972
AOC surges to lead in 2028 primary for first time
(www.newsweek.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 12 May 2026
972 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30930 readers
1650 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Who’s this “many”? Kamala lost because of her Joe Biden neolib policies, her hard heel-turn to the right, and her “nothing will change, we are the most lethal military” stance on the Middle East.
Instead of reassuring the masses who she thought were a shoe-in, she tried to appease the “I’ll never vote for a black woman” crowd, which alienated the former and would never have worked on the latter.
It was either the greatest miscalculation ever, lead by Third Way focus groups, or someone tugged the leash. Either way, with the GOP rat fucking that was almost certainly happening to some degree.
Pretty shitty of Newsweek to pretend that progressive policies are unpopular with a majority of Americans.
Personally, I think it is because there was no Democratic Party primary. Biden stole the time that any potential candidate could have used to prove their mettle to voters.
Yeah, I would also actually lay more blame on Biden over Kamela, despite Kamela being a pretty terrible candidate
DNC has already shown they aren’t taking that as the lesson learnt. They won’t even release the 2024 autopsy cause they don’t like what it says
It was obvious the party was cooked in 2018 - when, in response to regaining power after losing in a great upset to an insane game show host, they kept the exact same leadership.
No, she lost because she was black and a woman. People always underestimate just how racist and sexist the US is. Don't fall into this trap.
The polls say otherwise. She was leading after her announcement, when she was still talking about healthcare reform, economic justice, taxing the rich, etc. For about three weeks.
Then she talked to her business rep corpo brother, and shifted gear to espousing pro-corporate policy, defending the wealthy, calling leftists Bernie bros, etc, and fell behind.
I agree that Palestine made little difference, btw. It cost her around half a million votes, but she lost by three times that. That's looking at state by state, too.
She lost because she turned herself into Biden 2, instead of what people wanted her to be, which was Obama (until he became President. He lied very well, then governed well enough that we forgave him for being friends with the corps).
Women won senate races in three of the swing states she lost and a Hispanic man won a fourth. It's hard to imagine an explanation more out of line with actual evidence.
It's possible that it she was a white man, and absolutely nothing else was different, that she very well might have just barely eeked out a victory. That's still a failure. It should have been a blowout. It was a failure of a campaign, racism and sexism against the candidate by the general public was a component, but the least relevant one.
Yeah. Her argument was that she was Joe Biden, but younger and more diverse. But Joe Biden was LOSING. Even before his debate performance. And he only barely won in 2020, which also should have been a blowout.
It's not the blackness or the femaleness, it's doubling down on shitty uninspiring politics. An old white male Joe Biden was going to lose even worse than the middle aged black female Joe Biden.
Exactly. People forget that Biden in 2020 under performed polls, and it's pretty clear that absent COVID he would have lost.
I agree, even if Biden was 20 years younger I think he would have won. If he was 20 years younger and female and Indian he would have lost just as Harris did.
It was definitely policy that hindered them, but also the sexism and racism.
"Kamala Harris ran the perfect campaign, she was just stabbed in the back!"
You couldn’t mention her name around here without a bandwagon of “She’s the literal genocide queen and a vote for her is a vote to murder Palestinian children.”
Since you mentioned the name, I did notice quite obviously the disrespect everyone had toward Kamala Harris in the news and online comments simply due what they called her.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
I suspect it was either due to her being a woman, or due to her being Indian (Kamala sounds a lot more foreign than Harris).
It was always "Kamala vs Trump" never Harris vs Trump or Kamala vs Donald.
Because that's the more unique and thus memorable part of her name. Just like "Bernie" is more memorable than "Sanders".
It wasn't a sign of disrespect, sexism, or othering to call Bernie by his first name, and it wasn't in the case of Kamala Harris either.
Anyone who says otherwise is likely grasping at straws to explain away the fact that it was mostly her policy positions and allegiance to Biden, corporations, and Israel over the people she was SUPPOSED to represent that lost her the election rather than bigotry.
I assumed it was the woman aspect, hadn’t even considered the foreign aspect.
https://news.asu.edu/20170721-solutions-asu-mayo-study-how-female-doctors-introduced
I have a really hard time remembering how to pronounce her first name because I know someone with the same spelling but different pronunciation, (and I read the news, don’t watch it) so to avoid saying it wrong I only ever said Harris.
That sounds exactly like something those Sandersbros would do, they're basically indistinguishable from r/TheTrump.
I mean, she did support the genocide. Which murdered tens of thousands of Palestinian children. What is your point?
But "around here" is representative of what? 5% of voters? 16% of democratic voters max? Let's not pretend Lemmy users represent a sizable number of democratic voters.
Only on Lemmy
Case in point: your bullshit comment.
"Oh, it couldn't possibly be her shitty policy positions; it had to have been because of her race and gender!"
Fuck all the way off with your soft bigotry of low expectations.
A THIRD of people, only slightly smaller than the third that voted for Trump, voted for Harris based on the fact that she WASN'T TRUMP. Another third didn't vote because they felt her stance on Israel wasn't enough to offset that she wasn't Trump. I don't feel it had anything to do with her race or gender.
Pretty crazy to write that the third that didn’t vote, did so because of Israel lol
Yeah, that's not true.
But if it was, then you need to be asking why, in an election they claimed was existential, the Democratic Party anointed a black woman to run as their candidate against Trump.
Because that's the conclusion of the excuse you're making - that the Democrats can only nominate men, or they're choosing to lose.
No no, that's the trap of their narrative. "The Democrats are always just bending over backwards trying to promote minority candidates even when the deck is stacked against them, because they're just such true believers in progressive ideals."
The reality is, by playing up the "progressiveness" of a candidate's inherent characteristics, they can be quietly used as a vehicle for conservative policies that make their donors happy. This is a strategy that's very played out around the world, even Pakistan once had their own version of Margaret Thatcher, and Japan just go theirs recently.
From the perspective that progressive politics are completely off the table, picking a minority candidate was a tactically reasonable choice. A candidate's race and gender are about the only "concessions" they could give to the left, while courting their donors.
But the problem with that is that second-wave feminism, the kind that tends to see Thatcherites as a win, never caught on in the US like it did in the UK, and third-wave, which is more popular these days, accounts for that failure and focuses more on systemic issues and policy than individual leaders.
But any strategy that might work to get progressives to bend the knee to neoliberalism will be tried again and again, and if it fails they'll just chalk it up to sexism or whatever other bullshit.
She came out look ling like Darth vader in one of the televised things she did and did the war hawk dance. Fuck off forever, you lost to Donald Fucking Trump after spending 1.5 billion.
its almost like all legacy media is inherently fascist
Many = the author. Every time.
they do this every time though. The centrists fail, so obviously the answer is more centrism.
More centrism to the right, of course, never to the left.
Yup.
However, the immediate effect of not voting for the lesser evil is either not voting, meaning the right wins, or voting for candidates with no chance of winning, taking votes away from the more left ones and allowing the right to win. "More right" is better than "all the way to the far right."
If you're not going to change direction, the speed at which you're moving right isn't really important. You're getting there anyways.
It is important, because continuing that way isn't a foregone conclusion, despite you acting like it is.
Sure thing Charlie Brown, one day you're gonna kick that DNC football!
In fairness to Newsweek, based on the sentence before this, I think they mean, "many in the party establishment," not, "many people in general."
Essentially, she showed herself as who she truly is: an establishment Democrat more intent on maintaining the status quo instead of listening to the left and helping push the party further towards progressive policies and reshaping the party into something that represents the modern constituency.
Yeah that.
Harris was progressive? Really?
There are many contradictory opinions on why Harris lost. These opinions usually boil down to “Her policy positions weren’t close enough to my policy positions, and that’s why she lost.”
And every other leftist on this site seems to believe that she would have won, had she just pandered to them more. Completely ignoring the fact that leftism essentially doesn't exist in this country, and Lemmy isn't an accurate representation of American voters.
Well, it's pretty obvious that running for the Liz Cheney voter did not work.
We'd prolly know for sure if they released the report. Ken Martin needs to be fired.
I remember during the Trump/Harris debate when Israel came up and they both took turns declaring they could suck off Israel harder than their opponent.
I do not consider Harris a progressive.
She literally campaigned with Liz Cheney. Too progressive? Lmao no one believes that shit except brainwashed magats.
Crazy how every rag shifts between blaming gaza voters for her loss while simultaneously claiming Harris was "too progressive".
It seems American voters want right wing vs far right.