Have the republicans even bothered to give a name for 2028?
post
Its funny how people act as if kamala lost because she supported genocide
No lol, leftists hold miniscule power in electorate, kamala lost because she ran a shitty campaign and neo liberal economics will only make things worse for incumbent.
Its very hard to discern the real reason Harris lost in the election. Especially with interference the Right orchestrated with mail in voting and voting IDs, they tanked the left's momentum while gassing Trump's reelection with actual fraud. The results of numerous investigations was that if someone committed fraud or voted twice it was for a Republican candidate... but don't worry isn't not like Trump controlled the swing districts and threw away votes for Harris.
and voting IDs
Just another reminder: Read the SAVE Act and start getting together valid ID under it now, don't wait to find out if it's going to pass first. Valid ID has other uses too so it's not a total waste if it doesn't pass and gets you ahead of both the line and any GOP fuckery with trying to get ID if it does pass.
Especially if you are someone who has ever changed their name, as SAVE allows for some forms of voter ID that don't verify citizenship, but those have to be paired with a birth record with a matching name, which doesn't exist if you have ever changed your name (such as being a married woman, or many trans folks).
"Trump on Elon Musk: 'He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.'"
Not totally convinced she lost.
neo libs must choose… either there is not enough progressives to demand a progressive candidate so they are not a large enough block to have changed the outcome OR they are large enough bloc to demand progressive cannidate and the democrats ignoring them cost them the election.
and they always pivot talking points
Schrodinger's Left: small enough for Dems to ignore, large enough to make Dems lose
The enemy is both strong and weak.
It's almost like they're fascist lite....
It's almost like Democrats are 2016 Republicans, which were fascist light...
I'm happy to see more progressives running but as a recent example, Madami, the Dems would have rather he lost than win even if it meant electing Trump. They're the ones that put themselves in this position, now us.
There's a reason actual leftists refer to these losers as "social fascists"
Liberals vastly prefer fascism to actual justice.
"No new wars" was a trump slogan, leftists aren't the only ones against the genocide, pretty much everyone who doesn't have ties with israel was pissed with US involvement.
America doesn't have a left wing. America has a right wing and an extreme right wing. The closest to an actual leftist that America has is Mamdani, and America's so-called left wing politicians tried their best to make him look evil.
Don’t forget Bernie and AOC.
It's about time America stops electing people who need to be in elder care homes as their politicians.
I voted for Kamala, but I was pissed we didn't have a fucking primary. If we had a primary, we might have gotten Bernie on the ballot, or Elizabeth Warren, or Butegig, or anyone else. But instead Biden claimed to be running, then dropped out at the last minute so opps no time for primaries. I'm salty as hell that democrats didn't get a choice. It felt deliberate and coordinated.
Some factors for losing:
- People were already salty that Biden even decided to run again, and then he forced a different candidate upon the voters.
- Status quo
- Woman
- Not white
- Zionism apologist
- Obviously dumb strategy to ditch the “weird” name calling, and placate the right.
- I not sure what to call it, but there is definitely an issue in our country of picking the “popular kid”, or “cool kid”
Her loss was a combination of many factors, including the support of genocidal Zionism. Do not ignore it.
I not sure what to call it, but there is definitely an issue in our country of picking the “popular kid”, or “cool kid”
Charisma matters more than it should.
MAGA are so soft, the "weird" moniker for their god emperor was one of the few things that was working well
Also I don't think voters appreciated having her shoved in at the last minute.
Kamala lost because it was obvious from the beginning that she was a bad candidate whose only hope of becoming President was to be parachuted into the role via the 25th Amendment once Biden's mental state truly deteriorated. Unfortunately for her and the DNC, Biden's condition declined right as a key presidential debate rolled around, and his declining cognitive health became so utterly apparent that not even Reddit's tyrannical cabal of power mods could cover it up anymore.
Before that debate, even merely suggesting that Biden was senile would have gotten you labelled a Nazi and banned from at least a dozen subreddits.
THAT is why she lost to a convicted felon.
Did you watch the debates between Biden and Trump. Biden was far more articulate and sane than trump, and it still wasn't enough.
Sure, but republicans don't care if their candidate is sane (obviously). Democrats do.
Both of them were clearly demented. Trump just making shit up and Biden interrupting him to mumble incoherently, ending in "We Beat Medicaid!"
Nah he was just quiet senile instead of loud senile. I've had patients that are rather agreeable despite low cognitive function. They don't wind up in the hospital as much and get discharged quicker because the agreeableness means they can accept home caregivers more safely, but they very much still need assistance with decision making. He wasn't more coherent per se, just more able to cooperate with his handlers. Ignoring morality (a distressingly common occurrence throughout the history of humanity) is it preferable to have a leader who accepts control of the oligarchs more placidly or more chaotically? I don't speak to my parents anymore for a variety of reasons (including politics) but one tiny spark of something they did get right was that trump is slightly harder to keep under control, and is accelerating the destruction of our broken political system. We ultimately just differed in opinion on whether the coming system is more likely to be better or worse.
Who said they were going to beat medicare and had an eyeball get bloody on stage?
Both were senile racist bastards, one has always been incoherent, one was more recently incoherent.
she was a candidate for 100 days leading up to the election, against a former president that had been campaigning non stop for 6 8 years at the point she joined the race. She was fucked over and thrown under a bus.
She had good momentum at the start with the brat summer thing and calling conservatives weird and then, very suddenly, she threw it all in the trash and started running around with Liz Cheney. They saw her amping up the progressives and needed to put a stop to it and whether it was her idea or not she jumped in there with all her energy.
She could have won, she didn’t lose by much, but she desperately spent the last month or two making sure that everyone knew she would rather lean conservative than progressive.
I felt like she was a token black women as a VP, and not allowed to be any more than that. As much as the dems espouse equality its still a rich white man who is against universal healthcare running things.
She lost because the average voter votes for whatever name they've heard before.
Which wouldn’t have happened if she ran a good campaign.
Show me a good campaign that accepts AIPAC money. I want to know what you think a capable genocide supporting Democrat looks like.
Show me a good campaign that accepts AIPAC money.
Pick pretty much any winning campaign on either side in something like the last half century. In context a "good campaign" doesn't mean a campaign holding up to whatever your particular markers of moral purity are (which includes but certainly are not limited to "does not support Israel"), but rather a campaign that is effective at getting elected.
however, enough of the protest votes would have swung the election in her favor.
I have never seen a single piece of data to back up a claim like that. If you have, I'd love to see it
they didn't all protest the vote. I would say most of them just didn't vote because they couldn't be bothered.
I would guess this is true, but this is a failure of the candidate, not the electorate. In a country without mandatory voting or a national holiday for elections, motivating your base is extremely important, especially when you base is working class people who are less likely to be able to take time off to vote. Even ignoring her centrist economic platform and genocide support, her strategy was explicitly to target disaffected Republicans instead of energizing her own base, and that strategy failed. Kamala and the incompetent consultants she surrounded herself with own this loss, and whining about the voters won't change that.
In other words, she lost because she was a Limousine Liberal.
The turnout was actually rather high by historical standards. A portion of the population not voting is just a constant of elections. You can't blame your loss on something that happens every election. And worse, in recent elections, Democrats do WORSE when turnout is higher. If turnout were higher, Kamala would have lost even worse.
We have 2 years to find a candidate who doesnt try to fix systemic and financial issues with changing social structures.
Here in Texas, our leading candidates for Senate (James Talarico) and governor (Gina Hinojosa) are taking refreshingly reality-based positions on Gaza and seem to be developing campaigns aimed directly against billionaires. I like what I've been hearing
DNC will throw an election before moving to the left.
If Trump runs again you’ve fucked up. He can’t just run for a third term.
Trump can be long dead and buried, yet I feel like he's still going to be running in every US election for the next few decades. The majority of his supporters have only doubled down on his brand of politics, so there will always be another Trump.
My concern is that if he were to drop dead tomorrow that a large portion of his followers will just say something dumb like he's gone undercover in an attempt to take over the deep state. And then proceed to add him in as a write in ballot for the next several decades.
Those votes would just get thrown out in that case, so if that's what they want to do, they are welcome to do so.
An element of what you say is true, but he's also a cult of personality that they're really going to struggle to replicate. Trump literally only cares about himself and has taken zero (0) steps to develop successors. Right now, JD Vance is poised to lead the movement, and he has the personality of a potato
That fat, orange, cheeseburger-powered fuck will die before he could run for a third term
So we're just going to hash this out every single day for the next 2 years, huh?
Edit: I do find it interesting how many replies to this comment are vague enough that you can't determine which side of this argument they're on, but I guess I did start it myself.
whether you agree with them or not, shaming and ridiculing them is not going to make them agree with you.
I agree completely. Though I personally practice harm reduction at the ballot box, I don't believe that brow-beating people who express a reluctance to vote for a lesser evil into practicing harm reduction is an effective means of garnering their vote. Though it's easy to become frustrated with non-voters or third-party voters and place the blame on them for fascism taking over, the responsibility is really spread across the whole population, and most importantly our electeds and party officials who have consistently failed to present a positive and opposing narrative to the fascists.
As long as the neo-liberal leaders of the Democrats continue to play the same games with the left as they have been since before I can vote, yes, we'll have to run into this argument every single damn time elections come up. When they decide to embrace progressive policies instead of just jigging the bait for the leftists to get their votes. When the Dems win, they didn't need the left. When they lose, it's all the left's fault. I'm not playing that sadistic little game anymore.
The older I get the more relevant this scene from 'Life Of Brian' becomes.
And yet still in 2028 we're going to have people arguing between the milquetoast Democrat and a republican who wants to make camps for undesirables and telling anyone left of center to stay home.
And we're also going to have any centrist telling people that they should've spoken up before, while telling people to shut up, and accept the inevitable milquetoast Democrat now. I remember how much we used to make fun of FOX News for whataboutism. How the hell did the Democrat voters become the party of "What about Trump?"
Unpopular opinion. When it comes to electoral politics, that centrist is right. Voting won't fix anything. Only better candidates and parties will. That is, of course, outside of some sort of revolution or cultural awakening. And if that's your plan, shit or get off the pot.
The general election is absolutely the wrong time to protest vote.The right time to protest vote is in the primary. The primary is the wrong time to think about running. The right time to think about running is all the years before the primary. All things many actually on the left struggle to achieve. And then being incensed when a party that doesn't represent you doesn't represent you. Who could have known?
We're good about protesting on the left. Perhaps to a fault. But outside maybe the DSA. We suck at getting people we would want to vote for, in organizations that stand a chance of winning. You can't effectively elect someone who wants to represent you if there's no one capable of winning that wants to. And it isn't a catch 22. Collectively a lot are sleeping on basic actions we should be taking.
Forget third parties till we reform the voting system. They think we are cuckoo. Maybe we should start acting like cuckoos. Maybe we should stop being the ones being cucked, supporting and raising politicians that don't represent us. And start doing the cucking ourselves. Like the DSA. Put people we want to vote for in any major party primary we can. Yes, even Republican. Till then they aren't going to represent us if they don't have to.
How the hell did the Democrat voters become the party of "What about Trump?"
It's not "what about trump" it's "vote for the person closest to you or get the one the farthest away"
I could give a fuck less about trump, and I'm going to be hungover the day after he chokes to death on a hamburder. I care about advancing left wing goals, and crying you didn't get your way and staying home only hurts that.
Grow the fuck up and actually understand how electoral politics works in this country, because it seems you lack a basic understanding of how the two party system works. We have 2 viable options for the presidency, and people need to come to grips with not getting their perfect candidate because perfect is the enemy of good. If you don't believe me, look around and tell me what of the current trash fire would have also been done by a milquetoast dem?
I understand the US electoral system very well. For example, in the WV Dem primary, Bernie won every single county, and 40k more votes than Clinton. Which is why Clinton won the state. And it does seem to be "What about Trump" since you can't give me a reason to vote for a milquetoast Democrat without including Trump in your equation. Also, both Obama and Biden deported way more immigrants than Trump, so if you're trying to harm reduction, Trump is a better option for that. Stop letting Democrats that want to increase funding for ICE, the border wall, are for regime change wars, and deport more immigrants than Trump be the spoiler candidate.
Also, both Obama and Biden deported way more immigrants than Trump, so if you're trying to harm reduction, Trump is a better option for that.
Man, I can't wait to come back to this statement at the end of the year, DaMummy. I'm sure the guy who is mass rounding up random people (instead of rejecting people at the border) and murdering people in the street will TOTALLY be the harm reduction president, no matter that 2025 was the deadliest year ice has had since 2004, trump is about ✨harm reduction✨
The fact that this and bitching about Bernie after 10 years is your primary argument tells me you're not worth conversing with. I wanted Bernie to win and I was mad about it too. But keeping your hardon for Bernie is only harming the causes you say you support. At least the right is open about their hatred for their fellow man, you're hiding behind being upset at the system and arguing that this fucking president is about harm reduction at all, which is laughable.
Please do come back. I would prefer after his 4 year term, but I don't know if lemmy will be around, or either of us(....and one other guy) but just to set a standard, how many deportations were there under Obama, aka, Deporter in Chief, and how many were there under Biden?
Biden had more raw numbers, but can you tell me who was incarcerated, picked up off the street or refused at the border in those numbers?
If you're comparing raw numbers and not what each one is, I don't care to continue the argument because you're focused on one statistic that can be used disingenuously (as it is here) to conflate two different ways of handling things. Because if you think 1 border return or incarcerated person is the same as someone being snatched off the street, your opinion is meaningless to me. I'm not defending any one of those, but comparing them is dishonest as hell.
OK, well I can't wait for the comparison if you can't tell me the number Trump is aiming to surpass. Or at least how many ICE deportations there were under Biden/Obama, not CPB. Can you at least assure me that Trump will start as many wars as Obama did, or will that also be a harm reduction example?
I've been on mobile and looking for stats in hard, but you're not posting any either. But, checking the data on https://theworlddata.com/us-immigration-statistics-by-year/, ICE removals was actually 80K higher by July 2025 than any of the 5 previous years, and the ICE detention numbers were 18k higher than the previous year's average.
The foreign born and unauthorized immigrant populations also dropped in 2025, as did the border encounters. I guess its easier to call someone a harm reducer when they reduce raw numbers through terrorism and open fascism than it is to actually look at any nuance.
the data
Key US Immigration Facts and Statistics in the US 2025
Immigration Category 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 (YTD)
Foreign-Born Population 46.2 million 48.5 million 49.5 million 51.6 million 53.3 million (Jan) 51.9 million (Jun)
Lawful Permanent Residents Granted 707,362 740,002 1,018,349 1,173,000 1,063,200 (est.) Data pending
Naturalizations Completed 625,400 855,000 967,400 878,500 818,500 Data pending
Refugee Admissions 11,840 11,411 25,465 60,014 100,060 27,308 (Q1 only)
Border Encounters (Southwest) 458,088 1,956,519 2,766,582 3,201,144 2,901,142 639,826 (Jul)
ICE Removals/Deportations 185,884 59,011 81,547 142,580 271,000 (est.) 350,000 (Jul)
Unauthorized Immigrant Population 10.5 million 10.9 million 12.8 million 14 million 14.2 million (est.) Declining
H-1B Visa Approvals 388,000 398,000 442,000 386,000 400,000 Data pending
Naturalization Processing Time 9.0 months 11.5 months 10.5 months 6.1 months 5.5 months 5.2 months
ICE Detention Population 38,000 avg 20,000 avg 23,000 avg 34,000 avg 41,000 avg 59,380 (Aug)
Data Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Homeland Security Statistics, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Pew Research Center, Migration Policy Institute (2020-2025)
Border Encounters and Apprehensions by Year in the US 2025 Border Statistics 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 (Jul YTD) Total Nationwide Encounters 646,822 2,034,687 2,935,787 3,471,209 3,101,382 639,826 Southwest Border Encounters 458,088 1,956,519 2,766,582 3,201,144 2,901,142 627,000 (est.) USBP Apprehensions 400,651 1,734,686 2,378,944 2,475,669 2,045,000 (est.) 235,916 OFO Inadmissibles 57,437 221,833 387,643 725,475 856,142 Data pending Title 42 Expulsions 308,820 1,063,285 1,377,381 531,258 (ended May) 0 0 Peak Monthly Encounters 71,000 (Jul) 213,000 (Jul) 251,000 (May) 370,000 (Dec) 302,000 (Dec) 29,101 (Jan) Lowest Monthly Encounters 16,182 (Apr) 71,000 (Jan) 164,303 (Jan) 154,189 (Jan) 117,883 (Feb) 8,725 (May) Single Adults 295,123 1,284,000 1,698,000 1,856,000 1,625,000 Data pending Family Units 74,981 367,000 721,000 1,154,000 1,089,000 Data pending Unaccompanied Children 30,784 147,000 152,000 137,000 139,000 Data pending Top Nationality: Mexico 253,118 608,037 722,000 775,000 680,000 Data pending Venezuelan Encounters 17,000 48,000 189,000 334,914 285,000 Data pending
Data Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Southwest Land Border Encounters, Nationwide Encounters Statistics, DHS Monthly Operational Updates 2020-2025
Can you at least assure me that Trump will start as many wars as Obama did, or will that also be a harm reduction example?
He already has. If you count Obama expanding operations, he's got 4 and Trump was at 5 last year (and that's not even counting the unlawful kidnapping of a foreign leader). Nigeria, Venezuala, and Iran are all under Trump, and he (like Obama) expanded Yemen and Somalia. And that's not even counting the sabre rattling to NATO nations
But you want to talk harm reduction, what harm was reduced by cutting foreign aid? What harm was reduced by slashing domestic spending on the people who already couldn't survive without multiple jobs? What harm is reduced by ICE snatching people off the streets and murdering civilians for exercising their rights? Or by throwing people into what can charitably be called horrendous conditions at places like Alligator Aushwitz? What harm is reduced by weakening NATO? What harm is reduced by lowering trust in life saving shit like vaccines? I could seriously keep going, but I think I've proved my point.
Seriously, tell me how this is harm reduction? Because all I see is harm amplification and a lazy attempt at gotchas.
I will give you Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iran. But that is just three. Obama didn't start 4,but 5. Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and Syria. Though you could make a case that Iran alone might count as like 5 countries, but we're not there yet, though we might be, really soon. And that wars were never declared for those countries, but story for another day. I did only place the term "harm reduction" on deportations and wars though. But since I can't get a deportation number out of you, I'd say that if Trump doesn't reach the 3.1mil deportations that Obama had, it's a reduction.
But since I can’t get a deportation number out of you, I’d say that if Trump doesn’t reach the 3.1mil deportations that Obama had, it’s a reduction.
Yep, because terrorism works, and the ends justify the means.

That's one item of harm reduction. Now keep going and try anything from the rest of my list and come back and compare.
I don't expect you will, so I don't expect I'll reply again.
The meme is unironically true though. I hate the candidates that the dnc puts forward, but I hate the opposition more. 2016 and 2024 kinda shows how the meme is unfortunately rather accurate, and I heard plenty of people advocating for not voting for Kamala because of stances that trump was objectively worse on.
The problem is that the DNC neo-liberal establishment has been playing games with the left for a long time now. They have blamed them for defeats, neglected them for victories, and say "Vote Blue No Matter Who" even while they're literally considering a guy not much better than the incumbent fascists. I for one am sick of it and they have shown to be not much better than the opposition in terms of policies, candidates, and ideology.
I had tankies tell me that by voting Kamala I sold out Palestine to "save myself"
Even though Trump was worse on Palestine...

top 90 comments