187
No thanks, I'd like an actual progressive for once.
Yeah... Harris was an OK option for president given the state of national politics. But California can do far better.
Good luck with that. The Democrats have sold out to the rich and corporations
I want someone who doesn't seek approval from conservatives. She can fuck off and collect speakers fees for the rest of her life for all I care.
She would still be better than Newsom. That's a pretty low bar though.
Do we know he's going to run as a Democrat? Seems like someone who was a Democrat wouldn't initiate their podcast with TPUSA and railing against trans people.
He's term limited, so won't be governor again.
He wants to run for president.
Oh jfc don't. When you blow an election this hard you need to just go away.
Californian here. No.
What are you gonna do, let the other guy win?
/s
Isn't it obvious? Harris is running for Governor, because Newsom is running for President.
Which will be hilarious if Trump Jr. also runs for President, because his (former) long-time fiancee was also Newsom's ex-wife. Kimberly Guilfoyle will be hitting the interview circuit big-time as the ex-partner of both candidates.
Newsome just launched a podcast and glazed the fuck out of his first guest: Charlie Kirk
No fucking WAY that guy needs to be president
load more comments
(4 replies)
Getting my popcorn ready.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Go away Hillary 2 electric boogaloo
Well, you got rump so you should be ecstatic
Harris fucked us with Trump, and now she's trying to fuck us again by losing to another maga retard.
Harris, you are a fucking loser, we don't want you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Harris didn't even get 1/2 of 1% of the popular vote in either of the two states she primaried in for 2020. Still she somehow became the VP and eventually the presumptive presidential nominee of 2024.
I feel like this is worth reminding people.
Yeah but she was a sitting senator so she was in the club. She was a black woman so she ticked the right boxes to balance out Bidens white man. And she was a prosecutor who worked well with the police so she countered the defund the police message thay centrist dems were sure would sink them.
She was a very very logical choice for Biden's VP.
load more comments
(2 replies)
californian here. i hope she portrays being more progressive than she did in her presidential campaign. she seems very politically conservative for wanting the governorship here.
I mean, your current governor just invited Charlie Kirk on his podcast to bash trans people together, and I haven't read that he's going to be forced out of office in disgrace, so...
I mean he already can't run again because of term limits, so nobody needs to force him out of office.
load more comments
(7 replies)
She's always seemed very politically flexible to me.
That's not a good thing. What America needs is strong leaders with convictions, not more suits.
In retrospect yes, my comment could be seen as a positive. That wasn't my intent.
She seems both qualified for the job and motivated to stand up to the Trump administration's aggression, both of which are important qualities in a leader of a US state that happens to be the world's 5th largest economy.
EDIT:
For those who downvoted, perhaps you could use your words to explain what you disagree with in my comment, and why? I don't know Kamala Harris all that well, so if there's something important that I'm missing, I would like to know about it. A downvote doesn't help anyone.
I've never seen her be anything but a nakedly power hungry, political hack. She's tried to sell herself as both a progressive and conservative liberal, depending on who she's talking to. I wouldn't doubt if sher looses again, she'll go Republican.
We need a leader that will advocate for our economic class. That's not her.
Her disastrous campaign is what allowed Trump 2 to happen. How she ran her campaign (or allowed the DNC to steamroll her, same difference) is what's wrong with her.
Italian here.
Why her campaign went wrong?
She started off aggressively attacking Trump and portraying him and Vance as weirdos. It was working and her numbers quickly went up.
Then she let the DNC take control of her campaign (the DNC is the main organization for the Democratic party). She stopped the attacks and started acting like a typical establishment empty suit Dem, which culminated in her saying that she'd change nothing from Biden (who had a 38% approval rating). She did this while also campaigning with Liz Cheney who is a very conservative anti-Trump Republican.
They basically took Dem voters for granted and tried to peel off Trump voters while saying she would be just like Joe Biden, who Trump voters and a majority of independents despise. It was an idiotic strategy
She started off aggressively attacking Trump and portraying him and Vance as weirdos.
More importantly she promised progressive economic policy. She had stuff like a wealth tax on the books, for example. When the DNC took over she started abandoning or watering down those policies and focusing exclusively on Trump (though her attacks on him were much more like an empty suit dem).
Thx.
It seems to me dems didn't cared about voting for Harris. Only 64% voted and Trump won with a 23% of the population, really not much.
International relations standpoint aside, she offered no benefits or relief to the economic woes of the working class other than telling them to suck it up because everything's fine. She ignored progressives in a pathetic attempt at currying favor with the likes of Liz fucking Cheney because she thinks conservatives would actually pick a Democrat over literally any Republican candidate. Everything about her screamed corporatism, the status quo of deadlocked improvements in Congress, and a lack of willingness to meaningfully change things for the better.
She is the quintessential establishment Democrat who would rather campaign for fundraisers than actually act on meaningful legislation. Despite all these (and many more) flaws, I voted for her as she was the only meaningful opposition the DNC could regurgitate out because Biden was too proud to stop his reelection campaign early on. For California governor, I'd want an actual progressive with the intent to make things better over her any day.
I downvoted mainly because nothing you posted is true
Why? She has been person non grata since the election and has completely checked out. Unless she thinks the ballot initiative to make California a nation will work
Don't
I will be sleepless for months, in anticipation of this momentous decision.
WTF? Aren't there other people that can become president or governor? In the case of Trump rocks and organic molecules?
The winner in the general election will almost certainly be a Democrat, but California has an open, top-two primary. If left-leaning voters can unite behind a second Democratic candidate, and Republican voters split their votes between two or more candidates, it’s plausible that the general election could come down to Harris and a second Democrat to her left.
Republicans who have already demonized Harris after the 2024 campaign might then vote for the other Democrat, just on the basis of their negative view of Harris—so Harris being in the race could swing the election further to the left.
This comes off very bad for her. Who wants a candidate that isn’t entirely committed or interested in the office they might run for?
That would be fantastic I would vote for her.
Which candidate will she not be in that election?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
187 points (100.0% liked)
News
31748 readers
2826 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