Realistically, unless something dramatically changes, there's no way the DNC would allow her to get the nomination for either position during the primary process.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
25 points (96.3% liked)
Politics
10997 readers
104 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The party will support the most establishment option available to them. But this is the first time in about 25 to 30 years that there isn't a popular, eligible VP. Or party heavy hitter sitting on deck waiting to go. Harris kinda hillaried herself. Who are they gonna run. Fetterman?
If, we have elections in 2028. Ocassio Cortez might be the most viable "establishment adjacent" candidate available to them. With someone like Stewart being a Sanders style populist outsider. But that's still over three years away and the rate everything is accelerating. We might not make it.
I think the primary, if she runs for president, will consist of Pritzger, Newsom and her. This is speculation from September 2025, so a lot of shit will change between then and now. Chilling as it is to say, there's no guarantee all three will still be alive.
I don't think we'll get any clarity until we see how 2026 plays out.
Who are they gonna run
Shapiro, Buttigieg, Newsom, Pritzker. Hell, the Dem establishment would rather Bloomberg run and win than have AOC in office.
As it is right now, PA would vote for Shapiro. He's won a lot of goodwill by getting the department of transportation to actually complete road repair projects in reasonable timeframes.
Here's to hoping the Democrats see the sign of the times before it's too late.
The way legal corruption works in the US though - maybe they get paid for losing the election? Interesting thought.
How realistic is a boring DNC candidate overcoming whatever this is. Perhaps it's time to part ways with the DNC & just make a new Dem party without them. Though admittedly ripping off the bandaid now could be catastrophic timing, I don't even know.
Actually incredibly realistic, which is the biggest problem.
If the U.S. still has free and fair elections in 2028, it's quite likely that the American people will reject the GOP in favor of literally anything else. That means the DNC is free to run the most bland, milquetoast neoliberal whose name rhymes with "lose some," who will do nothing to stop material conditions from deteroriating further nor impose serious consequences on MAGA. Then, four years after his election, U.S. voters will vote for an intelligent fascist because they don't want an ineffective do-nothing Democrat.
i think the “party with in a party” strategy is much more promising than outright 3rd party runs. As in using the Democratic ticket to make their candidates relevant, but not using the democrats electoral and fundraising infrastructure, instead developing parallel party infrastructure to campaign and mobilize voters.
The DSA (and WFP to a lesser extent) have been much more electorally successful, particularly at the local level, than organizations that just run third party outright. I don’t think the DSA will have much luck in suburban areas, but I think other coalitions with a similar strategy could be successful.
As realistic as what happened in 2016 with the full weight of the DNC being brought to bear on Sanders.
People still think there will be fair elections in 2028?
No but that doesn't mean we throw in the fucking towel, come on
They weren't entirely fair to begin with, given how our system works. But that's besides the point. She is a politician, running for office is what she knows how to do. If they shut down elections by then, then she hasn't exactly wasted much outside of her immediate network by preparing for them. If they aren't successful at doing so (which there's at least some chance of, like if they manage to piss off their SC justices somehow enough for them to not go along with some critical step, or if Trump's health conditions catch up with him and his people start infighting, etc), then being prepared for an election would give a better chance at seizing any such opportunity than deciding not to bother planning for one and getting surprised would.
Senate. While I’ve got no problem with a woman as President enough of America seems to that I’d rather not hand the Presidency to the fascists on a silver platter.
Weird how you guys always focus on the ladybits as the unifying factor between Clinton and Harris losing and not their shitty campaigns to the center and inability to have a single authentic moment.
It's a convenient excuse that means the establishment, with its 20% approval rate and record of abject failures both electorally and in countering Republican messaging, doesn't need to change a single thing that might upset the donor class that has caused them to inexplicably cling to positions 70+% of the party do not hold.
No one wants what the gerontocracy is selling. We already can't afford housing and will never have any sort of financial stability because our parents (I'm Gen X) decided they should get all the money.
And you want me to vote for a septuagenarian? Fuck off. Go find a nice porch with a rocking chair from all your lobbyist dollars.
Yeah well fuckin pardon me for looking at similarities between what’s worked lately and what hasn’t so we can get out from under fascism as quick as fucking possible.
Jesus Christ if we keep going after each other we’ve got a snowball’s chance in hell at pulling it off.
YOU are the one causing the division! JFC, dropping in, saying "no women" and then complaining about division is just incredible.
The "they're just sexist, that was the problem" isn't just some random observation from people trying to just figure out what works. It's an intentional campaign to scapegoat women for losses caused by the political class who keep trying to run the same campaign and failing.
They're not coming with hyper-cautious analyses saying "no women, no abandoning the base, no campaigning with Republicans, no timid neoliberal policies". They'd still be wrong, but at least that would seem like a legit attempt by a simple mind to avoid anything that might possibly be a weakness. Instead they just stop with the first. They're looking for a scapegoat, because all those other factors were getting pretty unpopular in the party and they desperately needed some other explanation.
Them being women isn’t the problem; the fact that clearly enough voters aren’t comfortable with it is. I’m sorry you can’t wrap your head around that.
Bless your heart!