607
Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
607 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29864 readers
1897 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So long as there's a proper primary I don't see the harm in this, not really. I can't see her running a good enough campaign to make it through the primaries, at least not without also having a good enough campaign to beat the fascist party after Trump.
the key here is “proper primary.” I can’t remember a time when they’ve had one that wasn’t fucked up in some way.
1992? 2000? 2004? 2008? 2020?
2008. They were NOT expecting Obama to oust Hillary, and took steps to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again. Allegedly the new DNC head or whatever his title is wants fair primaries, so I guess we’ll see.
What about 2008? It wasn't fair?
As far as I know/remember it was, at least as fair as any primary with superdelegates can be. Or rather, it was still using an unfair system and enough people turned out so that the system to keep nominations “in check” didn’t work.
Even 2016 was pretty fair. The nomination went to the person with the most votes and the majority of the non-super delegates. Bernie lost because people didn't want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn't "fair". If more people voted for him he would have won.
No, Bernie had the nom stolen by Hillary and DWS via corrupt back room dealings and superdelegate shenanigans. Everyone was voting Bernie and for the corporate elite that was a problem. They solved it by ratfucking the primaries, a tried and true dem tactic.
Agreed 100%.
Source: I was there. Bernie got screwed because the dems through it was “Hillary’s turn”.
Fuck that.
Clinton literally controlled the DNC treasury during that election. The party was low on funding due to mismanagement during the Obama years, she lent it money in return for control, next thing you know, media is flooded with articles talking up Clinton having all the superdelegate votes so being so far ahead before any real votes were cast...even when Bernie won states, it was all "doesn't matter he still can't make up for the SDs"
Uh oh
(I agree, although DWS really screwed up everything including discussing this)
Yeah this is something that really bothers me about my fellow leftists and is pure revisionism about the 2016 primary. Bernie lost fair and square and all we had to do to make sure that didn't happen was get more people to vote for him. But according to many people on here if the candidate fails to win then it's their sole fault because they couldn't convince voters to go with them. But I guess that doesn't apply to Bernie.
Also I hate how DWS screwed up talking about this all because she was biased as fuck towards Clinton. Her bias wouldn't have mattered if more people had voted for Bernie but her having a bias at all must mean Bernie was cheated out of the nomination.
I think where a lot of this comes from is that HRC had locked in the vast majority of the superdelegates right from the start. The media consistently represented Bernie as having no chance to win, due to all the superdelegates being in the bag for Clinton, regardless of how people voted. This depressed progressive turnout, as a Clinton victory was apparently a foregone conclusion. Absent the superdelegate system, and the lopsided media coverage it engendered, many would argue the result would have been different. Obviously, there's no way of knowing at this point, but it's not as if these claims have no basis in reality.
See now that's an actual conversation to have! Not saying that Clinton cheated and/or was always going to be the candidate but that how the media represented the race depressed turnout. That's a thing that continues to happen from the media trying to suppress progressive turnout and it often works. But those things still don't change that if those progressives hadn't been so easily suppressed and had continued to go out and fight and vote regardless of what the media said, just like trump voters did, then Bernie would have won the primary and the super delegates wouldn't have mattered. And then likely would have won versus Trump, in my opinion.
If you call wall to wall Propaganda about how it doesn't matter how Bernie is winning all these states, all the superdelegates are going to Clinton and she wins basically by default?
Like that wasn't designed to dissuade voters?
2024 was the only year recently we didn't have a primary.
neat. i have been voting for longer than that. there have been years where there was only one person on the primary, which efficiently means “primary votes are cancelled” - when the dnc say they want the incumbent.
that is a de facto cancellation. telling the people who could vote that they are ignored.
my point stands: the dem side needs to do a better job.
I've been voting since I was 18 and I've never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.
yeah. see. i disagree that incumbents should be given anything. earn it. primary every time.
i have been voting since 1997.
I agree with you, but as devil's advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent's name. Take Biden for example: either he's doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he's not doing a good enough job.
Parties shouldn't have that kind of operational control over our elections.
why? imho because its supposed to represent the current situation and overton window not be a reminder the parties are “clubs” that set their own rules.
Sure, but a proper one? 2020 and 2016 were both ratfucked. 2012 was an incumbent year. So we'll be at 2 decades since the last time we had a proper primary.
That's absolutely not true. I've been voting since 2012 and the only presidential primary I've voted in that had more than one candidate was the Hillary-Bernie primary. That's the only one.
It absolutely is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
In 2012 Obama was the incumbent, which again as I mentioned, incumbents typically aren't primaried if they are doing a decent job and up for re-election.
Since then there was 2016, 2020, where both years had a primary for the DNC. 2024 was just a fluke because Biden should have dropped out. Or even stuck with his original campaign promise of not running for re-election. You're young and your sample size is 4. My sample size is 5, but it's been consistent in years prior.
Depending on your state. In mine, there was a single candidate. That's a primary in the same way the USSR had elections. If you lived in one of the states that had two candidates in 2020 then good for you. I didn't.
Nope. Bernie should have won the primary but the dems decided it was “Hillary’s turn” so they fucked Bernie.
Just to terrify you a little bit. In the 2020 election, Harris and Biden only had one candidate that regularly polled worse than they did, which was a culty Tulsi. And if you remember, out of that large field, Biden won.
The DNC has a gigantically fat thumb on the scales.
Remember when the media decided that Biden winning the south Carolina primary was basically a coronation.
Three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton
It sure looked like Bernie was gonna kick her butt until the DNC decided they didn’t like a Democratic Socialist possibly winning. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned for a reason.
I don’t trust the primaries to be fair. There is too much money and power at stake to let “the people” actually decide the candidates. To me it’s the major reason everyone says both parties are the same. It’s because both candidates are picked by the same people, at least at this level. Yes I know they aren’t the same, especially now. But have you ever noticed how feckless the Democratic leadership seems to be? It’s because the billionaires are really the ones in power.
If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.
First Past the Post voting in the primaries favors moderates and extremists, but an issue with moderates is that they don’t excite voters with big life changing policies. So no one, except people already bought into preventing the worst option, show up to vote in the general elections. Which makes it harder for everyone.
More states need to get forms of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, specifically STAR or Ranked Robin voting if we want to see more progressive wins.
Which is why several states are banning ranked choice voting...
Notably all red states as well. There’s other voting systems I’d suggest but I believe it’s worth waiting till they can’t ban them first.
The only purpose of the staggered primary is for them to slowly manufacture your consent for who they want. The only way we're going to get an honest primary is if the entire country did it on one day like we do the general
a regular primary with enough debates, and where superdelegates are shun till the end, should be bare minimum
How about just no super delegates and the people decide.
How about a primary where superdelegates get no more/better votes than anyone else?
What am I thinking? That might result in someone who isn't on the corporate teat!
Super delegates need to go
All delegates need to go. The electoral college and all the historical reasoning behind it are no longer valid.
If you want a more fair election, ranked choice, with weighted votes like a Borda system. Borda is good at finding broadly acceptable compromise candidates because it rewards strong second- and third-place support instead of only first-place votes. It’s good at finding better consensus candidates but even this can be gamed by deliberately ranking strong candidates last. No system is perfect, but there are lots better options than what we are currently using.
Why would the Democratic Party operate like that when it risks allowing a Bernie-style candidate to go all the way to the general?
They're going to crowd the field with slop candidates, like Tulsi Gabbard and Liz Warren and Beto were in '20, then consolidate the rest of the field around whatever neolib shithead demonstrates a significant popular appeal. The roadmap was laid out in '76 and repeated in every open primary since then.
Keeping populists like Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders out of the top ticket slot is absolutely a feature, not a bug.
Hahahaha. Good one. That'll totally happen.
If there is a primary hopefully she will perform the public service of prompting the others to distance themselves from Bidens handling of Gaza