• Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    7
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      21
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      2
      ·
      Aquileo | edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        4
        Aquileo | arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days 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

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days 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.