824
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by udc@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The thing is, a brown female candidate needs a ridiculously successful campaign to win for now.

The party conveniently didn't think that was a problem with Harris because she wanted to keep selling weapons for genocide.

It’s not impossible at all. AOC may very well be the one who gets people out to vote. But she’ll also mobilize conservative voters to go vote for their guy, because she’s been such a boogeyman in their media, she’s literally seen as the devil by now.

The party conveniently didn't consider that to be a problem when they ratfucked Bernie to give us Clinton. The conventional "wisdom" that a centrist is a "safe" choice has proven disastrously wrong twice.

Trump antics aside, I don’t think she’d win 2028, but she may win 2032 or 2036 provided the pendulum* swings back by then.

You'll come up with a new excuse in 4 years time. Women can't win until there's a centrist woman to run. Never mind that centrists LOST TWICE to trump, and when a centrist did beat trump, it was a squeaker. And to do that, biden had to promise a bunch of progressive policy he never had any intention of implementing. And that dementia patient seriously thought he could coast to re-election when his only unmitigated policy win was selling weapons for genocide. After all, it was the most popular shit ever with the centrists he surrounded himself with. The centrists who were propping him up and making sure he didn't look too senile in front of the cameras as he kept the bombs going into hospitals in Gaza where centrists wanted them.

Obama was to blame for everything wrong with the country. That’s why Trump 2016 happened. Not because the Clinton campaign was weak

Obama was to Clinton's left, therefore her loss is his fault.

Again, was Harris a perfect candidate? No. Was she a great candidate? Not really. But would she have been a million times better domestically than Trump? Absolutely.

Why do you keep trying to sell me on voting THE WAY I VOTED in an election THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED? It's over and you need to stop carrying water for the single worst candidate in US history. She lost to a fascist that everyone knew was a walking disaster.

Not worse, just almost as bad. Not Gaza beach resort bad, but “Israel has a right to exist so we’ll keep giving them weapons to genocide the Palestinians” bad. This got a lot of potential voters to stay home.

They were so insignificant that they were not worth listening to, remember? The word for someone you need to listen to in order to win is a kingmaker. You know, what your wing of the party considers Dick Goddamned Cheney to be.

And all the people who said don’t vote for Harris, she’s a genocide enabler? Well pretty much none of them care about Trump being a genocide enabler, and they literally don’t care that Trump’s starting a SECOND genocide.

It's been neat watching centrists discover that they've suddenly always been opposed to genocide and always supported vulnerable minorities in the US. Pity they do the opposite when they're in office. Maybe if they didn't, they might have won.

Right now my biggest hope for the pendulum swinging back left is Mamdani. If he can actually win the election, deliver on his promises, and noticeably improve the living conditions of New Yorkers - this is the left’s best fighting chance right now.

Which explains why centrists are lobbing openly Islamophobic hate at him.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
824 points (100.0% liked)

News

31513 readers
2128 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS