I feel that Harris was more left leaning than most people say, but she was playing the election too safe by not trying to promise a stronger platform. She was hedging her bets and was preparing to not have a supermajority in the Senate. In doing so though, her messaging was underwhelming.
If she overpromised and won, then she would have looked exactly the same as Biden. Where nothing meaningful could get passed federally due to being short on votes.
If she underpromised and somehow won big, then the Democrats would have looked great going into 2026 and 2028.
Instead, she underpromised and underperformed, the House, Senate, and White House were lost as a result.
I agree that sticking with a message people can believe in does matter, and it’s why Bernie Sanders is having success even in rural West Virginia in the current year. The progressive platform is popular when people hear about it, so we need an elected leader that believes in the progressive message they are selling.
All in all, Harris played the gamble too safe and was trying desperately not to alienate anyone.
She was perfectly willing to alienate the anti-genocide left.
But she ended up not sounding like she was going to improve anything.
She ended up sounding like what she was. A pro-genocide centrist.
I firmly believe she would have helped pass any progressive legislation that came across her desk, but to win she needed to be pushing the country more left on policy.
I firmly believe that she would have continued the biden betrayal of the left and the unconditional support for genocide, only with a republican on her cabinet.
People we would normally write-off as pulled too far right actually are juts looking for leader with a message that gives them hope.
Whatever gives you justification for moving even further to the right. Genocide support wasn’t far enough rightward for you.
She was fairly qualified given that she was VP.
I feel that Harris was more left leaning than most people say, but she was playing the election too safe by not trying to promise a stronger platform. She was hedging her bets and was preparing to not have a supermajority in the Senate. In doing so though, her messaging was underwhelming.
If she overpromised and won, then she would have looked exactly the same as Biden. Where nothing meaningful could get passed federally due to being short on votes.
If she underpromised and somehow won big, then the Democrats would have looked great going into 2026 and 2028.
Instead, she underpromised and underperformed, the House, Senate, and White House were lost as a result.
I agree that sticking with a message people can believe in does matter, and it’s why Bernie Sanders is having success even in rural West Virginia in the current year. The progressive platform is popular when people hear about it, so we need an elected leader that believes in the progressive message they are selling.
Kamala had to be carried as VP, she had absolutely no business being the nomination.
Shit, the only reason she was made VP was because of the identity politics of having yet another ancient white guy in office.
Sorry I double responded, I meant to reply to another commenter and left it here by accident.
Removed by mod
She ran to biden’s right. biden never promised to put a republican on his cabinet. He never campaigned with cheneys.
Removed by mod
She was perfectly willing to alienate the anti-genocide left.
She ended up sounding like what she was. A pro-genocide centrist.
I firmly believe that she would have continued the biden betrayal of the left and the unconditional support for genocide, only with a republican on her cabinet.
Whatever gives you justification for moving even further to the right. Genocide support wasn’t far enough rightward for you.
deleted by creator