91
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 06 Oct 2023
91 points (94.2% liked)
politics
19089 readers
1642 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I feel like one of the problems of being in politics is it attracts too many people with huge egos, who want to make the story all about them. While I have no doubt she is qualified for this she was still basically given this job. It would make her a lot of enemies in the party if she went out and pushed her luck to try and win the seat outright.
She's not even 50 yet, I don't think there is anyone in their mid-40s who can put "former US Senator" on their resume. I bet if she declines to run, she can have any job or appointment she wants after this, particularly in California State government. And she will have at least one US Senator as an ally, too. Withdrawing now could be a path to being a Cabinet Secretary in the Harris administration, with plenty of time after that for a Congressional run.
Excuse me, but what the fuck did you just say? The what administration?
There is a better chance of aliens landing on my front lawn, knocking on my door, and telling me I won the publishers clearing house than there is of Kamala Harris winning a presidential election.
True, but somehow I don't think that is the insinuation that OP was making.
You got me, I was trolling, but only a little bit.
As the sitting VP, she is the next one in line in the Democratic Party apparatus. So all the same folks who made sure Hillary got it in 2016 and Biden in 2020 will be pulling all the same tricks in 2028.
Generally speaking, I would agree. However, Kamala Harris in no way has the same level of institutional power that Clinton or Biden brought to the table.
Plus, she is normie poison in a general election, and we already proved that she gets eaten alive in an open primary contest, absolutely no question about that. Even Gavin will come for blood if it means getting a chance at the big chair. She has, and I mean this literally, a 0% chance of ever being elected President of the United States.
We said very similar things about Donald Trump in 2016, and he managed it. It's uphill for Harris, but she will benefit from having all that time watching Biden and maybe learning how to have a personality herself in the process.
And who knows? She might also have the benefit of incumbency herself if Joe wins another term, but that term outlasts his ticker.
Speak for yourself. I knew he was dangerous from the very beginning. I thought Hillary running would end up exactly the way it did. Everything in that election reinforced my belief that progressive populism focused around labor is the way to win back the country, and unite people.
Unlikely, and I think the fact they have hidden her away from the media due to her detrimental reflection on the administration speaks for itself.
Why would you even want that? I'm tired of the next man up bullshit. It's time for someone to earn their keep instead of this careerist/institutionalist garbage.
This is true only if you're stuck inside the Twitter bubble and refuse to step outside into real life
I think you're confusing me for you because:
I'm not a Twitter / X user
I actually understand the state of American politics, and accept the reality that pandering to normie/centrist/independent political ideology is what wins elections
I care more about moving this country forward than virtue signaling about having a female president
I understand how uncharismatic and unpopular Kamala Harris was/is/will continue to be
I actually cannot understand how someone could be so blind to reality. Hillary Clinton already tried to play queen maker on her own behalf while being a historically unpopular candidate because she thought she was OWED her turn in line.
In the process she propped up Donald Trump as a spoiler candidate, rigged the DNC against Bernie Sanders, and fucked this country into the timeline we have been stuck in for the last (almost) decade.
I'm not laughing because I know this brand of identity politics camouflaged as faux progressivism leads to failure. I care about political results in the real world, and if you think I'm the one in the bubble you need to wake up and smell the napalm.
I wasn't referring specifically to you but I also can't take you seriously with that absurd "rigged the DNC" nonsense. You sound like trump.
Oh, sick burn 🔥 You really showed me with that zinger ☠️
Just because Donald Trump is an authoritarian asshole doesn't mean that he can't also call a spade a spade when it suits his interests. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
Now for the rest of the people who need a refresher course on the 2016 election, here are some either liberal leaning or non-partisan sources to back up the claim that the Clinton campaign was definitely manipulating the DNC via Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as other means as far back as 2015.
(BBC) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798
(NPR) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/03/561768006/book-reveals-clinton-campaign-effectively-controlled-dnc-as-early-as-2015
(Politico) https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
Lastly:
Yes you fucking were, but you clearly lack the courage of your convictions. Which, quite frankly, I find to be in no way surprising.
If she wants to get into politics I think she would be foolish not to try now.
Right, but it doesn't have to be in this particular job....
Because politics is all about relationships, as Kevin so rudely found out this week. She can do more for her career by not running for this office:
The public reason the Governor gave for picking her was that he did not want to give any of the announced candidates the further benefit of incumbency. So if she goes ahead and runs anyway, it makes him look bad, and less likely to trust her with another appointment.
the announced candidates all have their own supporters, and if she comes into the race, she is bound to pick off some of the other candidates existing supporters. Even if she doesn't win, she might siphon off enough votes to change the outcome in the primary.
she might want to build her political career on her own credentials, and not on any advantage granted by the Governor.
Why do people need to be close to death in order to be eligible?
That's not what they said.