The top 3 in that should be a non-starter. I'd support AOC. I don't actually know enough about the others to comment one way or the other.
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
298 points (90.9% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
2759 readers
393 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Jay Pritzker
This plan didn't work with Trump in 2016. Republicans rammed him in where he wasn't (shouldn't have been) welcome because they refused to allow any other candidate. In the same election, Democrats let their party officials to ram Hillary through because the party wouldn't accept Bernie.
Suggest we find someone WE like and do what Republicans did. It doesn't matter if it's an "outsider" or not, but I'd appreciate it if we could not pick a child rapist and sex trafficker, kthx!
I genuinely think our candidate hasn't really made themselves known to be willing to run yet. I don't think it's AOC this time, though I think she's got what it takes to do the job. I don't think it's Harris, people still feel burned by 2020. I hope we can do better than Newsom.
Kinda still want to draft Jon Stewart because he genuinely gives a fuck, can communicate like few others, knows how to be damned serious when he needs to be, and if he were on that list today he'd be near the top if not at it, just like that. And when asked, he didn't say no. We could do far worse and still be okay.
But yeah, I'm waiting to see what happens. I don't think the candidate I want that I'm sure will win is on the field yet. But I hope AOC is the running mate, whoever that person winds up being.
Jon Stewart admitted he was in the Epstien Files. He was mentioned by Epstein as the type of person they needed to "properly present" one of their stories/ lies.
He didn't have to admit anything. He just wants to be as honest and transparent with people as he can be.
Some of his recent interviews have given me the tiniest shred of hope that he may run. He isn't flatly shutting down the idea any more. He isn't saying he will run, but he used to be vehemently against the idea.
It's depressing that a fucking comedian is legitimately one of the better options for a presidential candidate.
Yeah, maybe they should find someone more qualified like a banker or a lawyer.
On the other hand, a comedian has been thwarting one of the richest, most powerful men in the world for the last 4 years.
As opposed to the usual economic parasite from the owner class?
The things a person does for a living or a hobby do not make someone more or less fit for an elected position. Their character, intelligence, and ideals do. Jon Stewart has all of those qualities.
There is only one name on the above list that shouldn’t be repeatedly kicked in the face and barred from any position of authority, and that’s AOC. Everyone else is corrupt as hell.
I wasn't shitting on him or saying he wasn't qualified. Just saying it's sad that none of the actual civil servants who have presumably dedicated their lives to it are good candidates. The guy who's primary goal has been to entertain people for most of his life just fucking fell into it and is better than all of them. It's depressing.
If the party really wanted to stop Trump, they would've done what the democrats did to Bernie. Hell, the democrats themselves helped Trump: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
You can see with how quickly all the oligarchs lined up to kiss Trump's ass that they're perfectly happy with him being in power.
load more comments
(1 replies)
American democracy is selecting whether you wont to be hit in the face or the groin, and then being handed a "I voted" sticker to wear on your shirt.
I might try "groin" next time just to mix it up. Yes, I know I am terrible and I am why the system sucks. I know.
Harris needs to retire. You don’t lose to Trump and get to run again.
She lost to Trump AND Biden.
If she was ever able to win a Democratic primary they wouldn't have gone through so much trouble to avoid having one in the last election.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Lol wtf is Harris doing here?
Polls like this look are based on name-recognition. Harris is the first (and only) name a lot of people will come up with when asked "who should be the Democratic candidate?"
She doesn't seem interested (she hasn't been working on keeping her name in the news like Newsom has), so she'll fall off the polls as other people climb.
load more comments
(12 replies)
I hate to tell you, but a hardcore progressive will not be nominated. As they always do, the party leadership will decide that the way to beat MAGA is to be MAGA.
Stop obsessing over the presidency. You want revolution? All politics is local. Start by putting younger progressives on planning commissions, school boards. Move up to city councils, county supervisor. Then start taking state offices. You have to elect progressives to local offices for name recognition.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Polls are not the mechanism parties use to “pick” candidates. That’s just not how the process works. Pollsters aren’t arms of the DNC or the RNC. They’re independent firms measuring name recognition and voter preference at a given moment, and the only way to do that is by giving respondents a fixed list of relevant, high visibility figures. It’s a methodological constraint, not a political command.
The real issue is subtler. Media ecosystems amplify a handful of names, donors flock to whoever looks viable, and voters often gravitate toward whoever they’ve heard of. That creates a feedback loop where the visible become even more visible. But polls are downstream from that loop, not upstream. They reflect the landscape; they don’t choose it.
If you want to critique the system, aim at the actual gatekeepers. Ballot access rules, debate thresholds, fundraising networks, and media exposure do far more to narrow the field than a Rasmussen questionnaire ever will. Blaming the poll is mistaking the thermometer for the weather.
load more comments
(10 replies)
view more: next ›