Could there be a 2028 Democratic dark horse candidate for POTUS?

Gretchen Whitmer is not running. She was never running.

I like Cory Booker.

I like Greg Casar.

Jon Ossoff

Ossoff first has to win reelection next year, R4.

I just hope we get fair primaries, there was so much monkey business in 2016 and 2020, and no primaries in 2024.

By 2028 no one of sound mind will vote Republican.

Mark Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Cory Booker or Andy Beshear. Make Jasmine Crockett the VP nominee.

Andy Beshear

R7 I believe that's already been true for years. But lest you forget, we're surrounded in this country by a bunch of uninformed fucking idiots with no apparent short-term memory.

Team Ossoff. And I bet he can rock a jockstrap.

Two not so dark horses:

JD Pritzker will certainly throw his hat in ring. (And self finance his whole campaign if necessary.)

And there's a reason Rahm Emanuel is suddenly popping up everywhere. He will attempt to pull the Obama machine together and run. If not for the first slot, then certainly the second.

Very slim pickings so far and none who inspire overwhelming support. I'm hoping that whoever it will be is someone as yet unnoticed or even unknown.

2028 is a crucial election because if a MAGA Party POTUS is re-elected then we will lose whatever remains by then of the country. There still might be some chance to fix some of the damage from Trump if we can take back the White House, house and senate in 2028.

Ossoff and Pritzker are Jewish like Shapiro, they might have a hard time winning over Christian Independent voters.

I am steadfast in my firm, long-held convictions -- or whatever they will be in 2028 -- and stand ready to serve the United States as its leader.

[quote] And there's a reason Rahm Emanuel is suddenly popping up everywhere. He will attempt to pull the Obama machine together and run. If not for the first slot, then certainly the second.

Based on what, his dismal track record as Mayor of Chicago? I think not.

Im betting on dark horse current and former governors who are centrists:

Roy Cooper from NC

Wes Moore from MD

And the uber long shot: Steve Bulloch from Montana

Joe Biden should have put up Antony Blinken as the presidential candidate.

Joe Biden should have done a lot of things including pulling out of the race in time for there to be a primary R18.

Mark Kelly

R19 Wifey wanted him to stay in. She seemed to have a lot of influence over him. Hey, he trusted her so there's that. It's past now.

Tim Walz

What did Big Gretch do to screw up her chances?

Do a google R23.

Andy Beshear has the highest approval rating of any Dem AND he's in a red state. He's a 'safe choice' for the skittish Dems.

AOC with Beshear as VP - or vice versa. She's Bernie's Chosen One, and I in my gut believe she mighbe able to do it. There is so much going wrong right now, and the absolute scariest of the scary are in charge and we're not even to 100 days and we are already to the secret prisons chapter.

And then there's Hungary..

But AOC is gonna be President one day, if we survive Trump, not sure when, but have felt this since the last election.

Be realistic R26. The 2028 election is too important for a "might be able to do it" candidate and then to say "oh well, at least we tried"... Fuck no.

The 2028 candidate has to be a sure-fire winner. Otherwise, we can just kiss the rest of whatever still remains of the US in 2028 away and it will never return. It will be Gilead.

This means the 2028 Democratic Party presidential candidate has to be white, male, fifties, straight, Christian, married with at least 2 children and a dog with no skeletons in the closet and no previous close association with Biden. Also the DNC cannot allow the Biden campaign advisors and staff to be involved in the 2028 campaign in any way, shape or form. Those are the cold hard facts. That's how we will win.

I don't deny that AOC has a good chance at becoming POTUS down the track. But not in 2028. I think she is more likely to be a Nancy Pelosi replacement and more useful there. That she could step into almost immediately.

R6 There was no monkey business in those years you dumb fuck.

2028 is critical for so many reasons, including the fact that it will be so more difficult to win presidential elections in the post-2030 Census years.

Actually, R24, I am the first person to refer someone to JFGI.com, but I couldn’t see anything that she did specifically that derailed her chances.

Hence my question.

Mary Trump

Honestly, I don't see any Democrats right now that could win. They're too out of touch.

George Santos

Nothing that a crashed economy cannot cure, R32.

And one must assume that R32 is IN TOUCH

R32 They're out of touch? Bitch, Republicans are off the fucking cliff. STFU.

The one who can talk the loudest and promise the most stuff will become the nominee. That’s AOC.

R5 If Ossoff wins his own race in 2026 (a real hurdle), he's a viable candidate. A Senator from the south.

Beshear... It'd not clear yet whether he has the strength/magnitism.

If Mallory McMorrow wins the MI Senate race, she'd a dark horse rising for sure.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss another possibility. Kennedy DNA and vibe.

Maryland Gov Wes Moore has the image and strength.

But I think the real dark horse might be out of the box: Mark Cuban. Don Osborn the Independent who ran for NE Senate and almost won.

[quote] Don Osborn the Independent who ran for NE Senate and almost won.

He did much better than any Democrat would have - especially with Trump at the top of the ticket - but losing by 6% is hardly almost winning.

It would help things enormously if the Dems had a celebrity run. Considering that the Rs shit on Hollywood all the time, they're the ones who keep electing failed entertainers (Sonny Bono, Arnold, Fred Grandy, Trump).

So idk - its about time the Dems ran a legit celebrity.

I’ve been advocating for Jennifer Aniston for a while.

We are still a couple of years away from the race getting serious. At this point neither Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama would have been seen as a probable nominee. Even Bill Clinton started his 1992 run thinking of it as a dry run for a later campaign. In other words, plenty of time for a dark horse to emerge, and maybe it would be better if they emerged later, still the new thing and with less time for them to be demonized by Fox etc.—just not as late as Kamala Harris and with some primary victories along the way (but given the short lead time, I thought Harris ran an excellent campaign, give or take one The View question.)

I think Beshear is the safest choice.

No women. Sorry, it sucks, but it won't be the time to take any chances.

[quote] I think Beshear is the safest choice.

Be careful of what you wish for. He has zero personality. And it's not like he's gonna win Kentucky.

Ossoff, Pritzker and Shapiro are Jewish so no way. They will lose. And I don't want anyone in the White caving in to Israel.

AOC will never win a Democratic primary. There are many Dems that never going to go far left or vote for a far left progressive.

She will never be a VP running mate either. Jasmine Crockett or Melanie Stansbury might have better of being a VP

I was hoping for Wink Martindale, but this week has not been good for me

[quote] Roy Cooper from NC

I like him. But, he's a little too old. He'll be 71 in 2028.

I think we’re already beyond fucked no matter who the nominee is.

[quote]AOC will never win a Democratic primary.

AOC has social media and messaging savvy that all of the older candidates lack. She would not be a good President, but I wouldn’t underestimate her ability to tap into disenfranchised voters and get them out to the polls.

Re: the AOC and the Left thing. Things are disrupted. The continuum is Corrupt v Competence, Oligarch v social democracy... and the conflict will be played in the posdcast/social media universe. AOC is better there than any current Dem contender.

By 2028 I perceive few will care about a "Leftist" history.

Sorry, no women need apply.

I do think it’s going to be AOC. I just have a strong feeling.

If past is prologue, Black women will pick the nominee. I don't see AOC having any special appeal to this demographic.

James Clyburn picks the nominee.

AOC can't appeal to moderate Democrats living in Midwestern or southern states. She would perform poorly in primaries in those states. She's not going to be the nominee in 2028.

The 2028 nominee will be a straight white guy who will probably pick a female running mate who is a moderate. The VP pick will be a midwestern woman who is a Congresswoman or a senator and no it won't be Elissa Slotkin or Amy Klobuchar.

*Gretchen Whitmer hiding behind a binder matching her outfit in front of the mantle filled with gold statues*

If Gretchen Whitmer's binder debacle hadn't happened, she still wouldn't have had much of chance in 2028. She has a lesbian daughter which would turn off some swing voters.

And it’s probably the lesbian daughter who was always the firm no vote on a presidential bid.

They didn’t understand me and I was second stepdaughter.

Keith has the 🍵

AOC is drawing huge crowds in Red states.

To what end, R62? It's not like she's gonna win them. In late October, I pushed back on those who were so impressed with Harris's crowds, by pointing out the great crowds McGovern was drawing at a similar stage in the '72 campaign. On his way to losing 49 states.

Cheney’s lesbian daughter didn’t matter to voters. Let’s be real- only controversial issues matter to conservative voters when it’s on Democrats. If it’s a thousand gay conservative Republicans taking rights away from us, voters DGAF.

Andy Beshear is a sure-fire way to lose. He's less exciting than Al Gore.

R65 Don’t be so sure. W was not exciting. HW Bush was NOT exciting. Republicans will struggle without Trump on the ticket. They’ve done TERRIBLE when he’s not running.

I find AOC annoying, loud, aggressive and attention-seeking. As in, she can’t hide that she is overly ambitious.

I nominate Martha Reeves instead.

AOC is too young. She’s not going to be a serious candidate.

No one could’ve predicted Clinton in ‘92 actually winning. Everyone thought Hillary had it locked in’08 by ‘05. A lot can change.

FCI, the Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton had future president written all over him ever since being elected governor at the age of 32.

R69 It wasn’t as clear as ppl remember.

R69 No one could have seen the harm he caused.

Well, FCI, at least for political junkies like me, it was pretty apparent.

Mayor Pete.

R73 is Chasten.

Chasten calls his husband, “Peter,” R74.

R75 His peter is reportedly pretty big.

Nate Silver likes AOC's '28 chances.

Cory Booker cannot be elected because hes a closet case who has never married a woman. It's within my imagination there have been other closet case presidents but they were traditionally married. An out gay man, maybe. But a closeted gay black man. Just no.

R77, Nate is despicable. And runs about 50/50 on his predictions.

I’d like to see him shipped to the isle of Lesbos or adopted by a tribe of Amazonian like Franklin Hart. He’s a vile piece of shit.

I’ve been … TO SPACE!

You might want to dial down the outrage a tad, R79. If Nate's despicable, what does that make Trump?

Whatever politicians and suddenly cursing with gusto are running

*are suddenly cursing

Andy Beshear will heal the nation. He is just about perfect.

[quote]I nominate Martha Reeves instead.

Callin' out around the world, are you ready for a brand new beat?

Nate Silver is trolling. Plenty of people know AOC wouldn't win primaries in various states.

Jon Hamm

Can the DL PLEASE stop trying to make Andy Beshear happen? He's like if you took a men's J Crew mannequin and filled it with margarine and individually wrapped pocket protectors.

R88 -- don't think we can immediately rule out a Democrat who managed to win in Kentucky.

I'm a republican who managed to win in Massachusetts, R89, but it didn't help me win the presidency.

[quote]This means the 2028 Democratic Party presidential candidate has to be white, male, fifties, straight, Christian, married with at least 2 children and a dog with no skeletons in the closet and no previous close association with Biden.

While I completely understand and respect this perspective, there is one big hurdle: the person can not be boring.

The person has to energize people that would not normally vote to vote. They have to be interesting. They have to be entertaining. I'd say that's more important than policy to many people.

That shouldn't be the way that it is, but it's exactly where we are.

[Quote]don't think we can immediately rule out a Democrat who managed to win in Kentucky.

[quote] Andy Beshear will heal the nation. He is just about perfect

It's either him or someone will a similar personality who can appeal to a wide range of people. The usual faves like AOC or Jasmine Crockett aren't capable of doing that.

It will be AOC. She's creating a movement of people who normally don't vote but now are fed up. Much like Trump did in 2015.

AOC wouldn't be able to win over enough people in battleground states to win the electoral college.

Nobody is voting for milquetoast hee-haw Andy Beshear.

R94 Yep. 90 million eligible voters did not vote in 2024. Getting these voters to polls will be key (like Obama did in 2008 and Trump did in 2016. You can be assured that the MAGA strategists have tracked this and is the purpose the SAVE Act and other initiatives by MAGA to put up more barriers to voting.

AOC might be a draw. Someone from outside the usual political suspects needs to attract "protest" voters... Stephen A. Smith, Mark Cuban, John Stewart... someone we are thinking about yet.

[quote] Yep. 90 million eligible voters did not vote in 2024. Getting these voters to polls will be key

Unless they are more likely to vote Republican.

Trump's largest voter gains between 2020 and 2024 were Hispanic/Latino men. Hopefully the past few months and the next few years will reverse that. It's very much a, "I never thought the face eating leopards would eat MY face," kind of situation.

[quote]Unless they are more likely to vote Republican.

We have an idea that 1.8 million Democratic voters didn't vote in 2024 that did vote in 2020. It likely would have been much worse if Biden had of remained the nominee and they probably figured that out and had him step down. The goal is to play it safe but not so safe that people are put to sleep, sorry Andy Beshear.

[quote]Someone from outside the usual political suspects needs to attract "protest" voters... Stephen A. Smith, Mark Cuban, John Stewart... someone we are thinking about yet.

I thought it would be fun to run a "Deep Research" query on ChatGPT to see what it thinks based upon recent articles/polling/etc.

Most Likely to Be Nominated if They Ran: Kamala Harris and if she doesn't run then Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer.

Most Likely to Win the General: Gretchen Whitmer and if not her then Wes Moore.

Most Likely to be Nominated and Win: Gretchen Whitmer but she wouldn't beat Harris in the general because of Harris' name recognition.

What Ticket Would Wake up 90 Million Non-Voters: AOC as VP followed by Wes Moore since he'd be new. There's also Beshear or Shapiro.

Most Electable Ticket: Gretchen Whitmer and Shapiro. (With the best combo being Whitmer and Wes Moore for exciting non-voters.)

Most Exciting Ticket: AOC and Wes Moore.

I think a woman from Michigan will be POTUS someday, but it won't be Whitmer.

It will be one of these women

-Jocelyn Benson

-Haley Stevens

-Elissa Slotkin

-Hillary Scholten

-Mallory McMorrow

Dark Horses are so much fun to think about, fantasize about, but the reality is that the candidate will likely have to **already** be famous. A national profile, who has demonstrated they can raise money, is a known brand. That narrows the field to the usual suspects.

That said, I think Booker is a really intriguing idea. He's run before - which really helps.

ChatGPT did not get the memo that Whitmer’s not running for president.

ChatGPT and Meta AI are hilarious to use when put in very specific political questions or prompts. On Meta AI, I asked a question about prominent moderate female Democrats and Meta mentioned AOC as "prominent moderate Democrat".

[quote]ChatGPT did not get the memo that Whitmer’s not running for president.

She’s definitely said she has no plans to run and wants to finish her term, but she hasn’t explicitly ruled out 2028. In interviews, she’s said “never say never” and left the door open.

So technically, she hasn’t declared … but she hasn’t declined either. She's being very responsible and doing the job she has now and has made it clear that this is the only thing she's focusing on. It's way too soon for all this anyway. Who knows where we'll be in a couple of years?

[quote]ChatGPT and Meta AI are hilarious to use when put in very specific political questions or prompts.

I just had to give a presentation on this at work as they decide if we should even be using ChatGPT.

Meta AI’s reasoning is good for back-and-forth, but its search just drops snippets.

ChatGPT’s Deep Research, though, pulls full quotes, cites the source, and synthesizes the info. It doesn’t just say “Here’s what Politico said," it actually puts it in context and tells you how multiple outlets are framing it. That’s what makes it more useful for nuanced stuff, like politics or policy research.

I know they limit the use of it for Non-Paying users and (since they gave me a paid account), I can tell you it takes forever to run since it's doing some reasoning, asking the right questions, going to each article, and it will even think about how else it can see a paywalled article if it can't. It's super brilliant and also scary.

What purpose would it serve her to rule out a presidential bid so far in advance, R104?

Some congressman from California. Just read about it, some guy I’ve never heard of

That Cortez woman.

R106 Robert Garcia ?

1) Will there even be an election in 2028?

2) there are zero sure bets, at this point.

R105, I was responding to R102 who said she wasn't running. I was responding and saying, she still might. It's too soon.

R108 Robert Garcia?

Born in Peru, so no.

If AOC runs, I suspect she'll be running as Bernie's successor, the semi-official head of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party, which is fine. Hopefully, though, when she loses the primaries we can skip all the bullshit about some secret DNC plot to defy the mystical Will of the People.

And yes, anything can change this far out, but I'd still assume the nominee will be standard straight, white, male, in his fifties or sixties. All the traumas from 2024 will still be lingering, and the country will be such a wreck people will be looking for safety. Although, again, drama can be so severe that all bets are off.

R110, the longtime dean of the Lansing correspondents, Tim Skubick, who has known Whitmer a very long time, said a couple of years ago that she was not running. An observation he's reiterated in the past month. Likewise, the head of a Democratic consulting firm in Lansing was quoted recently to like effect. Sure she could change her mind, but I don't believe she's running.

[R17] I second Wes Moore. Handsome, young and no real baggage.

I also think it would be smart for Democrats to focus generally on governors instead of members of Congress. Both sides are incredibly sick of the DC folk.

I think Whitmer hates Tim Skubick. He is a condescending asshole whenever he interviews her and other elected women in office. Whitmer can barely tolerate him in interviews. I could see her telling him different things just to fuck with him.

If the dems put up another woman they are fucked. A lot of straight white men are not voting for a woman.

The Atlas Intel poll shows Buttigieg as the front runner, even ahead of Kamala. It will be a Buttigieg vs Vance matchup, and Usha vs Chasten, if Pete is still married and hasn’t moved on by then.

[quote] The Atlas Intel poll shows Buttigieg as the front runner, even ahead of Kamala.

Yes, polls this far out are always so meaningful.

[quote] I think Whitmer hates Tim Skubick. He is a condescending asshole whenever he interviews her and other elected women in office. Whitmer can barely tolerate him in interviews. I could see her telling him different things just to fuck with him.

Skubick interviewing Whitmer in 2020.

Yesterday's WSJ headline:

America’s Second-Richest Elected Official Is Acting Like He Wants to Be President

Billionaire Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois is one of the top Democrats being watched as the party searches for a way out of the political wilderness

CHICAGO—If JB Pritzker runs for the Democratic presidential nomination, he will be betting his party’s best prospect is a political punch-throwing heavyset billionaire who inherited massive wealth. While that sounds like President Trump, the two-term Illinois governor would be wagering on himself.

Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, has become one of the most-outspoken critics of Trump at a time Democrats are struggling to counter him. Wealth has long opened doors for Pritzker and there are signs he wants the next one to be into the Oval Office.

The 60-year-old is visiting New Hampshire, traditional home of the nation’s first presidential primary, to speak April 27 at a party fundraiser about what he sees as Trump’s authoritarianism and to call Democrats to action. The trip is likely to boost speculation that Pritzker, among those vetted by Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign as a possible running mate, is interested in the 2028 nomination.

“There is no doubt that he is going to run,” said Chicagoan Bill Daley, who served as President Bill Clinton’s commerce secretary and President Barack Obama’s chief of staff. “The real question is whether he runs for re-election first or just runs for president.”

The governor, who declined an interview, has yet to say whether he will seek a third term. An announcement is expected in the next few months, with the March 2026 primary less than 11 months away.

Daley said he would recommend against another gubernatorial bid because a crisis or scandal can pop up at an inconvenient time. Pritzker, he said, has the financial wherewithal to do something most candidates couldn’t: announce a presidential bid in 2026 and lock down the best available campaign staff talent.

JB looks like he has lost some weight.

Article from The Hill. It's the usual people who get mentioned. The 2028 nominee is probably someone who isn't on this list.

It's Pete, Booker, or Pritzker. That's my gut feeling. But we're a long way off. I'd say whoever brands themselves as the biggest contrast to Trump likely gets it. The electorate has been in a zig-zag mood for several cycles.

[quote]Yes, polls this far out are always so meaningful.

Yes, polls on the day of the election are always so meaningful.

If you have a candidate you want to surge ahead in the polls, call Ann Selzer. She’ll make it happen.

Jasmine + VP Liz Cheney

George Clooney

George Clooney + Patti LuPone

[quote] Yes, polls on the day of the election are always so meaningful.

That the perennially-undercounted Trump was polling better last year than he ever had before was why I believed he had a 75% of winning.

Chris Murphy.

Longtime Democratic pol Elaine Kamarck has "a soft spot for Wes Moore — this is a man who has the cool of Barack Obama and the warmth of Bill Clinton. I’ve never seen this combination in one person."

We need someone who doesn't kumbayah around. Time to call things as they are. Coarse directness and simple repetition. Straight maga playbook. I'm thinking AOC or Pritzker.

Pritzker and Pete. Prez, VP.

A Jew & a Gay. Now that's a ticket that'll appeal to Middle America.

Too many people are ignoring the US is still homophobic, anti-Semitic, and sexist.

The people suggesting AOC, Buttigieg, Pritzker, or Shapiro are painfully naive. The best chance for the Dems to win in 2028 is a straight Christian white guy,

100% true R135. Reading the suggestions in this thread makes me realize that suggested candidates like these - the Dems have no chance of winning in 2028. Very depressing thread full of posters who have no grip on reality and no understanding of the current political environment.

Al Gore

[quote] Chris Murphy.

He seems like a great pick to me. He's a real leader.

Maybe as VP R138. Murphy is a great guy but with limited charisma.

And we don’t elect (Democratic) divorced men.

Does a Jew, a black "confirmed bachelor," a "radical left" unmarried Latina, or a married gay man trump straight white male divorcee? Seriously who gives a shit when the current administration is full of people who make a mockery of marriage.

Democrats need to get over the identity politics. ie “we can’t have a Jew, a woman, a Latino, a x, y, z…”

Most people don’t think that way. Just nominate the most effective communicator. Messaging is the Democrats’ biggest problem.

Doesn't Pritzker have the unpopular trans thing about his family as a negative?

[quote] 100% true [R135]. Reading the suggestions in this thread makes me realize that suggested candidates like these - the Dems have no chance of winning in 2028. Very depressing thread full of posters who have no grip on reality and no understanding of the current political environment.

It's not only this thread. If you watch YouTube channels like Brian Tyler Cohen, Medias Touch, Pod Save America etc they are all pushing for Butttigieg and AOC in their 2028 possible Dem nominee videos. Also, news outlets like The Hill, Politico etc keep pushing AOC, Buttigieg, Pritzker, etc as well.

I think Buttigieg would have a better chance of winning the nomination than AOC. He knows how to appeal to centrist Democrats. AOC doesn't know how to appeal to that crowd. Years ago, Elissa Slotkin went on David Axelrod's podcast and talked about a Bronx Congressperson (she didn't say AOC by name) who acted like their constituents mattered more than Slotkin's constituents in mid-Michigan. AOC's interactions with Tim Walz last year during the election seemed phony and forced. You could tell she barely tolerated hanging out with a Midwestern guy. I bet if you put AOC in the same room with Gretchen Whitmer, AOC would probably view Whitmer as some corny Midwestern woman with a weird accent.

Aren't we caught in a Catch-22 or whatever this is called? Progs won't turn up for the general if a moderate wins the primary, and moderates will be turned off by a super progressive candidate. Which is what happened both in 2016 and last year.

2028 will be "back to normal business", with the threat of T gone, so don't expect Dems to come together again like in 2020.

Democrats have been killing it across social media lately. They really did learn their lesson after 2024.

I can't remember a time when Democrats were as connected to voters and the Democratic base as much as they are right now.

^^^They're staging a sit in today. But for all that we still have this to contend with...

You third way dinosaurs will literally die before you even consider sensible reforms that benefit the working class and poor. It was time for you dinosaurs to be extinct ten fucking years ago. Eat shit OP.

Schumer's early bid coupon was not honored and he WILL speak to the manager.

I definitely agree that the identity stuff harms Dems - and I had forgotten Pritzker was Jewish! But boy, Bashear and Murphy are so, so bland. I just can't see them catching fire.

What other democrats are drawing huge rallies in fucking red Idaho and Utah right now other than “leftist” Sander and AOC. Moderate neoliberal democrats are OVER. They suck. Fucking kill the oligarchy.

All these years Ive known this person to be a wolf and now there a horse.

R136, you don't understand the political environment if you don't understand how unpopular Trump is. They got Musk to bribe people in Wisconsin and still couldn't win that race

R125 = Trump. Did you Republicans forget all your "red wave" polls?

R153, Trump is - & always has been - unpopular among the those with college degrees. The kind of people who are most likely to vote in special elections like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. But he does well when his name’s on the ballot.

Oh my this is one depressing thread.

None of them will call Marge a hillbilly to her face.

R146 you’re joking right?

The #1 priority for Democratic leaders right now is protecting illegal immigrations from deportation.

Trump is deeply unpopular right now but the only difference is, he has a legion of loyal followers. Usually when presidents are unpopular and polling in the 40s, they don’t have a group of idiots in the 40 percentile caping for them.

We can hope. The vetted and preferred candidates route doesn't work so well.

R150 I actually think most people do. Pritzker's the only prominent Jewish politician that wasn't targeted by pro-palis, aside from Sanders and Stein. They don't seem to have a problem with him. I actually don't know anyone who has a problem with him except for the most hard-core downstate maga zombies. Moderate Republicans love him (or at least deeply respect him), moderate dems love him, and progressives love him.

He's kind of perfect because he has moderate messaging but quietly fought for progressive policies, so he never got the chance to scare Republicans in Illinois with "socialism", but slowly their lives just got better and they realized they didn't want to go back to how things were before him. He's a pragmatic progressive that fools moderates into thinking he's a centrist, and a billionaire that progressives respect because he firmly believes he should be paying his fair share in taxes and says it often. That's a hard thing to pull off but he does it quite effortlessly and with little fanfare. There's nothing obnoxious or phony about him, and I think it's because he's just a genuinely really good guy.

And I think his weight actually works for him--it gives him a kind of jolly appearance that makes him feel more trustworthy. He's the anti-Newsome but also the anti-Trump. Kind of like Tim Walz, except without the pure-as-snow "aw shucks" factor that got old fast quick for a lot of people, and made Republicans obsessively determined to unearth skeletons from his past.

I personally believe Bernie would have won in 2016 if the Democrats had not stolen the primary from him.

^ I'll add that what I think is most important about Pritzker is that he seems to be the only stand-out dem right now with the seemingly impossible ability to bridge moderates and progressives--he doesn't piss off either side of the left-wing and makes them both feel like they're being heard and served, which is the mark of great governance and great politics.

He's not polarizing while also not being boring, which is basically a superpower in the left-wing these days.

[quote]The #1 priority for Democratic leaders right now is protecting the constitutional, including due process, the rule of law, and checks and balances.

R158 Fixed it for you.

R161 I am also coming around to Pritzker. He's fat and not charismatic, but he seems strong, unwavering, balancing progressive ideas with a "real guy" (even as a billionaire) tone... his lack of "polish" is attractive. Fat and strong and no nonsense... I think this works.

If Jews can apply, & we’re looking for candidates outside the traditional lane, Dan Abrams merits some consideration. He’d definitely appeal to first responders & their partisans.

How has Whitmer screwed up her chances?

No more celebrities, no more neo-liberals, no more "third way" politicians. I'll vote for a left-leaning candidate with a history of public service and a working class background, preferably under 60 and definitely under 70.

R167 Why do they need a working class background so long as they're serving the working class. Also, that pretty much limits your choices to Tim Walz and AOC. You're saying you won't vote for anyone but Tim Walz and AOC?

I don't need to justify my reasoning to you, R168.

No Dark Whores coming.

I know it'd be too much to ask of my fellow citizens, but Rep. Melanie Stansbury of NM should get a serious lookover.

Give her a few lessons in smoother speechifying and dropping her speaking voice a bit lower, and she'd be a home run.

I so enjoy watching CSPAN and seeing her, Rep. Crockett and Rep. Casar DESTROY Republicans in real time.

Gov. Wes Moore is no dark horse, but I'd love to see him run, as well. Maybe with Rep. Jason Crowe as VP.

We need some good veterans to run for POTUS, thus my darkest of dark horses pick would be Paul Rieckhoff. Love him and his suffer no fools attitude.

Whitmer’s not running, R166, so the point is moot.

Buttigieg, Pritzker, Shapiro and AOC are the party's best communicators. Presidential elections in the modern age are all about communication, and who's the best at it. Clinton, Obama and Trump have proven that a million times over.

We need to only look at good communicators for 2028. We don't need another Biden, Gore, or Hillary. Fortunately, Buttigieg, Pritzker and Shapiro have the experience to handle the job, in addition to being good communicators.

[quote] Buttigieg, Pritzker, Shapiro and AOC are the party's best communicators.

And what are they going to communicate? Are there any Democrats working on an affirmative policy platform for Democrats to run on, one that isn’t a replay of “vote for us for no reason other than to defeat Trump”? What will the top initiatives be for producing tangible results? Green energy, mass transit, college education, better education - you have to give the voters something to vote for. Put aside the person for now and work on the platform.

The Dems need to come up with a plan to create lots of affordable housing.

It’s a crisis. Young people starting out don’t have options within their reach, at least many if not most of them.

And subsidized daycare.

R169 oh so you’re a troll then. Why won’t you answer that person’s question. What currently serving democrats with enough visibility or time in public service have a working class background.

Just keep in mind the old political trick of choosing your opposition. Picking the person you want to run against. And the other trick of raising people's expectations so you can disappoint them. Touting AOC right now is giving the Left some oxygen. As with Bernie in 2016, a lot of people will be disappointed and stay home because they wanted rainbows and popsicles.

R175 Ban franchising and convert worthless commercial real estate into subsidized housing, empower the government to bulldoze over NIMBYism.

And if it is Wes Moore on the ticket he should be practicing right now this answer. Because it’s going to be asked all the time every time.

Why did you lie?

“ yes I lied about having a bronze star but I have a great reason for doing so and it goes like this, it was someone else’s fault that I knowingly lied”

Americans love their vets and practice forgiveness it’s a great answer

Or just go on attack, R179. Always. It’s worked for me like a charm.

He didn’t lie you dumb cunt. He just didn’t correct a journalist.

He lied when he said he had a bronze star when he had not received one. And that is what Wes will be asked about and attacked on 24/7.

Stolen Valor

Having to explain why you claimed a bronze star you did not have is not a great way to run a campaign even if you have a good excuse,. Once you spend your time defending and explaining you are fucked.

Maybe someone like Mark Kelly instead who would have to do no explaining,

I mean there’s a low bar for the 2028 democratic platform. Just reversing all the shit Trump will inflict in the next four years will be a good start. All don’t anything, no matter how minor, will be a better than to what republicans offer. Republicans never offer anything to help people, they only offer culture wars, anger, and hate.

R182 Why did Trump lie about building a wall.

R184 Trump lied? Seriously?

[quote] I know it'd be too much to ask of my fellow citizens, but Rep. Melanie Stansbury of NM should get a serious lookover.

Melanie Stansbury gets written off by many people because she's from New Mexico. The mainstream media mostly ignores her because she's a plain Jane ginger woman who doesn't fit into the narrative of cool female politicians like Jasmine Crockett and AOC have been made out to be.

I say things are shaping up quite nicely for the democrats.

Scratch Whitmer off your list.

I don’t have a problem with Whitmer developing a working relationship with Dump. She’s getting things done for Michigan. That’s how it works in a swing state.

Whitmer's more concerned with her legacy as governor of Michigan than any imagined presidential candidacy.

I don't think working with him to benefit residents would be a problem.

Posted this in the Pritzker thread:

“I understand the tendency to give in to despair right now, but despair is an indulgence that we cannot afford in the times upon which history turns. Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now.

“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box, and then punish them at the ballot box. They must feel in their bones that when we survive this shameful episode of American history with our democracy intact—because we have no alternative but to do just that—that we will relegate their portraits to the museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors.”

“Cowardice can be contagious, but so too can courage…. Just as the hope that we hold onto in the darkness, shines with its own...special light.

“Tonight, I’m telling you what I’m willing to do...is fight—for our democracy, for our liberty, for the opportunity for all our people to live lives that are meaningful and free. And I see around me tonight a roomful of people who are ready to do the same.”

“So I have one question for all of you: are you ready for the fight?”

-JB Pritzker, New Hampshire, April 27, 2025

I just watched Pritzker's full speech from Sunday night--it was honestly electrifying. I gotta say, I think this guy's got it. He's the dark (and rotund) horse we were looking for.

I'm sold. Pritzker/Buttigiege 2028

(with Kamala Harris as AG, and AOC as Speaker of the House)

[quote] Pritzker/Buttigiege 2028

You're clueless R193.

I listened to a critique of the Pritzker speech by the Pod Save America guys... while they were, for the most part, supportive of his message, they were a little snide and condescending about his roughness, and lack of finesse in his blunt rhetoric. (These are Obama's guys, one of him Obama's speechwriter.) It showed me that these guys and many of the old democratic party cliques and elite still haven't understood that our media/public sphere is completely different than it was even as recently at 2022. Pritzker's assertive and forceful tone, in all it's "rough hewn" simplicity, is exactly what's needed now.

Obamaesque eloquence will not inspire turnout now, as it did in his time. Who can speak Big and Blunt and Meme/Podcast-ready? I am not sure Pete's clarity and balance is helpful any more. Perhaps I too am clueless, but I appreciate the Big Guy from Illinois.

Why not go with Shapiro, who has the same blunt speaking style…minus the morbid obesity?

Whitmer is strictly on the VP list. Democrats are not nominating another woman for the top of the ticket anytime soon. Hillary and Kamala have spooked the party for years to come.

R194 Care to expand on that? Why is that clueless? I understand very well that as much as I might want Pete to have a real chance at a presidential bid in '28, America is still too misogynist to give women and gay men an honest chance--but VP is a different story. He would be glorious on the campaign trail and he is clearly open to serving in that position as his obvious thirst during the 2024 VP headhunt demonstrated. Not to mention that 4-8 years as VP would put him in the absolutely best position for a 2036 presidential bid. I think it's a win/win for everyone.

I'm reading "Fight!" - behind-the-scenes story of the 2024 election. Mentioning it here as the race was seen as the Old Guard fighting off the Progressives (for the last time). It will have been a long time since Clinton or Obama will have been on the ballot next time (regarding their loyalists/operatives) in four years.

Rearranging deck chairs on the Arizona, as always

[quote] Whitmer is strictly on the VP list. Democrats are not nominating another woman for the top of the ticket anytime soon. Hillary and Kamala have spooked the party for years to come.

Yes. The Dems can't have a woman as the nominee in 2028 they will lose. I don't think Whitmer will be considered for VP in 2028.

I think these women would be good for VP

-Tammy Duckworth

-Melanie Stansbury

-Brittany Pettersen

-Angie Craig

[quote] I don't think working with him to benefit residents would be a problem.

This is what people are ignoring in regards to Whitmer meeting with Trump. She will always loathe him , but she still has to think of her residents and partnerships with the federal government to get things done for her state.

Whitmer's father was a Republican who worked for Republican governors in Michigan in the late 60s/early 70s. Her mother was a Democrat who was an assistant attorney general for the Michigan AG office.. She was probably trained on how to work across the aisle with people who she disagrees with on many things.

Whitmer appeared on the David Pakman show today where she talked about working across the aisle. I have to get Pakman credit for having her on his show. Other progressive YouTubers like Sam Seder, the Leftist Mafia Brats, Francesa Fiorentini, Matt Leich and others demonize any Democrat who works across the aisle to get things done.

A ticket consisting of Beshear, Shapiro, Pritzker, Whitmer(VP only) would be unbeatable, in my opinion. I think it would usher in a golden age of American politics after the chaos of the Trump/MAGA era,

[quote]A ticket consisting of Beshear, Shapiro, Pritzker, Whitmer(VP only)

It’s going to be one of them for sure. Unless AOC can bring out the primary voters.

“ unbeatable” thank god

Oh it’s been far too many long months since we last heard democrats touting a ticket that could not be beat. Early November was the last time I think.

It’s great to know once again we have an unbeatable ticket. I can already see Trump in handcuffs.

There is no one who can defeat MAGA. I thought Newsom was the man, but he’s extremely self serving. And the fact that he’s Kimberly Guilfoyle’s ex gives me pause as well. If he really had strong political convictions, how could he hook up with her?

Any Democrat from California won't be able to defeat MAGA. Hopefully, douchebag Eric Swalwell will stay out of the 2028 race.

^^^ I meant to type "a" of "any"

Stephen A. Smith?

[quote]And the fact that he’s Kimberly Guilfoyle’s ex gives me pause as well. If he really had strong political convictions, how could he hook up with her?

She's become a lot more radical since they were together (2001-2006)

R206 And no self-serving New Yorker could ever win.... oh, wait.

Pritzker is going to be on Jimmy Kimmel tonight.

R196 😂 I was waiting for shots to be fired about that waistline.

I actually the fact that Priztker's resemblance to Jackie Gleason helps him. Like Trump... fat and unhealthy... appealing to Americans.

Wes Moore or Andy Beshear. I don’t see it for any of the others mentioned.

R214 They don’t like Trump because he’s fat, they like him in spite out of it. Trump knows how to work that media. Hell the cunt might be more media savvy than business savvy. This big tall scrub lookin mofo better be coming with the real. We cannot lose against these fascists.

I can’t even think that far ahead. Voting may not exist then.

R215 Beshear is vanilla pudding and Moore is chocolate pudding, but they're both just pudding--the least exciting dessert at the Golden Corral Buffet.

We need a Type A person. Democrats seem to be passive Type B personalities. We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

There was one person who fit this bill, but he blew it by being a sleazy cheater: Anthony Weiner

Moore is more fake bronze pudding , not in Maryland where we are Blue Blue Bkue and do t care but in a general election. It’s not the bronze that’s the problem it’s the fake bronze part,

Aren’t there any once popular dems that were really popular until Me Too and more perfect people got them thrown out of the party?

Someone with a sense of humor but not obesely fat.

Those were the days when the Dems were so popular they could throw away rising super stars. Now we are a smaller less popular people make fun of.

[quote] We need a Type A person. Democrats seem to be passive Type B personalities. We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

No. Fuck no.

I want a serious president who can stay emotionally regulated and isn't an aggressive bully or a chaotic, clownish embarrassment. I don't care if it's someone "boring" or lacking charisma. I would welcome boring right now.

[quote]We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

Shapiro or AOC are the options. Elissa Slotkin seems like she could cut a bitch too.

R218 we don’t need “exciting” for the media ratings we need someone who turns out votes. This is the same mistake very online people made in 2020. Biden was the least exciting candidate in that primary but he got more votes than any prez candidate in history because actual everyday Americans loved him.

Biden’s win was more an anti-Trump vote due to his mismanagement of Covid. Americans didn’t “love” Biden.

Biden was "anointed" by Clyburn, black SC voters fell in line, effectively ending the race. He was pretty much dead in the water before that.

R225, Trump’s support among white suburban woman had cratered well before Covid. And I’ve never accepted the prevailing wisdom that the pandemic hurt Republicans. Down ballot Republicans did much better than Trump in 2020.

[Quote] We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

I've got our campaign anthem.

I wish more people would consider Tammy Duckworth for 2028.

Agreed, R228.

Al Franken would fit that bill R221. I'm still pissed at Kirsten, original Karen, Gillibrand for that one.

Pritzker is running - Speech in New Hampshire, appearance on Kimmel...

Great. Another fat billionaire. Just what Americans need.

Waddling slowly not running I bet.

Chris Murphy? Well spoken WASP Senator who has taken a strong stand against Trump.

Before any candidate is selected, the party has to decide where it is going. Jen Psaki said that they will lose if they continue to old way of doing politics. A purge of the old-liners is necessary, but the far left-ers will never win either.

Every time I hear about the far left, it shocks me, that since the country has moved so far right, they are no farther left than FDR. Hardly radical.

The identity politics insistence is a serious part of the problem. For one thing: NH is bemoaned as "too white" yet the Dem primary in SC is overwhelmingly black, hypocrisy much?

R225 Right. When are establishment dems going to get that through their thick skulls. IM SICK OF THIS SHIT. THESE AGING DINOSAURS DON’T KNOW HOW TO FUCKING WIN.

R226 Can you preach it for us. I cannot believe the Dems would let Trump beat them again. They refused to fucking listen. It’s making me sad all over again.

[quote]The identity politics insistence is a serious part of the problem.

Listen R238. We all know that. It was too much too fast and too over the top. Nobody disputes it. The Democrats I hear interviews acknowledge the fact. It's done. You're talking about the gender politics aren't you. I don't hear Democrats speaking about it. It's not in their official 2024 election policy.

But while we're all complaining about it - let's also remember that gay people are an identity - whether we like it or not. We are a political identity and tend to vote similarly (86% Dems in 2024 election) - both out of necessity and because we are "othered" and have to stick together. And because we did stick together and because of identity politics - we have gay marriage and federal and state legal protections and the same/similar rights to all other people. So it's a two sided issue I guess.

R241 you’re an idiot. You didn’t say shit but I already know what your purpose is.

[quote]You didn’t say shit but I already know what your purpose is.

You do R242? I don't have a purpose. So what is it?

My pussy stinks

[quote] A purge of the old-liners is necessary, but the far left-ers will never win either.

Yes, Schumer, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and other dinosarurs and so does asswipe Bernie Sanders. I laugh at the progressive asswipes who constantly whine about Pelosi and others being too old, but they stay quiet on Bernie's age. They remind me of the MAGAts who whined about Biden's age, but would stay quiet on the fact that Trump isn't a spring chicken.

A far left-er will never win a POTUS race. Far left politics should be rejected. There are other political races that far lefters are going to lose in the 2026 midterms and in 2028. I'm following the US Senate seat race in Michigan in part for laughs. Abdul El-Sayed and his supporters are delusional morons who think he will win the Democratic nomination and a general election. HIs dumbfuck supporters ignore the fact that he flopped in the 2018 Michigan gubernatorial Democratic primary. El-Sayed and his supporters back then thought he could defeat Gretchen Whitmer who had years of experience as a state legislator. Whitmer grew up around politicians and knew how to play the game better than El-Sayed does. This time around, El-Sayed's current contenders are Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, both women know how to play the game better. Stevens worked for the Democratic party in her college days and later worked in the Obama administration in auto rescue task force. Stevens received a lot of support from working class white people and non-Republican veterans in her Congressional races. Mallory McMorrow is a state senator in Michigan, but she can play the game better than El-Sayed because she has people like Lis Smith and Tim Miller from The Bulwark advising her.

Both the older "left v right" and the more recent "Identity v anti-woke" continuums are increasingly irrelevant, in terms of who can win elections.

In my view two things work in elections now: 1) who can present a strong voice and presence to support "working people" 's interests against the elites - in a way that suggests radical disruption to the status quo, and 2) who can communicate in the new forms... social media, podcast "authentic talk", memes, short attention spans, rough speech and assertive confidence, troll-ready.

Not sure there is a Dem yet who can meet these criteria, though AOC is closest among those we see now.

The candidate’s name is Mr. Straightwhitemalechristian. VP Mr. Exactlythe same.

R247 Hi boo.

The Dem candidate for 2028 needs to be a straight white Christian male. That type of nominee could win with a male POC or female (of any race) VP running mate.

Andy Beshear is starting to on podcasts. He's probably considering a run.

Kamala did better with white people than she and Joe did in 2020. Trump won because he talked that shit that Americans want to hear especially young men of all races. The big narrative is Trump won because of men yeah but he specifically won because of young minority men who usually go for the dems, he made soul crushing margins. 25% of black male Detroit going to Trump. Almost 30% in North Carolina. Twenty something Asian and Latino men voting for Trump in the 60 percentile. Democrats better wake the fuck up.

[quote] Kamala did better with white people than she and Joe did in 2020.

Isn't it that she did better with white college graduates than Biden?

The Democrats smartly should prefer a white male lead the ticket but they shouldn’t try to manipulate the outcome based on 90s respectability politics. They need to ride the momentum. People are tired of that shit. They want authenticity. And yes Trump is a fucking piece of shit but his followers think his real because he is going to what they feel is authentic and that’s calling the limousine left out on thy eir hypocrisy, and generally avoiding all respectability and saying how he truly feels.

Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016.

Trump won the young male vote because the Dems abandoned them, offering nothing to help them get ahead; everything was geared toward women and female empowerment. Trump appealed to their anger and got their vote.

R251 No she did better with white people overall by a percentage or 2, and 4 point increase for white college graduates.

The '24 breakdown by demographics.

The '20 breakdown by demographics.

Even though it was electoral landslide, it was the closest election in American history in total numbers. It is just mad hard for democrats to win them states that don’t have enough big cities. A fucking 20 year brand had been created which Trump honed in during immediate post Covid days.

Harris did slightly better than Biden among all white voters, although still losing by a big margin. But, in a reversal of past elections, the white percentage of the total electorate grew in '24.

[quote] Even though it was electoral landslide

It was no more an electoral landslide than was Biden's election. The only difference in the EC totals of Biden '20 & Trump '24 is a result of the '20 Census.

R258 That too. Thats what I keep saying. A higher voter turnout doesn’t always benefit the Dems. So this country is still mad white. It’s just that in the most importances places ie the cities they have become so in ways that are noticeable and impactful. The fucking electoral college fucks us. Trump got on the radio and told all them fucking hillbillies in Pennsylvania and Georgia to go vote for him. And they did.

[quote] A higher voter turnout doesn’t always benefit the Dems.

I was just listening to an interview of Doug Sosnik, who said that, in a reversal of what had been true since the '60s, a higher turnout now benefits Republicans. He also said that education was the most dispositive marker in elections now, with Democrats regularly doing much better than Republicans among those with (at least) 4-year college graduates. Alas, 70% of the electorate does not have college degrees.

As to Sosnik's point about the significance of education, of the fifteen most educated states, only one, Utah, voted for Trump. Conversely, of the fifteen least educated states, only one, New Mexico, voted for Harris,

R269 Cities, big important suburbs have become less white that’s what I was tryna say. But the country is still 60% white and they live in all the important places.

Yet Dems keep focusing on groups concentrated in either heavily blue, or red, areas.

They live in all the important places electoral college wise. Let me clarify.

R261 It’s sad and almost scary. Are these low iq low wage drifters going to purge us professionals like The Purge movies. I’m a little frightened.

R257 the dems start in a hole every national election now. Tht is just the way it is. AND ITS NIT CHANGING. The system favors the red states currently and likely forever. That means the democratic side needs to be more robust and larger than the gop not smaller and weaker.

The dems did not lose young men just over lack of policies as some suggest. The democrats have to stop being painted and coming off as weak soft feminine cuddly and woke.

There is a great fight coming between progressive and moderate dems.

Fuck sorry for the stupid caps ^

They need to laser-focus on economics, NOT social justice warriors.

Please, no.

[quote]Senate Democrats are skeptical about their former colleague, former Vice President Kamala Harris, making another presidential run in 2028 after she lost all seven battleground states to Donald Trump in November, but most of them aren’t ruling out the possibility that she could clinch the party’s nomination if she plays her cards right.

“ 2028 Harris Walz We Got It This Time”

Sadly neither would win a primary democratic primary.

It will be interesting to see if - as now expected - Harris runs for governor. If she does, it's hard to see her then pivoting to a presidential run.

Hard NO, she shouldn't have been the candidate before, but it was what it was.

I was so all in on Harris. I knew she would win .

But we had one man as soon as her name was being mentioned , a black man from California I believe , he said—-he called it right away he saw this loss coming and her blowing it.

I will give him props now you were a lot smarter than I and the rest of us.

[quote] They need to laser-focus on economics, NOT social justice warriors.

I'm sure whoever we nominate will try to that. But they should be prepared for the inevitable Republican attempt to paint them as a leftist extremist who only cares about "them."

I suspect we will pick a straight white male in his fifties or sixties because of all the lingering trauma from 2024, but whoever we nominate will have to face the same culture war attacks the Republicans always wage, no matter what he's actually like. And one way is to constantly remind people that Republicans are the ones who really are for "them" as long as them is rich fuckwads. And after four years of Trump openly taking bribes from everyone in return for favors, it should be pretty easy.

R273: She never had more than a couple of percentage points in the 2020 race, despite being a female POC. Showed poor political skills then, why would 2024 be better?

Harris is running for governor. Even she knows the country isn't ready to elect a black woman as president.

There won't be a woman on the 2028 Democratic ticket.

If there's a woman on the ticket, the woman will be the VP and it will be a white woman.

Will there be a girl ?

Just last year I would have said there will always be a woman on the Democratic ticket. But now, just for 2028, I wonder. r276 might be right. We're desperate to let white males know we don't hate them, and the candidate might just decide not to risk a female running mate.

R279: Tammy Duckworth would be an excellent choice.

An ideal female VP for 2028 should be a woman with a military background (Tammy Duckworth, Mikie Sherrill).

Gavin Newsom is usually better than what he is recently been putting out. That hottie needs to fire his current advisors because this ain’t it.

Imagine Dragons and their spiffy take on their classic Second Chances will be the campaign song.

Harris Walz and The We Got It This Time Save Democracy Once Again 2028 Tour.

The idea that Jim Clyburn “anointed” Biden in 2020 is a false and racist narrative that removes agency from Black voters. It’s the other way around: Clyburn supported Biden because that is who his constituents wanted. He was as surprised as anyone, as he said at the time.

Most people did not even know who Clyburn was on the national level before that, he was not some automatic kingmaker.

Dems do need to do a lot of work with young Black and Latino men, not just the ones that voted Trump but those that stayed home. That doesn’t mean Kamala “blew it”, it’s that the GOP successfully weaponized sexism and racism (which exists among every group) to their advantage. These guys need to be educated that they’re not white, they’ll never become white by aligning with whiteness and the only thing the GOP has planned for them is prison labor here or in El Salvador.

Yes, R284, Clyburn was no national figure in the late winter of 2020, but he was an institution in South Carolina politics, especially among the state’s Black voters, the base of the party there.

Biden was never getting the nomination without Clyburn s help .

and Joe promised to pick a black or black female as VP for that help which made his nomination a reality. Joe was falling behind in the primaries like Harris does. Nothing wrong with that sort of help it’s politics in DC and probably every where else.

If clyburn had not stepped in I wonder who would have gotten the dem nod and I wonder if Donald Trump would be president today.

None of us know,

This is such revisionist history. Joe was never behind in the primaries. No other candidate except Bernie was getting any traction and Bernie knew his support was going to cap out at 30%. That had been his whole plan, to win the primary with 30% because the field was so divided. That plan cratered immediately when the field narrowed because every other candidate’s supporters DID NOT WANT BERNIE and easily switched to Biden.

Who else do you think was going to win it? With the exception of Pete who dropped out strategically because he knew it wasn’t his time, everyone else ran out of campaign money.

[quote] and Joe promised to pick a black or black female as VP for that help which made his nomination a reality.

He only committed to a BLACK female AFTER the George Floyd murder, which happened after he was already the presumptive nominee.

[quote] This is such revisionist history. Joe was never behind in the primaries.

You're the one engaging in revisionist history. Biden finished fourth in the Iowa caucus, just edging out fifth place finisher Amy Klobuchar. He finished fifth in the New Hampshire primary. And although he finished second in the Nevada caucus, the winning Bernie Sanders outpaced him two to one.

R199 - what does this sentence mean: "It will have been a long time since Clinton or Obama will have been on the ballot next time (regarding their loyalists/operatives) in four years."

R289 thanks for recounting what happened in states that have minimal electoral college numbers and thus minimal effect on the national primary overall. And what’s your point anyway? Bernie is too old to run again and if he does he will lose again, for the same reasons he lost twice before. Look to the future.

R291 I won’t speak for R289 but my guess is that he is suggesting you were full of shit when you claimed Biden was not behind until Clyburn saved him.

Now you are quibbling about which states and claiming they made no difference anyway.

[quote] thanks for recounting what happened in states that have minimal electoral college numbers and thus minimal effect on the national primary overall.

Tell us you know very little about presidential politics without admitting it.

It's rich that Biden & his acolytes seem preoccupied with the "unfairness" of the Democratic Party writ large taking over the nominating process in '24 when they were the beneficiaries of this same establishment - convinced that Sanders couldn't beat Trump - in '20.

Brothers I’ve relitigated this as much as I am willing to. There was no other even potentially viable candidate but Bernie and just as in 2016, his viability ceased when he capped out at 30% primary vote against a stronger (like it or not) contender. And he’s not a potential candidate for 2028 so it’s kind of a moot point.

It wasn't just Clyburn, but insiders like the Congressional Black Caucus and Donna Brazile's "Colored Girls" insiders (HER term, NOT mine) who contributed as well with demands/threats over replacing Harris.

Yes, The Blacks™️ are controlling the party and magically prevented millions of people through mind control from not choosing your white fave, the Maple Syrup Messiah, who isn’t even a Democrat mind you and has been terrible at making friends and alliances throughout his entire career, twice. Again, what is your point? He’s too old now and you will need a new savior.

The Bernie worshippers have pretty much moved onto AOC.

AOC is going to end up like Bernie in 2028.

Fetterman's staff is saying he's all but abandoned his duties as Senator because he wants to run for president in 2028.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA

Who is going to be the Republican front runner? Trump?

Covid was looming, the establishment was fearing Sanders, so the party quickly coalesced around Biden, someone Trump so feared as his opponent that he got impeached over him.

R298 AOC is smarter than Bernie. She’s not going to run, or if she does she’ll drop out early like Pete and Amy did in 2020 since her goal will simply be to increase her name recognition.

[quote]We're desperate to let white males know we don't hate them, and the candidate might just decide not to risk a female running mate.

It doesn’t matter what color or gender the candidate is…if all that comes out of their mouth is “black women…” white males are not going to vote for that.

[QUOTE] Who is going to be the Republican front runner? Trump?

Pete Hegseth, JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Byron Donalds will be the GOP front runners.

Don't discount RFK, Jr., running for the Republican nomination. Or another Junior even (biologically) closer to Dear Leader.

RFK Jr isn’t even a Republican. He’s too liberal on many positions and would get exposed badly on a GOP debate stage. But the biggest knock is that nobody wants to hear his voice everyday for four years.

Trump was once strongly pro-choice, too, R306.

RFK Jr. isn’t Trump, R307.

R305: assuming that the Dear Leader makes no successor appointment, Kennedy might be seen as more of a "loyal" choice than Vance, unless Vance can full-throttle espoused MAGA-ism immediately.

Jasmine Crockett said today on a podcast that donors are already telling her that they're lining up their $$ for a single candidate, and he's white and male. Who is this, do you all think? Newsom?

R310 It's probably Beshear.

Democrats are looking at Beshear as the new "Great White Hope". As with all the recent elections, the Democratic millionaire and billionaire donor class will make the selection of who the party nominee is.

It will not be Beshear. In any event, it is far too early for the elites to anoint a candidate in 2028.

[quote] RFK Jr. isn’t Trump

Remember that QAnonists had JFK, Jr., coming back from the dead to be Trump's vice president. So RFK, Jr., might be their next best thing.

[quote] RFK Jr isn’t even a Republican. He’s too liberal on many positions and would get exposed badly on a GOP debate stage.

The new Trump party - especially post-Dobbs - is not especially interested in the once political hot buttons.

If the donor class choses Newsom then the Dems will lose.

Tell you what. If the Dems run someone like Beshear he better choose a Latino VP. They're a huge constituency and we need them. Ossoff is running for re election. Interestingly, Governor Kemp, the Republican everyone thought could beat Ossoff took one look at the polling and announced he was not running. Then, today, Marjorie Taylor Greene also announced she was not running. I was hoping MTG would run. She would lose and also be thrown out of Congress. Point being OSsoff is strongly favored to win re election right now.

[quote] Tell you what. If the Dems run someone like Beshear he better choose a Latino VP.

I don't know about that. It seems increasingly true that the increasingly assimilated Latinos don't respond to such direct overtures.

[quote] Governor Kemp, the Republican everyone thought could beat Ossoff took one look at the polling and announced he was not running.

The early polls showed a very tight race. It's believed that Kemp didn't want to be a senator, certainly not a senator in Trump's Washington, & that he is more interested in running for president in 2028.

[quote] If the Dems run someone like Beshear he better choose a Latino VP.

Ruben Gallego would be an ideal VP.

[quote]Governor Kemp, the Republican everyone thought could beat Ossoff took one look at the polling and announced he was not running.

Fact check: In a battleground state, where elections are expected to be close, Kemp was ahead of Ossoff by 3 percentage points. Also, Kemp looking at the polls would see that he has a 61% approval as governor, which indicates more than GOP support, while Ossoff has only 48% approval for doing his job as senator. Kemp would have been the likely winner.

[QUOTE] Ruben Gallego would be an ideal VP.

A Beshear-Gallego Dem ticket would be tough. The GOP would respond by putting a Latino on their card, with Rubio at the top of every VP list.

^ Old school politics.

If not Ruben, I say put Greg Casar in as VP. I think he would be great on a ticket with Beshear.

Beshear is no POTUS material. At best he is a VP type. I have seen him on TV and watched him and he is a deer in the headlights on the national stage. Now if there's a hurricane in Kentucky he does a decent job. But no, he is too weak.

you all may disagree with me, but I would keep putting women up I wouldn't shy away from it. People need to get used to seeing women run for POTUS, not as a one off, but as a regular thing, and then we can elect one. Same with Pete. Get people used to it and then they will come around.

The dems should approach someone like the most popular person in the world today to run and save us. He is an American but he did just get a new job but who knows he might be open to run

He would win in a run away

There might be some separation of state & church concerns with that, R326. The attacks on candidate JFK - that he’d be beholden to the Church - come to mind.

R327

Fucking nit picker :-)

My favorite line about concerns over candidate JFK’s Catholicism was that of Old Joe-hating Harry Truman, who said it wasn’t the Pope who feared him, “but the Pop.”

The what?

Kamala for 2028 is currently in the lead in all the polls. Second is Newsom.

All (meaningless) name recognition this early, R331.

The Pop, Joe Kennedy, not the Pope, R330.

I keep thinking about that JD Pritzker speech. Take some time to watch and listen to the whole thing if you haven’t. It was righteous and bluntly honest and exactly what we’ve been feeling starved for and not getting from Schumer or Jeffries.

No idea about 2028 just yet, but Pritzker is absolutely one to watch.

If Newsom doesn’t continue his political career, watch for that divorce announcement.

He had a baby with a staffer and his 2nd Spouse went bonkers making him cancel an overseas climate trip. She is only staying with him to be 1st Lady.

Pritzker supports child mutilation and forcing lesbians to consider biological men as potential partners, r334, so that will be a problem for him.

You’ll have to do better than unsubstantiated poo-flinging, R336.

Not at all unsubstantiated, r337. He supports transing kids and gives strong backing to men who claim to be women, including his heterosexual male cousin. If you don't think this kind of thing is going to be an issue, then you're very naive, especially in three years time when trans demands are going to be seen as even more fringe and bizarre than they are today.

Newsom is already trying to distance himself from the trans demands (despite having previously accepted them without challenge). If the Democrats are looking for a more mainstream candidate in 2028, then it isn't going to be someone with Pritzker's views.

R338, I won’t expend energy swatting that “what about trans, I want this to be about trans, more trans” idiocy down and sticking to what is actually top of mind for most Americans.. JD Pritzker himself can teach a master class in that.

And he likely will.

A dem who supports the trans, sports or transition issue for youth, in 2028? Not a bad idea. That could be a winning idea.

Excerpt:

————

While Pritzker has not joined Newsom and Emanuel’s calls to avoid focusing on transgender issues, he has also suggested that Democrats make economic issues their top priority.

“Here’s where Democrats have to be honest with ourselves: Donald Trump didn’t just ride into power on the backs of oligarchs who wanted tax cuts so badly they were willing to throw a record stock market into the toilet for them,” Pritzker said at an event last month at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. “No, a number of Americans, 49.8%, went to the ballot box agreeing with Democrat positions on the issues most important to their lives, and they picked the other guy.”

Gallup polling from September 2024 shows the economy was the top issue for voters going into the election, with 52% calling it “extremely important.” At the bottom of the 22 issues polled: transgender rights, with 18% of voters calling it “extremely important” and 36% saying it was “not important.”

“There’s a lot of intensity by activists, particularly on the right against trans rights, but I’m not sure that translates into votes for the median voter or the independent voter,” Pierceson said.

Pierceson said transgender rights get a lot of attention in campaigns, but voters aren’t making final decisions based only on the issue. That could mean Newsom and Emanuel are calling for an overcorrection to the Democrat platform.

“There’s a tendency I think in the professional political class to overestimate the conservatism of voters and to always argue that the most conversative position will be the most politically potent and powerful position,” Pierceson said.

Pritzker was confronted with polling data on LGBTQ issues during his first FOX News interview as governor earlier this month. The March FOX News poll showed 68% of respondents favor President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to ban transgender women from women’s sports, and 54% support federal policy that recognizes only two genders. Pritzker brushed aside the poll.

“You can go issue by issue and you can ask a question whether people support this issue or that,” he told the FOX News host. “Here’s what people really care about: They care about their health care, they care about their affordability, they care about the kitchen table issues that really matter every day.” Asked by a reporter last week about his response on FOX News, Pritzker said, “We’ve got to stand up for people’s civil rights. It is vile and inhumane to go after the smallest minority and attack them as if it’s something that is OK in this country.” But he pivoted back to Trump’s tariff policy and said affordability issues “are the ones that affect them in their homes every day.”

Trans is not Newsom's big problem. It's that California is viewed as a 'wierd' place by many voters, they don't want the country to be a larger version of their perception.

Pritzker seems to realize that trans would be used against him in a general election. He needs to do a sort of Trump re-make in the sense of taxes, along the lines of "I can afford to pay more, and so can THEY!" Hard-core populism might well work.

If Pritzker thinks that not giving kids puberty blockers and banning biological males from women's sports is "vile and inhumane to go after the smallest minority and attack them", then I doubt he has much appeal as a presidential candidate beyond a narrow party faction.

R341 and I know and it’s been pointed out that Harris did not push the trans issue hard during her run for 2024.

Her comments about federal prisoners etc etc etc were made long before the campaign.

P will spend his time being asked if he still supports and if not why. And his past comments will be featured in GOP ads—- as any sane person would do.

Trans was not what lost Harris directly, that ad reminded people more in general that Democrats are (perceived as) far to the left generally. There's an elephant in the room here, that I'm letting sleep rather than bringing up cries of "MAGA traitor!" though I voted for Harris

Gavin Newsom has an authenticity problem.

His image wasn’t like that 10 years ago, but ever since being Governor people don’t believe what he is selling.

He needs to change the image of an empty suit politician.

R345 in a close election every negative thing hurts and they are all important.

There was no one main reason she lost other than people who voted liked Trump better. The trans issue bit her in the ass even if you want to argue it was a tiny and by itself a non fatal bite.

Please. She lost because he stole the election. In what world does TFG, who is hated by a majority of people in this country, win the popular vote.

Someone’s in quite the bubble.

AOC and Pritzer are the heads of the Trump resistance. They are putting it all out there. Heroes and cowards will show their true colors right now. The pendulum will swing to the left again AND THE DEMOCRATS WILL RISE AGAIN!

R348 are you talking about the Trump or Biden elections that supporters claim were a stolen election. Or is this about Kennedy and Chicago and Nixon? Now you might be in to something with that one being stolen..

So many excuses from so many losers over the years it’s hard to keep all the stolen US elections straight.

The GOP will not nominate a Latino on either level of the ticket, I guarantee you. They were already pushing it with Vance and his Indian wife and children; MAGA almost revolted. There is a reason they downplay him and NEVER give his family publicity.

The GOP has thrown their lot in with dedicated ideological white supremacists and cannot deviate or expand from that.

As of now, Trump has no successor with this movement that I can see. If he cared about the party he’d have built up DeSantis but he doesn’t give a shit about what happens to them after he’s gone.

Actually and quite weirdly, R352, Trump has lifted up Marco Rubio as a favorite and possible political heir. For now. The comedown tends to be brutal.

For now, Torta, is indeed the operative language. I just cannot see Trump bequeathing his hold on the Trump party to someone outside his immediate family.

There is no way in Hell wimpy Marco Rubio will become President.

In a world in which Trump was elected not once, but twice & a serial presidential also-ran like Biden was elected, I'd be most hesitant about ruling out Rubio's chances, R355.

R287 Hunny I ready was to trailblaze my magic school bus to chocolate city child’, but then Biden told me if I dropped out sooner, he’d make me VP.

R356 is a realist it seems.

Trump wants IMO to go out known forever known as the man who destroyed the Democratic Party forever. Like reduce it to the #4 party in the US.

They are going to try and capture the Hispanic vote. I’d say so far they have made headway.

The question is, is the electorate in the mood for a big change from Trump, which would favor Bashear or Pete, or do they want the Dem version of the tough guy, which would favor Pritzker and Newsom?

Usually the electorate wants a switch (Bush to Clinton, Bush to Obama, Obama to Trump).

I would not be surprised to see a slam bang almost 1968 type of party fight among the dems as they move to 2028. It’s coming I only wonder how bad it will be..

R361 agreed and I only know about it through the history books. But so much is at stake and everyone with some popularity and name recognition will feel like it is their time, especially younger people because traditional political sensibilities have been completely thrown out of the window. I’m the type of person to always see some blessing disguise. That is the ONLY good thing about Trump. And there is kinda no good thing about him but my philosophy to life I try to see something positive about something terrible. And it’s true. The shake up of the political establishment.

Pritzker is right. We need a strong economic message. All the trans talk and other bullshit is designed to distract and divide. Personally if he runs I could support him.

R363 In all honesty the Dems stopped talking about trans so much back in 22. They knew what was waiting for them. But the right wing echo chamber and the media in general won’t stop obsessing over it. And then they had my girl on tape grinning ear to ear that she would take all the tranny prisoners, let them have sex changes, and put them in female prisons. People are usually in prison for committing some crime so taxpayers don’t want to hear that shit. That was such an effective ad that Trump ran. Media couldn’t not talk about it after that. And I heard it ran over and over and over in Philly.

When Pritzker (a billionaire) first became governor of Illinois, the first thing he did was fight like hell to get a fair tax law passed that would increase taxes for the richest in the state. Republicans in the state legislature of course decimated it. But it's something he's never stopped fighting for ever since then. What he's known and loved best for in Illinois is not having a trans cousin--it's standing up to rich people (because he can) no matter what it might cost him. He fights to protect the poor, the LGBTQ, and immigrants in the state not to piss off Republicans, but because he takes seriously his job in protecting the most vulnerable. I respect him for not letting FOX weasels "GOTCHA" him into flip-flopping on his values. It's what made Clinton and Harris seem spineless and phony, and will do the same for Newsom.

Harris wasn’t a gifted off the cuff speaker but what did she flip flop on. She’s been a very progressive type liberal culturally since the 90s. And now it’s stuff that the mainstream dems embrace like gay marriage and human respect for trans. She has never faltered.

[quote]When Pritzker (a billionaire) first became governor of Illinois, the first thing he did was fight like hell to get a fair tax law passed that would increase taxes for the richest in the state.

Pritzker wanted the revenue. Illinois graft is expensive.

R367 And it would have benefitted downstate Republicans most of all. But they can't help from voting against their own interests.

Don't overlook Chris Murphy.

r359 they’ll try — and they succeeded in November 2024 because the “Hispanic vote” is really 100 disparate communities that don’t necessarily like, and in fact sometimes hate, each other — but how is the GOP going to hold on to that demographic while simultaneously willy nilly kidnapping every brown person whose name ends with a Z off the street with no due process and sending them to God knows where?

Some class consciousness is going to kick in at some point.

I don't care what you say, I like Cory Booker.

R370, with their hold on white people without college degrees, Republicans don’t have “to hold on to” the Hispanic vote, they just have to continue the erosion of Democratic dominance with this demographic.

Voters in the US with some college are one of the dems biggest vote supporters. In March 37% of those with some college had a favorable rating of the Democratic Party.

With a degree it ticks up 3% more.

I think Chris Murphy, Corey Booker, and Pritzker are all strong candidates. Or maybe Tom Hanks and Matthew McConaughey.....

Trump is just going to be in power for three more years. All them court cases just come up again? The robbery of Defense secrets, the hush- hush trying to steal the 2020 election? Omg, now he's accepting a jet from an Arabian prince?

And Trump has yet to unleash his DOJ on the democrats. And you know that payback is coming. Of course this effort would be helped if there were any democrats they feared even a little. Why waste the DOJ on nobodies that don’t count and are a threat to no one...

They are going after the federal govt now in time it will be the Dems turn one way or another.

It's going to be AOC. She's the one who voters feel is actually speaking to them and is calling out the bullshit.

Not voters some voters,

R375, the Extremists who gave us Trump 2.0 are already planning for the world after Trump. This isn't just living through Trump. We're in the midst or an Extreme Right takeover. The stuff they're doing to our government is going to take years to rebuild. If ever.

R377 It's not going to be her.

2028 is going to come down to the same 10 battleground states. Can AOC win Wisconsin? Doubtful. Pennsylvania? Doubtful. etc etc. She's only age 35 now. I admire her greatly but she's too young and the GOP would have an absolute romping great time (and easy time) negatively defining her.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the Democratic primary voters in early 2028 will probably be feeling more anxious than usual about this question, after all we will have been through. And that will play out in how they vote.

Not only couldn’t AOC win those states in a general election, she can’t win them in the primaries, either. So it doesn’t matter. The AOC presidential candidacy would be DOA. Sane Dems would coalesce around a moderate candidate so we could stop her just like we killed Bernie. There’s a smorgasbord of choices for 2028. Josh Shapiro. Wes Moore. Andy Beshear. Fuck AOC. We’re not about to let her fuck this up.

At this point the main 5 to watch are Shapiro, Newsom, Pritzker, Beshear and Moore.

There has been talk about Gretchen Whitmer but that Trump appearance recently was a disaster for her and it seems like we're too skittish about nominating a woman at this time, considering Trump has defeated a woman twice but lost to a man.

Dems need to find someone who will not be asked every day , day after day after day, why they lied about having a Bronze Star that they knew they did not have, on an official document or application.

And why for years they never corrected anyone who introduced them as a bronze star awardee when they spoke in public. Even though he knew no bronze had been awarded or was in the pipe line.

My goodness the GOP destroyed an actual combat vet who had actually been awarded a silver and bronze star and a Purple Heart. They will grind Wes Moore up into little pieces.

In Maryland few care he can win in Maryland.

[quote]Can AOC win Wisconsin? Doubtful. Pennsylvania? Doubtful.

She can win those swing states with a popular moderate like Josh Shapiro on the ticket.

[quote]The AOC presidential candidacy would be DOA. Sane Dems would coalesce around a moderate candidate so we could stop her just like we killed Bernie.

Dems were coalescing around Bernie until James Clyburn stepped in and “fixed” things for Biden in South Carolina. Same thing in 2016 when Donna Brazile and other members of the DNC rigged the primaries for Hillary.

AOC would not beat Trump, cut she could beat Vance or whatever turd the Republicans shit out in 2028.

I still don’t understand why winning South Carolina saved Biden when he’d lost every primary before that and there was zero enthusiasm for him. But I guess like they say “as South Carolina goes, so goes the nation.” Oh, wait. No one says that because it’s absurd to think South Carolina is any more representative of the country as a whole than NH or Iowa. They need to move the first primaries to actual swing states.

[quote]They need to move the first primaries to actual swing states.

THIS. If you can’t win Pennsylvania or Michigan…you have no business being the nominee.

[quote] I still don’t understand why winning South Carolina saved Biden when he’d lost every primary before that and there was zero enthusiasm for him.

Because (i) Black people, particularly Black women, are a key base of the party, (ii) the establishment feared Sanders winning the nomination, & (iii) it was widely known that Trump feared Biden most.

How do you get people excited anymore when the only path through life is literally for everything to get harder all the time? There will be no new opportunities in the coming AI-dominated world for average, boring, unambitious people. Everything is reverting to likes and sales pitches. The Almighty Market will create a hellscape for human life. Even though the average person has to keep interacting with others and lying about the future to stay hopeful, subconsciously people know it. Humanity no longer has a collective purpose. The concept of society has already crumbled. Most folks are just trying to get out of this place with more than the very smallest amount of dignity. The future will be filled with happy exploiters and a shrinking population of exploited serfs.

[quote] Black people, particularly Black women, are a key base of the party

And yet their support wasn't enough for Kamala to win. So maybe we should eschew all this "energize the base" nonsense and find someone who will turn out enough other voters to actually help us win.

R391 and that is so shocking since so much of known history has been so upbeat promising, and relatively easy.

[quote] Maryland Gov Wes Moore has the image and strength.

[quote]Black people, particularly Black women, are a key base of the party

Black women make up about 7% of the US population. The Democratic Party needs to expand its appeal beyond that. And that starts with finding candidates who are appealing to voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania and Arizona, not just black women in South Carolina.

That's all well & good, R395, but Black women in South Carolina in 2020 had the good judgment - shared by the establishment (& Trump) - to know that Joe Biden had the best chance of winning.

R388 We had all these people running for POTUS in 2020 for the primaries. No one emerged...including Biden, as the frontrunner. No one was able to put together the $$ and the delegate support to become the emergent nominee. Clyburn brokered a deal with the others, for Biden because Biden was nationally known, and he was associated with Obama, and had decades of experience. Clyburn convinced the other candidates that their continued campaigning would only serve to harden divisions and insure the Dems defeat in 2020. Since all of them were pretty much broke and knew t hey had no chance, they all endorsed Biden and united. Biden was a placeholder. Some people are now saying we should have let Trump win in 2020 when he was less prepared, before Project 2025 and Elon Musk. Others insist we should have had a convention in 2024 no matter that Biden was actively the candidate until July. But the reality that maintained in 2020, was also true in 2024, absent some new leader, that basically the same cast of characters would have insured a divided convention, and since the primaries were over by July, Biden was officially the nominee, and all his campaign money would have automatically gone to VP Harris who went through the primary process with him, and was confirmed as his running mate. In 2024, Biden, his family and his staff fucked us. Period.

[quote] Some people are now saying we should have let Trump win in 2020 when he was less prepared, before Project 2025 and Elon Musk.

There's also the retribution & the requirement that all who serve in Trump 2.0 believe the big lie about J6. This would not have informed a Trump '21-'25 term. And then there's the inflation that the voters would have pinned on Trump.

Ewing jr of Omaha?

[quote]In 2024, Biden, his family and his staff fucked us. Period.

That fucking Doctor Jill.

Rather than point the blame on (any) Biden, I now believe no one was going to beat Trump last year. Not Biden. Not Harris had she won the nomination outright. Or any other Democrat who prevailed in an open primary.

well, that settles that.

Rahm Emanuel on 2028: ‘I am in training’

The former two-term Chicago mayor dropped a generous hint to a 2028 presidential run.

R397, your retelling of 2020 is inaccurate and you ascribe way too much machination and power to Rep. Jim Clyburn.

Everything coalesced around Biden for two reasons:

1) South Carolina, Feb 29 — its predominantly Black voters in the Democratic primary chose Biden by a wide margin. Clyburn didn’t make that happen; the voters did.

2) Covid — it began to really spiral out of control in the early to mid March weeks right after SC above, and become a pandemic. And as people began to recognize that, there was a panic that Trump of all people was our President. Biden rose rapidly at that point because more and more of us understood that this was a crisis and we desperately needed the smart people back in charge. The Obama people. And that pointed us to Biden.

Clyburn was a minor player in how 2020 happened.

ps. a few days after the SC Primary on Feb 29, Biden absolutely trounced his rivals on Super Tuesday, winning 11 out of 15 states. Again this was also when the word “pandemic” was creeping into the headlines and Covid cases were starting to pop across metro NYC.

Dems should put all of their efforts into the 2026 midterms as the only thing that can possibly blunt the slide into fascism. They need to run candidates who can win and not run social experiments. Take the House and Senate before getting all hopped up about 2028, when there might be no election.

No sign of a third party yet? I thought Andrew Yang was working on getting that off the ground. Will it ever happen?

Flipping the House is achievable, R406, but a pickup of a requisite four seats in the Senate is a very tall order.

An economically progressive, labor-and-economic inequality focused, environmental, socially moderate-to-conservative party, similar to Sahra Wagenknecht's party in Germany.

3 or 4 parties would be great for the country. A real choice.

There is a pathway for Dem Senate Majority in 2026: Iowa (Ernst), Kansas (Marshall), Maine (Collins), North Carolina (Tillis) are all "possible", given Trump/MAGA's slip in support since January. Lots would need to happen (the economy continuing to tank), but it's not inconceivable.

I agree that "it's not inconceivable," R411 - & I'd even add Texas, with its expected bitter GOP primary, to your list - but still a very tall order.

[quote] There is a pathway for Dem Senate Majority in 2026: Iowa (Ernst)

Did Ann Selzer do another poll like her 2024 one, this time showing Ernst in jeopardy?

Here's another possibility

R413 A variable in Iowa is that Ernst might actually have a hard time winning her primary. Strong "MAGA" disapproval of her and should could lose to a "Trump-approved" challenger. If a more MAGA wins the Republican primary, Iowa is gettable.

Maybe, R415, but party identity is much stronger for national offices, e.g., Senate races, than state offices, e.g., gubernatorial races.

Here's an anecdote that may signify nothing or everything: In 2021, after the insurrection, after Joe and Kamala were in the WH, and they rolled out the vaccine, I was jumping up and down, so damned happy I could not wait to get my vaccinations. I was fully vaccinated by the end of March. My partner and I were planning a road trip to the beach. It seemed like everyone we knew was talking about their vaccine experience, etc. ...except a lot of Black people in my community. At the local supermarket, the cashier said no she had not got her vaccine and neither she nor her four teenaged kids would ever get them. Two college students who attended my mother's church claimed everyone knew they were implanting a chip into your arm with the shot. I started taking a very informal survey of cashiers and security guards, and church folk and students, etc. The sentiment was widespread. Nothing you could say convinced them otherwise. Vaccines were poison, vaccines would kill you, vaccines implanted chips, and the other common denominator was they did not trust ANY politicians. Many people were not even registered to vote. It was as if they existed in a parallel universe. All my assumptions were obliterated. These were people I thought were the natural constituency, Dems. I was also surprised at how conservative some of the church goers were. Even the educators and the educated. Also anti vaccines. They sounded like Robert Kennedy with their superstitions about the food supply or various diseases, etc. Various other complaints were registered. Many of the over 40 crowd, thought being Gay was a choice or that Gays were cursed. AIDS was a curse sent by God, etc. It was shocking to me how many weren't registered to vote and felt like it made no difference in their lives and even when you tried to point out that it did matter, they ignored the truth. They were apolitical. Totally. Illogical, irrational, and dug in. My point is that Trump and the GOP have this vast collection of uneducated, illogical, irrational, crazy conspiracy theory loving racists, and they have found a way to weaponize them and mobilize them. We have our own. So I no longer mock and ridicule the MAGAs. Because I know we have our mirror group on this side. The POC, not just African Americans, but also Latinos,, are out here and we have to figure out a way to reach them.

The senate seat Michigan might stay blue if Haley Stevens or Mallory McMorrow get the nomination.

^^^I meant to type "get the Dem nomination".

Abdul El-Sayed is Bernie fanboy who really doesn't have much of chance of winning the Dem primary in Michigan for the Senate seat. Some of his idiot supporters are hoping that a 4th Democrat (maybe Dana Nessel) will enter the race because they are convinced that the votes would be split and would allow El-Sayed to win the primary.

El-Sayed will likely lose because he's not all that politically savvy and he doesn't have the elected office experience that Stevens and McMorrow have. El-Sayed's moron supporters ignore the fact that Haley Stevens worked on Obama's auto rescue task force and she has a lot of connections and access to experienced political advisors and she appears to be well liked by UAW memebers in Michigan. She doesn't come off as arrogant or condescending like many politicians do. She knows how to appeal to working class people, El-Sayed probably comes off as condescending and arrogant to many auto workers. condescending

R418, the state of Michigan has not elected a Republican (Spencer Abraham) since 1994, the year of a huge red wave; he was defeated for reelection in 2000. Before 1994, the last Republican to get elected to the Senate was the then-one-term, initially appointed, Robert Griffin, in 1972, who rode the Nixon landslide & strong anti-busing sentiment to victory. Former Rep. Mike Rogers, a very credible opponent, could not win an open seat in ‘24, notwithstanding Trump winning the state at the top of the ticket. So I’m not particularly worried about how the eventual Democratic nominee, whomever that turns out to be, will do in an off-year election.