• JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Keep Khan and ditch Harris if it comes to that.

    Shutup preemptively we’ll make it work with the power of wanting it really bad

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    My impression has been that Harris is indicating that her economic policy will move in the opposite direction with her talk of “price-gouging”. Is there a reason to think she will do what this article suggests, other than the fact that some donors are asking her to?

    • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Well, to start, politicians will say anything to get elected, so their words mean absolutely nothing, regardless of party affiliation.

      This article was the first I’d even heard about Harris potentially ousting Kahn, so that’s potentially a good sign. However, Kahn and the FTC have been taking swings at the oligarchs via their Google monopoly lawsuits, going after Apple, etc.

      Harris (and Walz) are centrist Democrats, they are not progressive. A progressive candidate would be calling for the minimum wage to match where it’d be if it was tied with inflation, around $26/hr, not bringing up the $15/hr debate that should’ve been done a decade ago. She hasn’t signalled support for Medicare for All as far as I remember, she went back on her promise not to expand fracking, and she’s made no mention of enshrining LGBTQ+ rights into law or stopping weapons sales to Israel (she has said their would be contingencies, so she still agrees to help the guy actively working against her with her opponent), all progressive ideas.

      So, she likely doesn’t support these things because her party, and more importantly, the donors who line their pockets, don’t want her to. She’s a career Democrat, she’s not that much younger than Biden in comparison to someone considered progressive, like AOC, so her policies are going to closer align with the Status-Quo centrist Democrats versus the We-Need-Change-Now progressive Democrats.

      Tl:dr: Harris is a centrist Democrat whose party (and by extension, her party’s wealthy donors) do not want progress made, they want a return to the status quo, as their policies have shown (Palestine, M4A, Fracking, etc). Her donors likely don’t like that the FTC chair actually has a backbone, and since the status quo is more important to the Democrat Party (look at how they treated Bernie) than progress. So, the donors are likely pressuring her behind the scenes to put a Garland-esque Chair in charge of the FTC: someone with no backbone.

      • greyhathero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        She is 21 years younger than Biden, and I’m not sure you have actually read her voting record. It’s quite progressive for a us democrat

        • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          The examples I gave have been from her campaign this year, I’m glad she’s voted progressively compared to most US Democrats, but she is campaigning as a moderate.

          As for her age, yeah, I’m glad we don’t have someone who’s an octogenarian running, but she’s closer to Biden’s age than she is AOC’s, an actual progressive Democrat.

      • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Of course he is.

        He’s not the bar we need to rate everybody against, though. Being better than Trump is not enough. Let’s hold our government to reasonable standards.

        • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s the problem with the first-past-the-post voting system. It necessarily limits you to two choices, which frequently means you’re merely picking the one you dislike least.

        • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          That requires a bar to hold the democrats too, and right now that bar is dolled up in orange spray paint and lieing on the floor somewhere. The issue for the modern america is to resolve the spoiler effect. Without a third party there is no “voting in favor” of someone there is “voting against” someone else.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Frankly she’s already gone. Harris had way too many billionaire Tech Bros donors who are worried about being regulated in any way for her to keep what has been the best part of the Biden Administration by far.

    • BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      “Provoke a confirmation fight” that by itself makes me doubt she’s “already gone”. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong though.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I don’t see why you would need to provoke a confirmation fight if she doesn’t nominate her in the first place. Which is what I’m sure is going to happen.