you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Clinton argued that had Biden announced in late summer 2023 that he would not run, a genuine Democratic primary would have produced a stronger nominee...“I believe whoever emerged from that contest, whether it was the vice-president or a governor or a senator or anybody else, would have beaten Donald Trump,”

I doubt it. I doubt Democrat voters could have come to a consensus on a candidate. Leftists/progressives just want different things than liberals. I think liberals are so far removed from what the majority of Americans want that they're just political poison, especially in a general election. But, while some of the progressives' economic populist messages resonate with a lot of Americans, a lot of the progressives' messages on social issues do not. I don't know who would have emerged from that mess who would have done any better than Kamala.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Doing better than Kamala would have been easy. Even 2023 Kamala would have beaten 2024 Kamala. I think Walz is still the most likely VP, but I think Mark Kelly or Mayor Pete lead the ticket.

    One of he biggest mistakes the Harris campaign made was to be just "Joe Biden Lite".

    Plus a Biden without the baggage of a 2024 campaign could have done A LOT more.

    Democrats might have fought and complained, but come fall 2024 I suspect they would have been happy enough with their choice. Sure it may have been a Clinton 2020 situation, but probably better off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    But, while some of the progressives' economic populist messages resonate with a lot of Americans, a lot of the progressives' messages on social issues do not.

    The problem is that a third of Americans are indoctrinated into thinking that progressive economic and social policies are communist and immoral, respectively.

  • source
  • parent