• Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours 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.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours 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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours 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