I love how what would have been mundane and not news worthy with any other candidates (democratic politicians endorsing a democratic candidate for mayoral office) now makes headlines with Mamdani. And by love I mean hate.
she has to, since most of the DNC sides with jefferies/schumer with israel and also the billionaires.
Kamala Harris finally sees which way the wind is blowing.
so did HOCHUL, after she deriding madami, so i think they are doing it to save face.
Watch the whole interview, its so bad. She has terrible instincts.
Her “endorsement”: I support the democrat, but there are other stars too, like <insert 2 names I literally never heard of> from other mayoral races. Just pissing on the most popular candidate in the country and taking 2 random mayors down with her, instead of “Mandami is great, and I’m really hopeful about these other guys”
She complains that “titans of industry” didn’t step in to stop Trump. Her goal isn’t to help the american people, but to “restore the guardrails of our institutions”. Isn’t her dad supposed to be a Marxist? Have they never been in a room for 5 minutes?
Turns out Newsom is as petty as you would expect, while Pelosi and Obama were so ideologically westwing-brained they were more concerned about Biden “having his moment” than actually winning.
Close friend of Trump and Epstein, Bill Clinton, seemed eager to support anyone who had a better shot than post-shitting-himself-debate Biden.
Well anyone can see that the far left will eventually turn against Mamdani just as they turn against everyone else LOL.
I’m a actually not that cynical of it. In her book she was critical of who the establishment in the Biden administration treated her.
Worse case is she’s endorsing him to make her self look good. But honestly I think it’s great she did endorse him. It will go a long way with causal/centrist democrats and centerist independents.
shes probably still looking for political career somewhere in the future, just not now.
It’s kinda how I feel about corporations supporting good things. People will point out that they’re only doing it for money or whatever, but I don’t care. If they all start supporting and normalizing good things, I don’t care that it started for dumb reasons.
I studied environmental sciences in school, so the metaphor I think of is that of indicator species, which provide information about the state of an ecosystem. For example, the presence of mayflies indicates good water quality, since poor water quality disrupts part of their lifecycle. Similarly, corporations supporting good things indicates that they feel it is profitable to do so. It indicates the state of public sentiment, and I don’t see how that’s anything but good news.
Same with Harris (indirectly) endorsing Mamdani: Maybe she’s just bending with the wind, but it’s good news because of the way the wind is blowing.
I disagree. Does only the end goal matter? Or does intention also matter?
I would argue that intent is actually more important in the long run. I could perform an act today that helps people, but if my intent wasn’t to help people, then the act will be singular. There will be no “drive” toward greater acts that help even more people. No continuous improvement. No learning from mistakes and growing. Why? Because if I don’t actually care about helping people, none of that background stuff is happening which actually moves you toward your goals in the long run
I would rather you do one act today that helps people for completely selfish reasons and never again, than have you do zero acts that help people.
What is the intent in each case? I perform one act today with selfish intent that happens to help someone, but what about tomorrow? Or the next day? Am I improving on the act to see if I can help more people tomorrow? Not with selfish intent I’m not.
Today I tried with good intention to help someone. It doesn’t work. But, my true intent is to help- so I learn from my mistake today because I genuinely care, and tomorrow I now help one person with my act. I continue to improve and grow as a person, and over the next few years, I am helping out many others and bringing joy into the lives of those around me, inspiring others to also live their lives with good intention, creating a ripple effect.
I believe that is much more important than any kind of selfish intent, no matter how much the selfish act happened to help today.
Depends on the company, for the most part i’m with you, but if say Monsanto and Phillip Moris are backing things, it makes you ponder what you don’t know and if it’s a bad thing.
I’m taking the broad position that last-minute endorsements of Mamdani are just saving face for the establishment. That window closes in mid-October or so.
Want change in the party This is how it happens. Purity tests leave you a political outsider. Welcome each endorsement and they can be reminded later.
Yeah but it’s still just PR to save face. Zohran can use all the endorsements he can get but let’s make sure these ghouls are replaced ASAP.
Nope. I’d rather have any Democrat in office than more Republicans. Your logic is how Gore lost the 2000 election. The Green votes for Nader were the decider. Gore wanted to address climate change 25 years ago.
I don’t think you understood my point. Your comment about preferring a Democrat over a Republican in office doesn’t make any sense.
Didn’t Gore win the 2000 election ? The Bush clan stole it and apparently the US just didn’t care much.
Gore lost the legal cases. A few more votes in Florida from Democrats who didn’t apply purity tests and voted Green instead and the world would be a much better place.
Worse case is she’s going to insincerely try to take on the appearance of a progressive
But she’s just one of many figures being groomed to do this, so hopefully it just helps cement Mumdani as the spiritual leader of the party
Worst case is he made a bunch of centrist concessions to get her on board, leaving him as just another establishment dem.
No shot…He has nothing to gain there, he’s leading by massive numbers and his eyes aren’t empty and soulless
But that would put out the last spark of hope within me if it did happen
Nobody believes her, just like nobody believes Hilary. The constant fence-hopping goes beyond someone learning new information and switching stances, its pure opportunism, and thus not genuine.
And honestly, her endorsing him is more a disservice in my eyes than helping him. She’s performed poorly and make others think that Mumdani is not genuine by association.
The difference between her and Hilary is that Harris is an avatar of the party, Hilary was (and still is to a lesser extent) a major player in the party
Harris is just like Biden… Her position is the party line. So if Harris is endorsing Mumdani, that signals some faction of the party might be finally waking up and realizing progressives are going to sweep the next election
As for the endorsement itself…I don’t think it dings Mumdani in any way. If anything, I think it just makes him look stronger, because he hasn’t budged an inch and the Democratic establishment is slowly coming to him
she and hochul are probably supporting him, to prevent too much support, takeover of the party from more progressive candidates, basically placating progressive to not do anything drastic.
With what leverage? Mumdani wins with zero support, a pattern that is repeating across the country with every new election
I’m sure they have the worst of intentions, but reality favors us. When they capitulate to our boy, they flirt with reality. And reality is left leaning
We all see right through you Kamala.
Isn’t there overwhelming polling saying he is likely to win? Harris hitches herself to whoever is likely to win. That is her entire career.
Alternately, her endorsement is another way the Democratic establishment is trying to make him lose. 😉
How? The on the fence centrist democrats that Zorhan needs to win would be very liked to switch their support form Cumo of they knew some major establisment figures supported him.
The joke is that Harris is bad at winning elections, so anyone who associates with her also loses.
On a side note, strangely enough, with Trump this is a global effect; anyone who associates themselves with Trump too much will lose their election. It happened in Australia and Canada.
Except Trump himself, somehow, unfortunately, does not suffer from his own stench.
Cynical posturing, same as hochul, but hochul’s endorsement actually meams something as governor.
We should not talk about kamala or biden or anyone that forced them or hillary on us unless is to demand their ousters.
i find hochul kinda of 2 faced, she was publically against him from the start, only changing once she realized she could be replaced in the next election.
Oh totally she is cynical and chosen by the establishment to oversee the plutocratic takeover, r or d means little, she opposes a new deal and frankly is the enemy All the D establishment is the enemy, there is no getting rid of r fascists with this controlled opposition.
Mamdami is a good start, we need different flavours if populists to challenge everywhere. Moderates are not the safe choice, reformers are.
Pretty tepid endorsement but somehow still better than many of her peers
She tried to pivot to others in the party…
No wonder she lost.
It’s still fucked considering she was better in every way compared to the other option. That said, yes she has zero charisma and authenticity. Her entire platform is consultancy-crafted buzzwords and ambiguity.
“Please donate to Harris, it’s the only way to win.”
That’s the only message I got from her. Lots of talk around other messages but the one they hammered home in all their canvassing, sms and such was MONEY.
I mean yeah. I canvassed for Harris and when targeting swing-voters and Republicans, this obviously was not the messaging.
When targeting those who actually voted for Democrats historically, of course they’re going to think, “This person is aware of what is at stake and that Harris is objectively better in every way. So we need to get money for the war chest because the opposition has more billionaires, Russia, and Israel backing him.”
I saw messages like that, too, and went, “Yep take my money. Defeat this fucking fascist.”
It was exceedingly obvious 2024 was a populist election, and she let Trump take that mantle and run with it. Bernie would have mopped the floor with these corporatists. This is why Mamdani is ascendant.
Talarico’s messaging would probably be perfect for this. Progressive message packaged in religious dogma.
However, given the control billionaires have over media and the what they see, I can’t confidently say anyone could win in that uneven playing-field.
Literally anyone. ANY average person should’ve been able to beat the monster that is Trump. That we couldn’t isn’t proof Harris sucked (in fairness, she was pretty poor); it’s proof the rich wield all the megaphones.
Corporatists? Are you looking for the word corpocrats or corporatocrats?
Edit: corporatocracy is a government ran by corporate business interests, such as we see in the US.
Corporatism is a governance principle that government is a meeting ground for “corporate groups” to make decisions. Corporate groups represent a group of people, typically business leaders but also unions.
In a fascist corporatist state like Mussolini’s Italy this meant keeping business and union leaders close to keep a close eye on them for greater control. In a social corporatist state like Sweden, this means those same leaders have a legally mandated place in the government to get the benefits of capitalist growth tempered by the demands of common workers to receive a fair share of that growth and ensure safe working/living conditions.
I don’t think the powers that be in the US want unions anywhere close to the government, so I don’t think corporatist is the right term.
It’s still fucked considering she was better in every way compared to the other option.
He’ll die sooner
Her entire platform is consultancy-crafted buzzwords and ambiguity.
She was not ambiguous about her support for the police state, imperialism, nor genocide
Oh good, so we can have JDV as President. I’m SO relieved… lol. Tankie from lemmy.ml bringing up “imPEriAlisM.” Why am I unsurprised.
Harris was still better on issues of police state, imperialism, and genocide. If I was a Palestinian, my chances for me and my family to survive were better in the hands of Harris than Donald Trump who — checks notes — (a) Did not mentions support for a 2-state solution, (b) Told bibi to “finish the job,” and (c) post-election stated Gaza should be turned into “the next Riviera.”
Not to mention the other genocide being perpetrated by Russia right now in Ukraine, which Democrats have 100% been better on as well.
Edit: Oh, they are actually Russian, lol. No wonder.
— checks notes —
Douche chill.
Oh? You checked your notes and the only arguments you could conjure were completely immaterial nonsense like what Harris said while she was murdering hundreds of thousands of people? She said nicer things so she’s better?
You have a baby brain.
Tankie from lemmy.ml bringing up “imPEriAlisM.”
Or you just explicitly don’t value human life if it’s brown and on the other side of imaginary line.
God. Imagine even bringing up the concept of the millions of dead overseas we’re responsible for. How soy. How mockable.
I need to spend three times as long typing this word just so everyone knows how silly valuing human life is in my eyes.
Found the maga bot.
Tagged!
Rational bystanders, take note. Lots of wedge-driving astroturfing red hats on here.
EDIT: Bonus: “How soy” he says, LOL.
- Take a look at their moderation history and what they’ve been banned for in the past.
- Take a look at their comment history to see gems such as, “Death to America,” “Name a Russian colony,” and “want to see a westerner have a full on tantrum? Suggest to them that their actions are not always morally neutral” LOL.
Probably a Russian troll bot, trying to put some bread on the table with the few rubles they make.
Slava Ukraini!
Yeah, those few citizens not buying their bullshit can make all the difference.
It’s why we should focus all of our efforts on making sure people like her never become the nominee, because that’s essentially handing the presidency to the republicans.
Nominating hillary fucking clinton in 2016 over Bernie Sanders was bonkers. I don’t think the nation will ever recover from that blunder, and we still don’t put the blame where it belongs.
Yep, agreed.
Although I think we also need to take a step further back and wonder how the fuck we could get to the point where Trump was a viable option in the first place. In essence, that really is the bigger issue at hand. Not that Harris wasn’t good enough; but that Trump was perceived as somehow being better by vast swaths of the electorate. That is deeply fucked. Naturally, we know this has to deal with wealth inequality and who controls the media. far-right white billionaires.
Going forward it’s my hope that we see more of the likes of AOC and Talarico. They are clearly the future of this party. Progressive messaging meets wit and charisma and authenticity.
I think we also need to take a step further back and wonder how the fuck we could get to the point where Trump was a viable option in the first place
It’s been a fucking decade. You have zero excuse to not have an answer for this by now. If you don’t, blame yourself and your ideology.
False binary.
One of the other options was a fair open primary.
That is Biden’s fault not Harris’s.
I’d add the DNC leadership to the blame.
If Biden had dropped out earlier or decided not to run, absolutely.
But there was no way to run a 50 state primary before the election with 100 days to go.
Democrats would still be arguing over a venue at this point.
But there was no way to run a 50 state primary before the election with 100 days to go.
I don’t buy that excuse. They didn’t want to. Every other country in the world can organise a full election in under 100 days.
A short campaign was likely a benefit, quite frankly, considering how badly it was run.
The problem isn’t one election, the problem is running 50 individual elections, when certain states fight each other over who gets to go first.
In 2020, the first primary was February 3rd and the final one wasn’t until August 11th. Six months. Just for the primary. 190 days.
Harris had 107. AND still had to run a campaign for the general too. So, no. There was no time for a proper primary, not unless Biden dropped out in 2023.
Can only do that if Biden chose to step down; by the time Biden actually dropped out there wasn’t feasible time.
This is why I easily blame Biden and his yes-men for about 80% of the loss or more.
And in the end, it wasn’t a false dichotomy; it was binary when people opted to vote or not.
No no. The rule that being president means you run for your second term unopposed in your party is also bullshit.
But there was a 2024 Democratic Primaries, and Biden won?
Incumbents have a massive advantage by default, and it was very hard for anyone to challenge that. Biden had to commit to being a 1-term President and step down.
I still blame Biden for 80% or more.
in every way
Take that back before i have to defend Donald trump. Take that back right now. Maybe just add some qualifiers–just mitigate that blatantly untrue statement. This is violence. You’re doing violence to me. Please dont force me to do this.
Drop the embarrassingly bad jokes. Go ahead and defend Donald Trump. Take ownership of your fucking position you coward.
He said, supporting a genocide and pretending the opposite
lol ok whatever. Instead of just turning Palestinian children into paste lets also permit masses of African children to starve, open up concentration camps for Immigrant South Americans, embolden white supremacists & nazis, destroy healthcare for millions of poor Americans, and stoke stochastic terrorism towards trans people.
I mean, we might as well shoot for the stars right? Why only do a half step towards dystopia? Might as well go full hog.
Well he’s willing to admit to frustration with zionists, which is closer to stopping the american bombing of Palestine than any dem has been. His transphobia is opportunistic and not a deeply held conviction like harris’. We at least hear about the camps and deportations, which we do not under blue admins. It will be easier to organize labor resistance under him than it would have been under Harris. He and his followers–while much worse smelling–are about 10% less victim blamey and obnoxious. Trump was much funnier before he went senile, and remains a gift to comedy writers. Probably some other stuff I didn’t think of.
OK thank you for revealing some of your delusions and mental gymnastics. You are so far gone that I don’t think it’d be productive even having a discussion with you.
I hope you experience the maximum amount of cognitive dissonance over the next 3 years and realize how politically destructive you have been to the well being of yourself, your fellow workers, and humanity as a whole. I hope you agonize and despair. Just before a vacuum decay event happens and erases all of our sorry existence.
Every. Fucking. Way.
Too late–the violence already happened.
I’d hope its just major stockholm syndrome at this point. Like she doesn’t see that the democrats as the Hindenburg at this point…
They probably all still think its identity politics while the rest of the world sees it as “fuck the corporatist establishment, if we aren’t going to get any recognition, might as well burn it down with populism”
Just the worst possible instincts.
Holy shit it’s (cops are objects not people) doing the literal bare minimum to technically undermine the specific wording of one criticism. Holy shit.
I domt get this, can you explain
It (Harris) is technically backing mamdani in the least backing least him way possible, while holding her nose and making her disapproval of him very obvious. The bare minimum for making it so that technically one democrat I’ve heard of–other than DINO’s like sanders– has backed him so we can’t truthfully make the sweeping dramatic statement that "no major democrat has endorsed zohran mamdani.
It is technically an endorsement, but only technically.
what was the “cops are objects” comment? Was this something that kamala harris said
No. It was a prosecutor–which is a kind of cop.
It has not apologized condemned or made amends for its past behavior–therefore it is still a cop.
I loathe harris but calling her “it” is pretty douchey. Why do that? Why attack her gender? Did her gender in particular do something to you?
you’ve lost me again (not an american)
I’m sure it was based on her deep beliefs, and not a decision made by strategists for her. We are so fucked…
Don’t look a gift horse on the mouth
When you kick that horse in front of the gift when it is trying to drink you do.
Why would she care. She could likely apply for political asylum in say France and leave the country and never have to work another day in her life. She’s 60, she doesn’t owe anyone anything. She won’t run for president, and I doubt she wants to enter another 4 years of VP from 64-68 years old.
Doesn’t owe anyone anything? She kept prisoners in jail past their sentences to use them as slave labor. She literally owes reparations.
I think I’m stupid because I thought the race was already over.
The primary is over. The general election is in November.
So far, Mamdani is out in front by a wide margin, though. I don’t want to count any chickens before they hatch, but it’d take a lot for anyone else to beat him.
In the most unenthusiastic way possible. But it’s better than an outright rejection.
People who have lost to donald trump need to be permanently benched.
The DNC:✍️Women✍️and✍️POC✍️need✍️to✍️be✍️permanently✍️benched✍️
Just because someone is a woman or minority does not mean that women or minorities will support them. Frankly it is rather insulting that you think it would.
That’s not what I am saying at all. I am saying instead of looking at the deeply unpopular messaging and policy of “secure the border”, “most lethal military” and “part of a down-payment for first-generation homebuyers who have gone 5 years without a late rent payment and submit whole positive values for X, Y, and Z where X/(Y+Z)+Y/(X+Z)+Z/(X+Y) is equal to your SSN” that lost the election, the DNC will conclude the problem was Kamala’s gender and race, and then proceed to ratfuck progressives under the delusion that republican-lite is more electable than improving the material conditions of the people who you want to vote for you.
That is what I was trying to say as well I wholeheartedly agree.
If they’re middle of the road/both sides can work together democrats fuck em and pull them out the game
The DNC:✍️Middle✍️of✍️road✍️is✍️too✍️far✍️left✍️need✍️to✍️appeal✍️to✍️moderate✍️nazis✍️
It’s a sad reality, but it’s true that there are a lot of racists and sexists in the US, so nominating a person of colour or a woman as your candidate really does damage your electoral chances.
I mean, a candidate as horrible as Donald Trump has a 100% win rate against women and 0% win rate against men.
Hey remember when Obama won with the biggest modern landslide and came in with a supermajority in the senate?
The “aw shucks there are too many racists we need to be more racist” line is for racists who want racism.
It is spoon-fed to the Sheep as if that would justify keeping the same people in charge of the party that Force unwinnable candidates on us.
Racism is not the reason in the first place, but if it was it would not justify keeping the establishment in there.
The logic is too stupid to refute line by line. Somehow though that is what we are doing. The same people that chose Hillary and then Biden and then Kamala are going to choose the next one, and do everything they can to favor their choice. Including these super delegates which they still have.
Allow me to add some more nuance to this point:
I never said that skin colour or gender prevents someone from winning. What I am saying is that it is a disadvantage compared to running a white male candidate with the same views. Obama did not win because he was black, he won in spite of him being black (and given the Republican reaction to his campaign I think this is broadly agreeable). He won because he had a great platform, was inspiring, and the Republicans had just crashed the economy.
Nobody will refuse to vote for a white male candidate because of their gender or race. If he has good policy positions then he will receive support. White candidates get judged on policy, non-white candidates get judged on both policy and their skin colour. It’s less pronounced on the left because there are fewer racists and sexists here, but it still exists. We need to acknowledge and confront the fact that discriminatory attitudes force minority and female candidates to be better than comparable white male candidates in order to garner the same level of support.
I don’t make excuses for Kamala Harris’s positions. She was a bad candidate. But being a bad candidate doesn’t automatically cause you to lose, as Biden and Trump have proven. It is the combination of being both a bad candidate and a minority and a woman that is lethal to a presidential campaign in America.
Your comment espouses something that is fun to say and makes you feel righteous and correct when saying it but ignores reality. In particular, I point to Hispanic and Asian populations, which make up a large portion of the Democratic voting bloc, and of which a very large number are openly sexist. I am the son of Chinese immigrants, all of whom either vote Democratic or not at all. While my generation is notably far less sexist than my parents’ generation, my parents and grandparents still think that whether a woman is “biologically suited” to be president is worth discussing. It’s not just my family being an outlier either, since this way of thinking is actually pretty pervasive in the Chinese community where I live (Portland, Oregon).
It damages your electoral chances if you are trying to appeal to republicans.
But republicans do not vote democrat.
some dont even vote at all surprising enough, at least the ones pretend like they support more left leaning views, only use it as a veneer.
The republicans who don’t vote at all, but pretend to be moderate can’t be won by a Democrat either.
Triangulation is bullshit, moving to the middle doesn’t win you a big contigent of moderates who like social democratic policy, but only if its complicated and means-tested, who want to starve Cuba and Venezuela, but thinks shooting their fishermen is too much, who want ICE rounding up immigrants into “migrant overflow facilities”, but not concentration camps.
Based on a false premise, Harris was universally unpopular with women and minorities and everyone else. Maybe that should just tell you that universally unpopular candidates are unpopular candidates and not their characteristics?
Being a poor candidate who is merely tolerated and not appreciated does not automatically cause you to lose. Most people also merely tolerated Biden and many swing voters in 2024 thought they would tolerate Trump despite his fascist tendencies.
It is the combination of being both a poor candidate and being a woman and being a minority that is lethal to a presidential campaign.
Quite off base. It is running as the status quo that was the deciding factor, the fact that you don’t know that yet does not speak well to your understanding.
This comment does not speak well to your reading comprehension.
Wow look she does lean left! /s
Only when she’s not running for anything.
It’s my fan theory that she was only supporting Israel to get campaign donations and would have done what every politician does and abandoned her campaign promises. Iirc while VP she supported investigating Israel in order to nullify the law that says we have to supply Israel with arms.
If you look at her past voting history, it aligns super close to Sanders.
Raising half a billion more than Trump didn’t do her a lot of good. Maybe next time a candidate should try running on what the people want instead of the donors.
If the election was decided on the basis of “which candidate is going to give us what we want,” Trump would have gotten about 15% of the vote. Look around at what’s happening now, and it hasn’t even got really ramped up yet. We’ve got years and years more of this stuff. And it’s going to get worse (not just politically but in terms of economic suffering, the final death of American science and education, stuff we haven’t even really had on the radar yet).
I don’t disagree that some of her campaign strategy was bad, keeping Biden in that long was bad, all that stuff, but also… if the people are choosing diving into the empty swimming pool instead of the full one, then sure you could say you could spruce up the full one to make it more enticing and make sure the water’s not too cold, but that’s not the core of the issue.
It’s definitely the core of the issue. Trump ran on cost of living issues and deporting immigrants (which is essentially a cost of living argument as well to a lot of people, even if empirically it’s a policy that has an opposite effect).
Kamala ran on essentially upholding existing institutions, ‘democracy’ and hanging out with the people that got the US into the Iraq war.
A lot of people picked the lying conman over the person that didn’t even promise to do the bare minimum. If the government doesn’t work for the people (and granted, a lot of it is due to Republicans cynically sabotaging things at every level), people will vote to change it one way or another.
You’re not grasping what I’m saying. I’m more or less agreeing with you that her campaigning was bad. My point is that, also, for things to even get to that point where this election was close whatever she did (even with people crying out for some kind of change to the point that anyone who wasn’t a politician looked like a step up to them), a lot of groundwork got laid that had absolutely nothing to do with her.
Some of it was the Democrats betraying the working class for the last 32 years, some of it was media. Some of it was her campaigning, too, sure. It’s not an either or thing.
Of course, this is definitely not just Kamala, this is a Democratic leadership issue, has been since Carter. Biden would’ve faced the same issues.
I mean it’s a long shot, but it would have been easier to convince her than it would to convince Trump.
Which was exactly the point of holding her accountable.
There was zero other avenue than try to pressure her with losing voters. She took the AIPAC money and sold out America to Trump instead.
I don’t follow the logic here, how did that avenue improve anything?
It was a hail mary, it sadly didn’t improve anything because money is more important to her.
It seems like it would have been way more effective to vote her in and then apply pressure for reelection.
What kind of backwards ass logic is that?
“Harris might do what I want, but to punish her for not doing it aggressively enough I’m going to make sure the guy who won’t ever do what I want gets elected.”
That doesn’t sound like a hail Mary, that sounds like the tantrum of a petulant toddler who didn’t get enough sprinkles on their ice cream so they decided to a pile dog shit instead.
Oh come on! This is just her yet again pandering to the left of the party to get votes. Why won’t she just grow a spine and standup for the values that she stood for. /s
She knows how to get the lefts votes and she knows its not going to happen by simply half-endorsing mamdani. She has to say Israel is committing a genocide and endorse universal human rights or she has no chance in hell.
Come ooon, she just tilted her head a little, no need to scare the poor woman xD
Yeah, but has she fixed her laugh though?
Out here asking the real questions
Removed by mod
Why is this news? She is not an elected official. She never breached 30% approval rating as vice president before her anointation.
Thanks for nothing Harris.
Some support…
