Hillary in 2016 and now most definitely Kamala in 2024

    • moondog [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      10·
      22 days ago

      I’m not very in the know of the possible options. Are there other possible democratic candidates that are women that are more likable, i.e. not soulless cops?

      • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        21 days ago

        i mean, harris’ whole thing is being on board for biden’s program, because she was too unpopular to even exist in the primaries. they both live for the cop & carceral state so hard, and that is a heinous stink. hildawg was taking money from the private prison companies, getting defensive when it was pointed out to her campaign back in 2016 with similar-to-harris disingenuous dismissals like “i take money from everybody, it doesn’t mean anything.” yes, massive capital formations strategically dismantled any barriers to funneling money to campaigns via grown-in-a-lab court cases like Citizens United and now give hundreds of millions to candidates for literally no reason. that was her pat answer. just like harris’ “it was a debate” laugh at Colbert over her almost seeming like a real person at the debates for a few minutes.

        these two stand head and shoulders above socdem careerists like Liz “The Snake” Warren. to be clear, Warren sucks. she 100% betrayed the socdem movement during the 2020 primaries during the ratfuck and we all rightfully hate on her for this, but her rhetoric was anti-finance capital and she did conceive of and spearhead the creation of the CFPB which has gone after some real scumbags. if it were her running against trump and she weren’t blasting hasbara talking points like a wind-up alarm clock every 24 hours, i could imagine throwing a vote her way just to support anybody to the left of holden-bloodfeast. not saying i would for sure, but i would think about it.

        honestly, within the dem party, i would be surprised if less than 50% of those that hold some kind of state level office or have run as a local level candidate aren’t pro-medicare for all, but they have been coached and handled into staying on some vaguely lukewarm messaging for national policy in order to advance. it is a problem of the party that grooms & chooses rising stars based on vibes. it keeps them pointless, molded as nihilist careerists like Harris or Beto. if the party really wanted to, i have no doubt they could find some mid 40s year old public school teacher who ran for schoolboard on the democrat ticket in some dysfunctional red state that would blow the doors off everybody we’ve ever heard of just by being too frustrated to not say whatever they’re thinking and too jaded from trying to teach biology to some Children of the Corn ass community in West Jerkfuck, Oklahoma to ever give an inch to a republican politician.

        i guess my point is that the function of the party in “fielding candidates” for national office is to find the unlikeable shitheels that will not rock the boat and that need the party campaign apparatus to get into highest office. they see what trump has done to their republican colleagues, and they do not want anything remotely like an insurgent candidate taking a wrecking ball to their tightly controlled farming and scouting program.

    • tactical_trans_karen [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      5·
      22 days ago

      Idk, I find Harris to be infinitely more likable than Clinton, just vibes based. Probably doesn’t help that Clinton kinda looks like my late mother… So while there was a slightly endearing quality to her for me, I always felt judged by her.

      My point is that I don’t think we can account for likability in broad sweeps. Looking at the face of it, the campaign is kinda just shit.

  • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    32·
    21 days ago

    When he won the did because America sucks and he was the outsider promising to make things better.

    When he lost he did so because America sucks and he was in charge of it.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
    24·
    22 days ago

    Men and women are becoming politically polarized between the two parties, and it’ll probably get worse after this election.

    Healthy and normal society.

  • Guamer [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    24·
    22 days ago

    If he does beat Harris, I’m putting it down to coincidence and luck more than anything. Hillary was just a charisma black hole, and Kamala isn’t much better.

  • REgon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    21 days ago

    Because when he runs against women the democratic party leans into identity politics and girlbossing as its entire gimmic, thinking it doesn’t even have to pretend to give a shit about issues like the climate or genocide or trans rights or the multitude of other disasters they usually pay lip service to.

    And then there’s also the misogyny

  • Dimmer06 [he/him,comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    10·
    22 days ago

    I like to try and believe most people are fundamentally good but your median American is probably casually racist and misogynistic (and all around an ignorant bigot). They don’t want to vote for a woman or a POC even if they might not feel comfortable saying that out loud. To their right only gets worse and the population of voters skews right.

    Of course the Democrats have no real strategy to get around this issue besides running women or POC with further and further right politics which doesn’t seem to be working.

    As leftists we recognize that the solution is building a proletarian class that can either correct the politics of the average proletariat here or crush the proletariat’s enemies here. There’s no magic candidate we can run that will attract masses of workers because there are very few people who self identify as workers in any meaningful sense.