Kamala

[angrychair]

BREAKING: Kamala Harris just gave the clearest signal yet she’ll run for president again in 2028.

“Listen, I might, I might. I’m thinking about it,” Harris told the Rev. Al Sharpton at the National Action Network convention. I’ll keep you posted,” she said as she walked off the stage, concluding a roughly 40-minute appearance that was peppered with cheers and a standing ovation from attendees.

I realize some here have a different opinion but I'm a ride or die for Harris and always will be.
I think of all the possible outcomes in 2028 she is the best option in my humble opinion.

Harris/Beshear 2028 is in my opinion, a very strong ticket.

Reference:

BREAKING: Kamala Harris just gave the clearest signal yet she’ll run for president again in 2028.

“Listen, I might, I might. I’m thinking about it,” Harris told the Rev. Al Sharpton at the National Action Network convention.

— Politico (@politico.com) 2026-04-10T16:22:58.832Z

[leftstreet]

1. Well, that's what primaries are for

best of luck to her

[BComplex]

2. If she joins forces with Beshear, she definitely won't get my vote.

I'm an absolute no on Beshear, but I'm a total yes on Kamala.

[angrychair]

4. Why do you say that

I'm not set on Beshear, I'm just a hard no on Newsom or Pritzker or Kelly but otherwise I'm pretty flexible.

[OMGWTF]

9. Thom Hartmann would love to see JD Pritzker as president.

He thinks he is one of the good billionaires like Melinda Gates or MacKenzie Scott. I trust Thom.

[democratsruletheday]

28. I like Pritzker a LOT.....

he's solid as hell and has the 'it' factor that Newsom doesn't IMO. As for Harris, she lost to that Orange POS and it's a taint that won't soon go away. I know some of you hate to hear that but it did Hillary in and it'll do her in too. I supported them both wholeheartedly but you simply can't lose to that parasite and just explain it away. There are consequences sadly. They both would have made fantastic POTUS but again....they have Trump stench all over them and that simply won't go away....EVER. We need new blood.

[angrychair]

49. There is the mistake

All billionaires, not matter what they say or do, are a living, breathing crime against humanity.
It is solely based on them being a billionaire.
It always baffles me how people placate rich assholes that steal the prosperity and potential of others. I'm an atheist but I'm willing to concede that a billionaire is pure, unadulterated evil.

Let's take Pritzker as an example. This guy is worth 3.7 billion dollars. More money than 99.99% of people will ever see in their entire life, no matter how smart they are or how hard they work.
Because he got a huge chunk of it just because he was born.
If you have more than a billion dollars to your name you are a greedy, evil monster.
$999 million dollars is more money that anyone could spend in 50 lifetimes. Why do billionaires need more and more and more? It's endless gluttony.
Billionaires destroy economies and silence voices.

There is no such thing as a "good" billionaire.

[BComplex]

42. I'm pretty far left, and I see Beshear as being more conservative than most

democrats. Just my personal opinion.

[Bayard]

47. I'd like to know why you would say that as well

Beshear has been a damn good governor here for Kentucky.

[maxsolomon]

19. She wouldn't "join forces with Beshear" until after the nomination is secured.

Assuming Beshear would take a VP slot.

[Jacson6]

3. Yes, She only lost by a few State electors and 2M in the popular vote.

It's funny when RW's falsely claim DJT won in a land slide. That didn't happen.

[Greg_In_SF]

7. 86 electoral

votes was the largest difference since Obama VS Romney. The popular vote was indeed very close.

[democratsruletheday]

30. Doesn't MATTER J6....

she lost to the worst POTUS, hell the worst human to ever hold public office. Some of it wasn't her fault....Joe should've stepped aside MONTHS before he did but the fact remains that tens of millions of stupid people in this country didn't like her enough and cast their vote for pond scum instead. She had her shot, people will want to move on from her, believe me. She can have one helluva lot better career and life in Pritzker or Kelly's cabinet than dealing with the chaos of being POTUS. Just my two cents.

[mvd]

5. Happy to have her join the primaries

I am still not sure who I want most for 2028. Giving things time.

[mike_c]

6. I'll wait to hear what policy proposals she offers...

...and how she articulates an alternative vision of the country's future, as I will with all primary candidates. I do have some red line issues, e.g. universal health care during my lifetime, restoration of the government agencies that Trump has decimated, the complete and utter dismantling of ICE, with prosecutions where appropriate, massive tax increases for the wealthy, etc for a start. I don't have much patience for the "democratic party elite" who want the office, but only offer slogans and ads to define their campaigns. I'll be listening for substance.

[617Blue]

8. Fine by me.

[MustLoveBeagles]

10. I have nothing against her running again

After the horror of 🍊 Menace, maybe the voting public will be more receptive to a woman?

[mopinko]

13. that's what i think.

file under- how about something completely different?

[angrychair]

14. I get that she lost

But her campaign was like no other presidential candidate in US history. She built and ran an entire campaign in less than 90 days.
While I personally think it was a mistake to make Republicans such a central component of her campaign, it was still amazing. She got the 2nd most votes of an Democratic Party candidate in history and 3rd most overall in history.
I think with a full campaign and including less Republicans and more progressives with her on the campaign trail, she can absolutely win.

[70sEraVet]

22. She and Walz made an AMAZING team!

I'm still in shock that they didn't win. They had a KICKING campaign!

[pinkstarburst]

11. I think that's a mistake

I am personally not sold on the idea that we can only have a white christian straight male on the ticket. I think this limits our choices to a small slate of blah candidates that the country and the party is frankly not the least bit excited about. I am not excited about having to choose between Andy Beshear and some other white dude just because they happen to check a few boxes we think right voting candidates who weren't going to vote for us in the first place might like.

I am voting for Pete Buttigieg if he's running. He's the smartest guy in the room by a mile.

With that said, I think Kamala Harris running again is a huge mistake for this reason: the country has already had a chance to weigh in on her in the general. The country said NO. We can be upset about this. We can say it isn't fair. We can say the country is racist and misogynistic (and we would be right) and name a host of other reasons why it happened. But the point is, we need to turn the page.

Running the same person that already failed in the general election and has never successfully run before is a huge mistake. By that logic, we should run Hillary again. Or Al Gore.

[obamanut2012]

12. That is what a Primary is for --- then don't vote for her if she runs

[angrychair]

17. I understand the thoughts

That said, she had roughly 90 days to mount a campaign and I think advisors had her placating to Republicans far too aggressively. Plus she was trying to run a campaign while still trying to be a loyal VP to a sitting president and not undermine his policy positions.
To judge the situation solely based on a 90 day campaign in a situation that no other presidential candidate has ever had to run a campaign under the conditions she was forced to run under.

I think a full campaign in which she courts less Republicans and more progressives and runs a more progressive leaning campaign will be far more successful

[pinkstarburst]

40. I think that is a terrible risk to take

We could be looking at 4 more years of republicans in charge because Kamala wants to give it another go... after she was never successful in the primaries originally, and was not successful in the general election either.

We can say that it sucks that the country looked at a completely competent Black woman vs literally the stupidest, most horrible choice out there on the republican side, a man who was not only completely unqualified, but was going to be over 80 when he left office, and it DOES SUCK. And we must take that into account. Even with all that going against 45, they still voted for him over her. This country is deeply racist and misogynistic. And I fear that if the republicans were to nominate someone who is halfway sane and not completely drooling from dementia like Thomas Massie, he would destroy her.

[angrychair]

44. Absolutely not

And I fear that if the republicans were to nominate someone who is halfway sane and not completely drooling from dementia like Thomas Massie, he would destroy her.

Sorry, I could not disagree more. There is no "good" Republican and all of them are Nazis.
The Republican Party would never nominate Massie anyway. Vance is already their candidate. I think he may need to divorce his current wife and Marry Erika Kirk to win the nomination though.

I mean any candidate is a risk. All of them have baggage of one kind or another. Depending on who we nominate, we could lose Democrats Republicans and Independents. Some Democrats would consider Newsom too conservative or some Independents would consider Buttigieg to progressive.
There is no perfect candidate.

[DonCoquixote]

31. I would happily vote for al gore again

and kamaal, iff she was givne a chance to vote..I would prefer her over pete G, whose past has a built in bombs that can anger black voters. I
.e. his police chief caught cops using the n word. What did Pete do, fire the police chief. I do not care how "gay" he is, but poc will nto like to see someone get away with protecting the blue line.

I would say Prtiker, Kamala, as both show they realize politics is not tea and crumpets at the ritz

and No to Rahm Emmanuel or feterman, because frankly both of them have lousy records on poc, and they both act like they owe more loyalty to bibi naetanyahu thn us

[Jack Valentino]

45. I don't think ANY Democrats are talking about 'Fetterman for President' any more.......

He'll have more than he can handle just to be renominated for Senate in PA.....

[ForgedCrank]

15. Well hopefully

the party actually allows us to pick the candidate in the primaries this time around.

[tritsofme]

16. No thank you. I don't know who I'll support in the primary yet, but it definitely will not be her.

She can run just the same as anybody, but the party owes her no deference

[Skittles]

20. I too think we need to move on

yes indeed

[pinkstarburst]

41. We need to move on

She can run, but this would be a mistake, and by the time we figured out it was a mistake, it would be too late to correct it, just like when it was June/July 2024 and everyone knew Joe shouldn't be running and literally no one was excited about the possibility of voting between two 80 year olds and it was way too late at that point.

[wnylib]

18. I think when choosing a candidate for 28, we need to

consider that the next Dem president will need to do massive reforms to the mess that Trump has made of the governing system. Numerous departments and staff positions will need to be restored. Several executive orders will need to be trashed.

The next president will need to build a competent cabinet and choose a tough, effective AG who will hold people accountable and restore Constitutional law. The current Pentagon leadership will need to be overhauled.

There is so much restoration and reform needed that a top priority must be a candidate capable of carrying it out. Someone who can gather together advisors, staff, and department heads who can do the job.

[JohnnyRingo]

21. Wonderful woman, but she tried and failed.

...and against Donald Trump!
Let's face a fact, a lot of democrats voted against her for whatever reason. Those reasons haven't gone away.
Us democrats seem to think the majority of the country is generally tolerant and progressive like us. I haven't seen that at the voting booths.

I'm sure some of us think we can easily win with an openly gay crossdressing Hispanic/black woman with a hammer & sickle tattoo if only we gave her a chance, because America is ready. We need someone with universal appeal across the spectrum.

[angrychair]

27. She had 90 days

To put together a campaign and speed race across the country.
Sh still managed thr 2nd most vote of any Democratic candidate in history.
She was asked to run under conditions no other presidential candidate has even been asked to do in history.
I think a full run, in which she runs a campaign with less Republicans and more progressives on the campaign trail, will produce a better result.

[pinkstarburst]

43. We can't risk another 4 years of repubs in charge on that

She was deeply unpopular in the primaries and that never improved while she was vice president. She had to run a short campaign and that was Joe's fault for not deciding not to run again after the midterms, absolutely. But the fact remains that America had a chance to weigh in on her, and they went with an 80 year old completely incompetent person instead.

We can say "oh, maybe they've learned their lesson by now" but if that is the case, we can apply that logic to ANY candidate out there, including Pete Buttigieg. If America is too backwards to elect a gay man, I've got news, they're not electing a Black woman either, and we need to stop kidding ourselves about that, since some of us seem to be on the "Pete will never get elected, but Kamala sure has a fighting chance!" train. Either we think our candidates have to be all straight christian white men from here on out, or we don't. Kamala isn't the exception to the rule.

[democratsruletheday]

33. ding, ding....DING

well said JR.

[deurbano]

23. I LOVE Kamala. She was my first choice in 2020, and I was so thrilled when Joe chose her for VP! Then my daughter was

a delegate to the 2024 convention, and as her attendant (she's disabled), I got to sit on the floor of the convention center with her, and I was so excited to be there! (It was amazing... Kamala was amazing... Walz was amazing...and in any sane world, they would have crushed those psychopaths.)

I'm not ready to contemplate Kamala's chances in 2028, but I do SO WISH she had run for governor of California, instead! I can't even bear to look at any news of Swalwell (and the allegations against him)... with the absurd "jungle primary" creating the potential for a Republican to win in this dark blue state! I have kept assuming the current madness (so many Dem candidates, no one with a real lead, but the less popular candidates still refusing to drop out) would be resolved before it's too late, but if Swalwell (one of the three Dem frontrunners) exits the race, will Porter have the votes to be make the run-off? Or will Steyer? Porter kinda pissed me off when she ran for Senate at a time when her congressional seat (without her running as the incumbent) was in jeopardy ....and we needed her unique voice in the House... and the Senate seemed a long shot. I just get the impression she is a lot less popular than she once was. But Steyer, another billionaire?

Kamala would have been perfect, and a shoo-in.

[mr715]

24. She has not earned my vote in the primary yet.

She might. It is early, but it is going to be hard for her to be my pick.

[angrychair]

25. Just so I understand

Why is that and do you have a candidate that you consider better in your opinion?
Just trying to understand your perspective.

[mr715]

29. Fair question.

I do not have a favored candidate as of yet. If you pushed me, I'd say Pritzker or Beshear or Cooper or Warnock. But I really have just an amorphous field of general decent Democrats. There are no standouts yet.

VP Harris starts a big behind the starting line for me by virtue of having run and having lost. She took my money and spent it and did not deliver the electoral victory that I was invested in. As such, to win my support back, she will need to do more retail politics to get back to baseline.

Sealing the deal is important. Sticking the landing. So yeah, she can run again. She might even get my vote, but it won't be automatic.

[angrychair]

35. My only counter to that

Is that she was asked to do something no other presidential candidate has been asked to do in our entire history.
She only had roughly 90 days
Advisors she didn't pick
An agenda not necessarily of her own making

Getting the 3rd most votes of any presidential candidate in history, under those conditions, is no small feat.

[mr715]

36. Yeah and during the campaign I thought she did a great job.

My counter to your counter is if she is running a campaign with advisors she didn't pick, is she really in charge?

The 90 day campaign was certainly a challenge to overcome, but it also was a massive opportunity to seize the agenda and stake a personal claim. I do not believe Kamala Harris effectively did that. Her book was a bit of a confessional and that put me off.

I am having trouble "forgiving" the loss of the popular vote.

So, most of my issues are a posteriori. Had she won, I'd love her. Since she lost, I don't. I don't know how to break myself of this.

I will say her leveraging of Cheney and Kitzinger annoyed me.

[angrychair]

38. I do agree with you

On some points:

I will say her leveraging of Cheney and Kitzinger annoyed me.

I absolutely hated this aspect of her campaign and chalk it up to bad advice and even worse polling.

The advisors not of her choosing was the only practical solution given the timeframe she was forced to work in as Biden's advisors were already on the ground and working the campaign for him.
I also think her loyalty to Biden ended up harming her in the end because it made it almost impossible to separate herself from the president she served.

So obviously I'm not without my own criticisms of the last campaign but I think, hope, she learned from that experience and will correct those shortcomings in her next campaign.

[mr715]

39. Right, but less advisors.

I'm hating how we have advisors to blame loss after loss. Eventually, they need to lose their jobs. They are paid very well.

[some_of_us_are_sane]

37. I agree mr715....

Hilary and Kamala..............BOTH are bright, talented women. I voted for Kamala (and Lord knows I would have voted for Hillary in a HEARTBEAT) but sadly I have to say this country is not yet convinced that a woman "can" be president.

I think it's going to be a long while until old prejudices and an ingrained comfort zone are weeded out by the passing of time alone.

In coming generations I believe their WILL be a female in the main chair of the White House... just not in the foreseeable future. It's an evolution not a suddenly closed page.

[BlueTsunami2018]

26. As is her right.

I like her well enough and I’d have no problem voting for her if she gets the nomination. We’ll see what happens.

[Hope22]

32. We would have to do a lot of digging on the 2024 results first!

There was so much interference with Musk and more. If we can’t learn to fight for the country post election we will never claim our rightful wins. Explain what went down. Maybe it won’t make a difference but fight to explain it. Harris was definitely shocked post election.i felt uneasy watching her. I’m sorry, I live in a state where we witnessed a steal…..and life went on as if nothing happened nationally. We can’t be caught flat footed again. It may already be too late.

[Bayard]

48. I agree with you

Musk had his big fat thumb on the scale. First order of business is making sure something like that doesn't happen again, starting NOW.

[Deuxcents]

34. It's good we're thinking ahead but..we've got midterms to win so let's elect people a Dem president

Count on. The General Election is a long way off