Former President Barack Obama plans to appear with Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Detroit this month. Obama will attend an Oct. 24 rally.

DETROIT (AP) — Former President Barack Obama will campaign alongside Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Detroit later this month, lending his support to the progressive nominee after a bruising Democratic primary exposed divisions within the party.

Obama will appear with El-Sayed at an Oct. 24 rally that will also feature other top Democratic candidates in Michigan, including Jocelyn Benson, the party’s nominee for governor. Obama is getting significantly more involved in the midterm elections, with additional campaign stops and advertisements expected to come in the closing weeks, according to plans shared first with The Associated Press.

  • decolo@piefed.socialEnglish
    28·
    4 days ago

    I hate Obama for abandoning the movement that got him elected, and all the bombings, but he’s still better than anyone who followed him

    • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
      131·
      4 days ago

      Which is fair. But it’s also politics. Getting elected in a system like this demands compromise. Which is why we shouldn’t have systems like this.

      • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
        71·
        4 days ago

        Compromise is good and healthy, and best case you get the best of opposing views. Not sure I prefer a system where half the population gets smashed into misery.

        I do get the frustration at compromising with… people with bad ideas. But they get a say as well. That’s democracy.

        Edit: maybe you are referring to two party system. Which yeah isn’t great. But with multi party they still need to make deals and compromises, just at a different layer, still better though

        • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 days ago

          I never said compromise was bad. I said the system that we have should not exist because of the way the compromise works out.

          Compromise is fine. But not with an owned unanswerable state. Under those conditions you compromise, those that are on the state do not. And that’s not compromise.

          • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
            2·
            4 days ago

            I might not completely follow.

            there is no compromising with an unmoveable apparatus?

            There is certainly a tonne of inertia that is… anti human.

            • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
              1·
              4 days ago

              Compromise requires two or more groups. All accountable to each other to have any meaningful compromise. Otherwise you get what we have. The wealthy get what they want and sacrifice nothing. We sacrifice plenty and get nothing. To be clear, I’m an anarchist. I think the state should be flat and granular. Granular enough that it could operate largely via absolute consent. And compromise where required is meaningful.