Kamala Harris 2028?

[Raze]

Reports are Kamala Harris is planning on running again in 2028. She currently has a huge lead among democrat primary voters. Thoughts?

[Raze]

They also changed the first democrat primary states to South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia. These are states with some of the highest percent of Hispanic and black voters so she may have a big advantage there considering those groups do the best with her according to this. 

[Hardkill]

If Democratic pundits, analysts, strategists, and politicians said that Harris lost in 2024 because of racism and sexism, then why aren't they only promoting for ONLY male politicians, especially white male Democrats, in their party to run for president?

Also, why do they think that it is a good idea to float Pete Buttigieg, who is gay, as a possible Democratic presidential candidate? I don't see how he could ever win the near future.

Edited 9 hours ago by Hardkill

[Hojo]

@Hardkill They want to lose. Only explanation.

They put a person up who no one likes and lose. Why cant that same strat work the next time for no reason?

Edited 9 hours ago by Hojo

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

@Hardkill They want to lose. Only explanation.

They put a person up who no one likes and lose. Why cant that same strat work the next time for no reason?

I am skeptical of the idea or notion that "They want to lose. Only explanation." You don't think they want to win any power? Also, winning elections is extremely important for all of the professionals involved in the business of promoting the Democratic Party.

[Hojo]

13 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I am skeptical of the idea or notion that "They want to lose. Only explanation." You don't think they want to win any power? Also, winning elections is extremely important for all of the professionals involved in the business of promoting the Democratic Party.

No I think they want to lose on purpose. Cant be that dumb.

How much on a retarded scale do you think this decision is?

1 being not very 10 being supreme retard.

Its like a 8 or  9 for me.

So either the party is super dumb or they are doing it on purpose.

Its too high on the scale to be wanting power. This is the opposite of wanting to win power.

This is putting a stick in your own spokes while you are bike riding.

 

Going against this is using identity politics more than the country wants you too in the name of morality. It wont work.

They already tried it and it instantly failed.

Edited 8 hours ago by Hojo

[enchanted]

Could be the ultimate "I told you so campaign". However I don't think she only lost because she had very little time to run. 

 She has great values and I'd vote for her if she became the candidate but she isn't a great speaker and she is only comfortable in settings like "call her daddy" podcast and softball interviews like that. She doesnt connect with many different types of people as well as Gavin Newsom does and isn't as good a a speaker as Nikki Haley or John Ossoff is. 

Edited 6 hours ago by enchanted

[enchanted]

2 hours ago, Hojo said:

@Hardkill They want to lose. Only explanation.

They put a person up who no one likes and lose. Why cant that same strat work the next time for no reason?

Dude she won almost half the vote. Pretty sure she is liked by some people. 

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

If Democratic pundits, analysts, strategists, and politicians said that Harris lost in 2024 because of racism and sexism, then why aren't they only promoting for ONLY male politicians, especially white male Democrats, in their party to run for president?

Also, why do they think that it is a good idea to float Pete Buttigieg, who is gay, as a possible Democratic presidential candidate? I don't see how he could ever win the near future.

She won almost half the vote so it wasn't racism or sexism. I think the biggest reason she lost is because she had such little time to connect with voters and also she isn't that good at connecting with voters over all; the whole time she was VP we didn't get to know her at all. I felt that was very strange.  Further more on her short campaign she only went on softball interviews like "call her daddy" and tried to ignore the whole demographic and ideas that made Trump popular. Also she laughs way too much, and she isn't that strong of a speaker (like Newsom or Nikki Haley for example).

That being said she has awesome values, and what she pulled off is incredible. I voted for her and I think she is an amazing and impressive person who would have done an excellent job as president. 

 

[MediumKahuna]

Establishment dems have the worst political instincts imaginable.

[aurum]

My gut says not the right move.

I don't see her as someone who is going to really energize voters. 

[Raze]

5 hours ago, Hardkill said:

If Democratic pundits, analysts, strategists, and politicians said that Harris lost in 2024 because of racism and sexism, then why aren't they only promoting for ONLY male politicians, especially white male Democrats, in their party to run for president?

Also, why do they think that it is a good idea to float Pete Buttigieg, who is gay, as a possible Democratic presidential candidate? I don't see how he could ever win the near future.

 

2 hours ago, MediumKahuna said:

Establishment dems have the worst political instincts imaginable.

I don’t like it either but as of now the establishment really isn’t promoting her.

[enchanted]

4 hours ago, MediumKahuna said:

Establishment dems have the worst political instincts imaginable.

Well they win about half the elections and still get about half the votes when they lose BUT you are right too. They play it too safe and that is their downfall in a way. Bernie Sanders is a generational talent and the Dems didn't embrace him. It's easy to make fun of the fact that conservatives are stuck in their ways but Dems aren't much better. 

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

My gut says not the right move.

I don't see her as someone who is going to really energize voters. 

Same. Who do you think would do well? I think Newsom and John Ossoff are both great. John Ossoff being my first choice as he seems smarter to me. 

Edited 1 hour ago by enchanted

[aurum]

1 hour ago, enchanted said:

Same. Who do you think would do well? I think Newsom and John Ossoff are both great. John Ossoff being my first choice as he seems smarter to me. 

Newsom seems to me like the most likely option, assuming we don't get some out-of-left-field contender rise up the way Mamdani did.

Newsom's biggest weakness is that he's not winning over a lot of the DSA, progressive wing of the democrats. They see him as a centrist, neoliberal who is still going to ultimately cuck himself to the oligarchy.

I think he also gives them the vibe of that old-school, white, toxic patriarchal masculinity.

John Ossoff I know almost nothing about. So no comment there.