that I question whether people who say that shit are even arguing in good faith.
I question whether people who say that shit are even arguing in good faith.
They never do. Anyone devaluing the best politicians we have on our side, is really only carrying water for fascists.
The person you replied to quoted World Socialist Website, which is run by a bunch of boomer edgelords who mentally never grew up and still thinks we’re still in the 1960s. The only socialist publisher worth reading is Jacobin, even though I may not agree everything with them.
You say “perfection”. What I think you meant to say was “principled anti capitalism”.
I’m not asking for perfection. I’m asking for literally any semblance of solidarity or anticapitalism.
Regardless, until a truly anti capitalist party gains power, the devolution into fascism will continue.
In 30 years, when the choice is between a dem who wants 15 genocides and a Republican who wants 16, yall will still be bleating this tired ass “perfection as an enemy of good” motto. Think of a new one, please. Or even try to start defining what your idea of “perfection” actually is.
15 genocides vs 16 genocides
A false dichotomy, but even so, the math is simple. 15 is less than 16. Bad things WILL happen. Let’s try to stop at least SOME of them shall we?
“American genocide is a forgone conclusion, so I will give full support to the genocidal regime whether the color is red or blue”
This is why people call you blue maga. There is no red line. There is no amount of evil that would make you all start to consider the legitimacy of the US empire. You all will sacrifice however many Palestinian kids it takes to bide time till the next election cycle. All under the guise of pragmatic utilitarianism.
So if not her then who will it be?
Another neoliberal.
Shapiro from Pennsylvania. Pro-genocide, loves billionaires, condescending. Ticks all the boxes.
newsom. It’s already newsom.
The face, gender, or race doesn’t matter, it will be someone that’s not a threat to the existence of the neolib establishment.
Pritzker, maybe?
There’s a bunch - Booker (that was the whole point of the filibuster), the govs of CA, MI, MD, PA, IL, that TV sports guy, Mark Cuban, Elissa Slotkin, Katy Porter, Mayor Pete, and a lot more.
I want Tim as president and AOC as vice since I dont want to risk the bunch of idiots who wont vote for a woman fucking everything up again.
Kamala’s campaign wasn’t fucked because she’s a woman, it was fucked because she’s a careerist who doesn’t believe in anything.
Two things can be true.
I know a lot of women who didn’t vote for her because she was a woman. Shit is crazy to me, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the reality. I’m sure there are a shocking number of people who didn’t vote for her because she’s a woman.
I know the party is willing to hold back all women on the off chance that they are successful at holding back one progressive woman. That’s all this is about. Hatred for progressives and the people they stand for.
Yeah, conservative women are a really odd breed. I live in the Deep South, which means I get to actually interact with all of the hardline conservatives on a regular basis. I have 100% heard the “I just think a woman’s place is to follow her husband” rhetoric from women.
Those will vote Republican anyway…
I highly doubt that the number of people who claim the fact that she’s a woman is the reason they didn’t vote for her is anywhere near high enough to swing the election. Even if it were, those people are not worth conceding to. There are far more people for whom her gender is irrelevant but did not vote for her due to a myriad of other reasons than there are brain-dead morons who think women just aren’t cut out to be president.
As a person who has a lived experience as a woman in this country I wholeheartedly disagree.
When do you think it’ll be safe to nominate a woman?
This is the ideal progressive ticket, IMO. It’s not as scary for the mid as having a female President (grow the fuck up, guys), but she’ll still be able to provide her support and opinion far above her current station. People seem to really like Tim, which is great.
But in the end none of it matters. They’re all historically pro-Israel and people don’t forget that. They’ve begun to change their tune, but only just now. It seems disingenuous to get votes, which just seems…hollow.
Not sure I read your comment right, but are you saying. That Tim Walz’s and AOC’s support for Israel is the single-issue that’s stopping Democrats - or at the very least Walz/AOC - from winning elections?
I mean, if it were that easy…
AOC is not pro Israel. She has broken rank and voted against the Israel issue over and over. She is also one of the few politicians on either side who rejects money from AIPAC.
Yeah that’s what I thought. I’m just not sure the guy above me was aware of that.
It’s a sanity check.
Tim? The guy who said he’s an idiot sometimes? He was picked because he was viewed as a safe choice.
It seems to me that the US is unfortunately too “-ist” to elect AOC.
She voted for Take Down law that Trump will use for against anyone who goes against him. She no fucking progressive fuck off no to future neo libs.
This is such a stupid take. The other guy does 100 things wrong. AOC does 99 things right, and 1 wrong, and you want to discard her entirely for it. Politics isn’t about being perfect. It’s about being closer to your ideals than the other party. You’re rehashing the stupid “but genocide Kamala” argument again. Look where that got us.
Don’t let perfect get in the way of good.
I’d rather she primary Schumer.
That’s probably the more impactful move if she were to win.
AOC Pres with Tim Walz VP would be great
“Swerves?” WTF
The verb choice of headlines is really a plague.
Slam, blast, hit, rip, and now swerve. Remarkable journalism.
Engage
