this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
195 points (89.8% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

2744 readers
338 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Fuck Harris. I'd vote for a blue Smurf than her. Gimme something you retarded Dems!

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Regurgitating failed policy and ideas is all they got.

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

Democrats spent years neglecting State and County elections to focus their main attention on flashy National races that could bring in big donors. Coupled with how Democrats with name recognition like to park their asses in Congress until they're frail and elderly, never making way for the next generation, there's just not a deep pool of talent to draw on for the Presidency.

AOC is the candidate I see available who would be the best suited for the actual White House but I have doubts she could win the Primary or the General. Gavin might be electable but his problems are deep enough they might discourage folks Left of Center from backing him and I really wouldn't want him in the White House anyways. Mark Kelly is getting his name tossed around. I don't know enough about him to know how I'd feel about electing him. He might be electable though. He's getting National name recognition with his battle against Hegseth. He's a moderate and a military veteran with appeal among Independents. He doesn't seem to have any real controversies and he's new enough to politics to not have alot of baggage or strong negative opinions attached to him (though that could change in 3 years). JB Pritzker being a billionaire would hurt him among Leftists but he could win both the Primaries and General I think. His wealth could help him rally support from both the Upper Classes and Democratic party insiders. His relative lack of controversy or strong negative opinions about him would help him in the General as would his growing name recognition on the National stage. Plus he's isn't afraid to go for the political jugular when he needs too. Personally don't want a Billionaire as president but I would prefer him over Newsom. And Kamala is a joke. She'll have even less support this time then last time. If super delegates start to rally around her, you'll know for a fact she's the controlled opposition candidate.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago

I hate to tell you, but a hardcore progressive will not be nominated. As they always do, the party leadership will decide that the way to beat MAGA is to be MAGA.

Stop obsessing over the presidency. You want revolution? All politics is local. Start by putting younger progressives on planning commissions, school boards. Move up to city councils, county supervisor. Then start taking state offices. You have to elect progressives to local offices for name recognition.

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Can we not pick another boomer for president? I'm very much done with that whole generation.

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 2 points 1 hour ago

I don't think we should vote for anyone who's gonna be over 65 when their term ends.

[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Polls are not the mechanism parties use to “pick” candidates. That’s just not how the process works. Pollsters aren’t arms of the DNC or the RNC. They’re independent firms measuring name recognition and voter preference at a given moment, and the only way to do that is by giving respondents a fixed list of relevant, high visibility figures. It’s a methodological constraint, not a political command.

The real issue is subtler. Media ecosystems amplify a handful of names, donors flock to whoever looks viable, and voters often gravitate toward whoever they’ve heard of. That creates a feedback loop where the visible become even more visible. But polls are downstream from that loop, not upstream. They reflect the landscape; they don’t choose it.

If you want to critique the system, aim at the actual gatekeepers. Ballot access rules, debate thresholds, fundraising networks, and media exposure do far more to narrow the field than a Rasmussen questionnaire ever will. Blaming the poll is mistaking the thermometer for the weather.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Those same 'independent firms' do manipulate data for the parties. This was a poll from 2016, the only way they could show Hillary beating Bernie is if they only polled her demographic. And any voter not looking at the methodology would be convinced that Hillary was truly beating Bernie and in turn vote for her.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

Why did they leave out RO KHANNA?

[–] oh_@lemmy.world 42 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Harris needs to retire. You don’t lose to Trump and get to run again.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Just watch them put in Hillary for round two

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

She honestly feels like she deserves the presidency. The Clintons were pissed when people they knew supported Obama over Hilary because Obama was relatively new to politics and Hilary had "paid her dues". That those people genuinely believed Obama was the better candidate did not matter at all to them. Most Democrats view elected office as a career rather than a calling.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 hours ago

She just needs one more try and she'll surely win

[–] _Nico198X_@europe.pub 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

the house limit is TWO do-overs.

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

She's actually a two time loser already because of the primaries. Not everyone is allowed to fail 3 times like Beto O'Rourke.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 11 hours ago

Please tell me this isn't real, they aren't polling already, with Harris out in front?

We learned nothing. I know the establishment learned nothing, they are as arrogant in passing the buck onto voters for their bad status quo candidates. Because she's a minority woman it's ok they lost, because everyone's a racist sexist. Is the subtext.

Of course she was widely hated, including by woman and blacks, and lost ground with all groups. But the establishment taught the sheep to bleet that part, and they are repeating it in loud chorus, bleeting at anyone wanting a change of strategy, saying it's them to blaaaaaaa me for not believing hard enough.

It's way too early to even be thinking about this, but Harris is out. Newsome is out, for not throwing his hat in the ring in 2024 when we needed someone that could win, and he could with a little populist platforming. Hell Harris could've won, if she attacked some groups cheating us and forcefully and convincingly told us she would fix healthcare and drugs.

We cannot even have that though. The rich won't allow us what every other country in the developed world gets, even as the only alternative is guarenteed death of the republic permanent dictatorship of the worst people in the world fully intent on putting people into concentration camps if they get support to do it.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

People are irredeemable idiots if AOC is that low. Shapiro is literally IDF. Newsom and Harris are pro genocide. Booker is another pro genocide traitor

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

AOC is 36. The last 23 presidents were all at least 42 (and that was Theodore Roosevelt: 1901-1909). I don't see her winning, due to her being as young as she is. Maybe next run or the one after that.

Wish she would be more popular than she is.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Billionaires have paid a lot of money to control the narrative on her

[–] jontree255@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Please don’t run Harris again.

[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 10 hours ago

Hilary/Cheney 2028, we heard your issues and complaints so we removed everything that could possibly be considered left

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

Dont you put that evil on us Ricky Bobby!

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 64 points 1 day ago (3 children)

AOC is the only viable option.

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

AOC is 36. The last 23 presidents were all at least 42 (and that was Theodore Roosevelt: 1901-1909). I don’t see her winning, due to her being as young as she is. Maybe next run or the one after that.

Wish she would be more popular than she is.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 5 points 8 hours ago

After the last two doddering geriatrics I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum swings in the opposite direction.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 10 hours ago

The only options for candidates aren't on this poll. This is a dumbass poll to begin with, listing harris at all. As if these were our choices. None of these people can reliably win with the republicans cheating as they are.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Ro Khanna needs to run on legitimizing the Epstein investigation, bolstering checks and balances and prosecuting the grifters.

Affordability and healthcare would also be a given with him.

That's what I'd focus on first term, staying tight and consistent on messaging like Zohran.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 13 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›