Harris Walz 2028?

[SSJVegeta]

121 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	YES
	9 (7%)
	NO
	103 (85%)
	Maybe
	9 (7%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[benpollard]

1. How about Whitmer/Buttigieg

[Ocelot II]

2. I like Harris a lot, but sadly I don't think a woman has a chance of winning

in the current political atmosphere, at least not as soon as 2028. Two exceptionally-qualified women were unable to defeat a vulgar con man with no qualifications for any political office (except for having a dick, if a small one), so with regret I have to conclude that our next nominee will have to be the standard-issue youngish white guy. Flame away...

[SSJVegeta]

6. Women make up a majority of the country.

Being a woman was not Clinton or Harris' problem.

[Scrivener7]

11. Yes it was.

[Ocelot II]

14. A *lot* of women voted for Trump. A majority of White women voted for him.

More White women also voted for Trump than for Clinton in 2016. If you don't think misogyny was a major issue along with race in both elections, you weren't paying attention. Women can be their own worst enemies.

[SSJVegeta]

59. Racism was a major issue in 2008 and 2012 too. But it didnt cost Obama the elections

And just because sexism was likely an issue in 2016 and 2024, it was not the primary reason both women lost.

[Iris]

58. Many women, especially in the South, are not "comfortable voting for a woman for president"

I've heard it over and over.

Which is one reason I have two gold crowns in the back of my mouth.

[AZProgressive]

36. I think Biden did a lot of damage to the party

Kamala Harris actually did good by outperforming considering how bad Biden was doing in the polls but she had to deal with all negatives with Biden and run her campaign which she was told "no daylight" between her and Biden. That turned out to be a problem since many voters were dreading another Trump-Biden matchup.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5191087-harris-trump-biden-harris/

No one is going to flame you though since that seems to be a consensus opinion at DU but I remember Bernie Sanders supporters were called "Bernie Bros" because they wouldn't support Hillary Clinton in a primary but now the mainstream consensus is Democrats shouldn't nominate a women because of unpopular candidates such as Clinton & Harris. If AOC ran in a primary I would vote for her, I wouldn't underestimate her ability to draw crowds in swing & rural districts like she did with the fight the oligarchy tour.

[Ocelot II]

38. It's not that either Clinton or Harris were unpopular; they weren't unpopular with Democrats.

Both elections were close. The problem was that they weren't able to attract enough independent voters to overcome the misogyny and racism that got Trump elected. And I doubt very much that AOC could win a national election - not just because of misogyny.

[AZProgressive]

40. I think it would be more difficult to win a primary--same as Bernie Sanders

but I think winning a general election would have been easier for either of them.

I think centrist and "abundance" (the new talking point) will either lead to another close election win or a loss like we saw with the last 3 general elections.

[betsuni]

49. Myth that the majority of Americans are secretly populist progressives yearning for economic class revolution

and it's only the mean old corrupt centrist Democratic Establishment elites holding things up by diabolically rigging primaries and mesmerizing Democratic voters into voting for them with identity politics. Nutty!

[betsuni]

47. "In October, O'Malley Dillon and Lorraine Voles, Harris's chief of staff, had gone to the White House

to tell Jeff Zients, Biden's chief of staff, that Harris needed to break with the president -- and, in effect, ask him for permission. As one aide put it, 'to say, you know, she's got to do this because we've got to win. And they were all like, "Yeah, do whatever you have to fucking do to win!"' Not only had Zients given the Harris team his blessing, but in a phone call Biden himself told Harris that she should do whatever she had to do, say whatever she wanted to say -- his feelings wouldn't be hurt."

Chris Whipple, "Uncharted"

[RandomNumbers]

3. I might go for Walz at the top of the ticket

That might get the "buyer's remorse" crowd without losing the "never gonna put a woman in charge" faction. And unfortunately that latter faction is far too big in this country. I have nothing in principle against a woman at the top of the ticket - except for we already have 2 strikes with that. Perhaps "the right woman" could win, as "the right black guy" (Obama) did. I don't think Harris is that "right woman", much as she'd be completely competent, and infinitely better than the current cretin. Unfortunately "competent" is not good enough in this country.

[karynnj]

9. I think one thing that could have helped Harris is if Biden would have assigned her

Last edited Sun Jun 8, 2025, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

prominent, well covered projects with a high likelihood of success - like Obama did for him.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. I would strongly consider that... Walz is WONDERFUL!!

[Beartracks]

35. Sometimes i wonder...

I wonder if for some people it's not so much "never gonna put a woman in charge" as it might be them feeling that the woman candidate is being "pushed" on them as a kind of progressive "statement," like when people comp!ain about a traditional male character being gender-swapped in the movies.

==========

[LonePirate]

4. Like it or not, we will not win if a woman is atop the ticket. This backwards country will not elect a female president.

[SSJVegeta]

7. Women make up a majority ofbthe country and a woman won the popular vote in 2016.

Being a woman was not the problem in 2016 and 2024.

[Scrivener7]

13. Yes it was.

[SSJVegeta]

15. Not even a little bit.

Especially considering a good amount of the states Harris and Clinton lost, had at least one -if not multiple, statewide electeds who are women. Many who got elected that same year. The problem was a message that lost to fascism. Not what was in between their legs.

[Ocelot II]

16. You must be a man. Women *know* misogyny when we see it

because we live it.

[SSJVegeta]

19. Just because misogny exists, doesnt mean that a fascist was elected solely because of it.

Certainly it helped, but so did ignoring the massive inequality gap that's been exponentially widening for decades

[Scrivener7]

20. Clearly.

[SSJVegeta]

21. And what do you say about all of the women who failed to vote for Harris, and/or voted for Trump

Did they simply not vote for her because she was a woman?

[Scrivener7]

22. No. Many didn't vote for her because she's a woman. Others didn't vote for her because she's black.

But plenty of women are sexist against women too.

[SSJVegeta]

27. If sexism was the reason, Clinton wouldnt have won the popular vote. If racsm was the reason, Obama would never

Have been president.


So surely there was something else that was simply not resonating with peopl, which got them to be consumed by fascist propaganda and elect a fascist.

Maybe the massive, growing inequality that's been exploited by right wingers to successfully target any scapegoat they choose?

[Scrivener7]

28. Nope. Run a middle aged, white, protestant, straight man and we'll win. Without

changing a letter of the platform.

I'm not saying the platform can't be improved. Of course it can. But that's not the reason we lost. We lost because too many Democrats are racist and sexist and decided to stay home.

[SSJVegeta]

37. I guarantee Harris and Clinton would have lost if they were men.

Just like Kerry did.

That strategy -man or woman, has not been successful in two decades.

Definition of insanity...

[Scrivener7]

52. That's nice. But it's ridiculous to say you guarantee such a thing. Have a lovely evening.

[SSJVegeta]

57. A losing message is a loser irregardless of the messenger.

Last edited Sun Jun 8, 2025, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)

And any message that loses to a fascist is the definition of a losing message.

Same goes for a winning message.

Have a good night ❤️

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

25. I agree... we need to stop the misogyny!!

[SSJVegeta]

39. Yes thank you!! And mark my words:

IF this party is wise enough to nominate AOC in 2028 and we have a free and fair election, she will win in a landslide!

(I encourage anybody to bookmark this for posterity)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. I could not agree with you MORE!! I believe the torch is starting to be passed to AOC & she IS the future of our party!!

If we go with the establishment/corporate approved candidate, I will be far less confident in our likelihood of victory.

The question is whether AOC will run in 2028... let's hope so, fingers crossed!!

[SSJVegeta]

46. Absolutely

🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞 🤞

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Cheers to AOC!!!

[Bev54]

5. Maybe deal with the existing problems before looking to the next election

Who says there will even be one, unless Americans fight back Now.

[B.See]

48. Precisely. Besides,

picking front runners now would give MAGA and their state run PROPAGANDA RAGS years advance notice of who to target.

[Mike Nelson]

8. I think...

... Harris is likely to run. If she gets the nomination, I doubt she would pick Walz. He may run, also, and I doubt Harris would accept the 2nd spot with someone she had as her second. I think the Dems will have several great candidates!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Me too!! As long as we stick to our progressive principles, we are going to kick some serious ass in 2028!!

[indigovalley]

10. Agree that we need to focus on 2026--also who knows about 2028

We have no way of knowing what the countries situation will be in 2028. If we have an election at that time we may have a completely different opinion of who should be the nominee(s). I think the next couple years are going to be very erratic...

[Polybius]

12. Oh, hell no

Democrats going with the same Presidential candidate for the first time since since 1952 and 1956 is bad enough, but going with the same VP candidate too? That would be unprecedented.

[SSJVegeta]

42. Adlai Stevenson was a great man. But your point is heard and well received.

God rest his soul.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. It might be unprecedented but the combination of Harris/Walz, with sufficient time to campaign, would be a powerful one

and worthy of consideration.

[Torchlight]

17. I'll decide which candidates are best for the job

in another six or seven mnths after the terrain settles and the starting gun sounds. Until then, no real reason to rule any one of Schrodinger's canddiates out or put support behind them.

[Ace Rothstein]

18. Hard pass.

I'd like us to actually win.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. I'm for whoever can win. We cannot afford to lose again.

We cannot afford 4 more years of MAGA.

[BlueTsunami2018]

29. If they came out of the primary as the ticket I'd vote for it.

But that’s not my preferred ticket.

Quite frankly, if there was a primary in ‘24 we’d probably be talking about President Newsom right now instead of dealing with this horror show.

I like Kamala Harris well enough but I don’t think she can win. So she wouldn’t get my primary vote.

[Polybius]

30. This!

100% agree with you.

[samnsara]

31. I will vote straight Dem no matter who the candidate is

..unless the person is obviously a wack job

[Javaman]

32. I will vote for whom ever is on the ticket. My first choices are rarely if ever the nominees nt

[pinkstarburst]

33. Absolutely not. I like both these people, but we ran this ticket already

We ran this ticket in 2024.

The country had the opportunity to weigh on on this ticket in 2024.

They said no thank you.

It would be absolutely INSANE for us to run Harris/Walz again, just like it would be dumb for us to run Hillary again, or Al Gore. We can rub gravel in our hair and scream about how it's unfair, and how the country is full of racists and misogynists and how Harris was never popular enough in 2020 when she ran on her own and how Biden refusing to admit he shouldn't have been running for a second term were all at fault (yes x 4) and NONE of that matters.

The country weighed in. They don't want that ticket. Sorry, guys.

We would be shooting ourselves in the foot to do this. We have to move on. If Harris runs again, I absolutely will not vote for her. And it's not because I don't like her or don't think she's a lovely person. I hope she runs for governor of California if she wants to stay in public service, or enjoys her retirement if she's done.

[cadoman]

62. the country resoundingly rejected TSF once--then "elected" him again

Depending of course to what degree you trust Elon's "management" of the election...

But the point is it's possible to successfully run the same candidate under different circumstances and get a different result. Especially when the chosen policy fails and the public learns from it.

[pinkstarburst]

67. But there's a difference. Trump was successful and won in 2016

Harris was never able to gain any momentum when she ran in the primary in 2020. She wasn't doing well and dropped out. Her popularity rating never really improved while she was vice president. She stepped in and ran in 2024 because she was the only choice and I was behind her (I really do like Harris) but there's a huge difference between someone who has never been successful running on their own in the general, and someone who actually won before.

I believe we would be making a huge mistake to run that ticket again. Voters have already weighed in on that ticket and said they didn't want to vote for Harris. We can be disappointed that they didn't vote the way we wanted them to. That's fine. But if we want to win in 2028, we need to move on to someone else, not keep forcing the same choice down their throats and then acting surprised when we keep losing.

[Ms. Toad]

34. She wasn't my favorite in the primary.

In the general election, her positions were enough different from her primary positions that - as to the things that concerned me in the primaries - I might be convinced to vote for her over other candidates.

Unfortunately, in the general election she was unable to separate herself from Biden on Middle East policy, and on pocketbook versus retirement account economic issues.

It goes without saying - if she is nominated, I would vote for her in the 2028 general election. But without a change on those two issues, I would find her unacceptable in a primary. Different reason than the last primary, but still reasons I expect I will find a candidate whose views are closer to my own.

[GoCubsGo]

41. If they win the primary, certainly.

But, how about let's wait until we see who is running before we decide? As of now, there are ZERO declared candidates, including Harris and Walz.

[tinrobot]

43. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

I'll support whomever wins the primary.

[Nimble_Idea]

50. tesler say what

my favorite days are when wall street is open. crypto bro hopium to the rescue!

[TheProle]

51. If she wants to run, she should run.

But she has yet to ever win a presidential primary, so she’ll need to prove herself right along with everyone else.

[everyonematters]

53. The Republican meme would be 'a return to open borders'.

[EdmondDantes_]

54. That wouldn't be my first choice

But I will wait to see who runs to see if I have a preference or if I'm equally okay with any option.

In 2016 for example I didn't have a clear preference between Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley, so I didn't select anyone in the primary for the presidential race. Any of them would have been fine, so I figured better to let people who had a strong preference vote instead.

[cadoman]

61. it's not a great poll--99% of us would support it if it were the ticket

Yet nearly 90% vote NO? That is nuts. The question inherently implies Harris has won the primary and selected Walz again as the VP, after all.

If Harris performs the best in the primary & debates--would 87% of you really not support her just because you're so committed to the idea that she can't win? Where exactly does that get us? Do we never run any non-white, non-male candidates again because of this paranoia? Is the paranoia even legitimate? She was within the margin of error of beating Trump on a shortened campaign schedule.

What are you all going to tell your non-white daughters? That they can never get a job because dumb white men have all the power. I say FUCK THAT!!

[SSJVegeta]

63. No. The poll is asking if thats what we want. Not whether we would support it.

[cadoman]

64. the poll states "Harris Walz 2028?"

We don't have a say in the VP choice--so it's implicit in the question that Harris was selected during the primary.

[SSJVegeta]

66. As the poll author, that was not my intention

[cadoman]

68. did not realize I was duking it out with the poll author

No harm intended. I honestly interpreted the question differently is all.

[SSJVegeta]

69. Not a problem at all! Next time I make a poll, I will definitely be more careful with the wording :)

[VMA131Marine]

55. It all depends who else runs in the primary

We don’t even know what the state of the country will be in November 2028. We can only hope that Trump has gone to that great golf course in the sky by then where the water hazards and sand traps are completely unavoidable and the Devil takes a very dim view of cheating.

If Harris wins the primary I will of course vote for her in the general election. No guarantee the Walz will be her running mate again though. He may even run against her in the primary. Also, do we know that Harris is not going to run for Governor of California? She would automatically be the favourite I think.

[davsand]

56. Are we sure there will BE a 2028 election?

It's great to hope so, but the current administration acts like they never plan to leave.


Laura

[Renew Deal]

65. That assumes she can win a primary