you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The point is to elect a democrat the base can support, if that's a progressive that's great, if not that's also fine. The D candidate in '28 is going to need all the votes they can get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    The point is to elect a democrat the voting public as a whole can support, and that's not a status-quo liberal when half the reason Trump got in the first time was that people were so desperate for change they were willing to roll the dice on a conman.

    Progressives or socialists are the right choice precisely because they appeal to people otherwise dissilusioned with the Democrats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    One of the things that cost Kamala the election was her reach out to the right. I think that in 2028 we need to only worry about keeping united behind the candidate. The Bulwark types are going to vote for any democrat for at least a couple more cycles. The non-bulwark types aren't reachable for a couple of cycles

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    I agree with the goal... but while I think a competitive primary leads to better outcomes, too many candidates leads to arbitrary outcomes that depend more on which factions have the lowest candidate-to-voter ratio instead of which have the most actual voters (at least the way it’s currently structured). Plus it increases the chances of a brokered convention, which leads to voters feeling disenfranchised no matter who wins.

  • source
  • parent