Democrats Apparently Want To Run It Back

Callatoroy said:
It isn't women that's the issue. Its that both of them were VERY unlikeable and were really, really bad candidates. No question hillary was qualified. I will never agree kamala was qualified. I'm certainly not a fan of identity politics but imo NH is the pubs strongest candidate and hopefully she is nominated. I predicted 4 yrs ago she would be the first female potus and i'm sticking to that prediction.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the women that are the issue, necessarily, either, but I also think that if there is even a remote chance that sexism and misogyny can be weaponized on the margins in a very closely-contested electorate, it's probably not a risk worth taking at this point. Hillary was unlikeable; I'll definitely grant you that. I don't see what was so unlikeable about Harris- she ran an entire campaign on joy and hope and optimism. Also, I have no clue how you can think that someone who was the AG for the largest state in the country, Senator for the same, and the Vice President of the United States, isn't qualified to be POTUS. That's absolutely absurd, but we aren't going to change one another's minds so no need to rehash that part.

Also, I think you should absolutely dispel any notion that Nikki Haley is going to be POTUS. She has no base whatsoever. The GOP has long moved past the point in which a normie Republican like her is going to be able to win a Republican primary, much less the general election. If the Republicans win in 2028, it will be President JD Vance.
 
Personally, I'd like to see what sort of state our country is in in four years before picking any favorites. As a past Republican, now Independent (who voted for Kamala primarily b/c she's not a MAGA wingnut), I will be doubly interested in who the GOP nominee will be as well. If they finally step away from the MAGA lunacy, they'll have my attention again for sure.
 
I think we should dispel of the notion that Donald Trump can and will be president any longer than January 21, 2029. It’s simply not going to happen. It’s a complete non-starter. Not one single Democratically-led state, and I would imagine all but the most hopelessly gerrymandered ruby red states, would not participate in an election where Donald Trump is on the ticket in violation of the United States Constitution.

I do think that if and when Trump is able to implement the policy aims and goals that he and his people have been broadcasting openly for months, I don’t think 2028 is going to be a problem for the Democrats as it pertains to the presidential election.

Trump‘s election in 2016 was an anti-incumbent reaction to eight years of a Democratic presidential administration. Joe Biden‘s election in 2020 was an anti-incumbent reaction to the last year of a presidential administration that was a complete and utter abject failure by every single measure imaginable. Trump‘s election in 2024 is an anti-incumbent reaction rooted primarily in economic anxiety.

The Democrats have a pretty deep bench of talented politicians waiting in the wings. If the party can put all of these old dinosaurs out to pasture- Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, etc.- and actually let the next generation of leadership take the reins, they should be well to take advantage of the anti-incumbent backlash in 2028.
 
As I've said before ,I don't have politicians I like. I vote for the ones of reasonable character who will move things in the general direction I want to go. Sometimes you have to tack into the wind and can't head directly in the right direction. The ability to be elected is also important. That's not always on the candidate but the political state of the nation.
 
I think Shapiro would be the best of those mentioned. Newson would be tarred and feathered with the California liberal label. I'm sure there are deadly soundbites similar to Harris's trans comments that would come back to haunt him. The gay thing would work against Buttigieg. Walz is dry as day old toast. AOC would be very entertaining but no way she'd make it through the primaries.

Haley is the best of the Republicans as of now. It'll come down to the level of satisfaction with the results of Trump 2.0.

Time will tell.
 
BubbaOtis said:
I think Shapiro would be the best of those mentioned. Newson would be tarred and feathered with the California liberal label. I'm sure there are deadly soundbites similar to Harris's trans comments that would come back to haunt him. The gay thing would work against Buttigieg. Walz is dry as day old toast. AOC would be very entertaining but no way she'd make it through the primaries.

Haley is the best of the Republicans as of now. It'll come down to the level of satisfaction with the results of Trump 2.0.

Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree with your points on Newsom, Buttigieg, and AOC. I do think that Pete could be a great VP selection. Walz doesn't have any interest in running for president.

I think that Shapiro and Beshear should be great candidates on paper (as of now at least).
 
CFordUNC said:
I think we should dispel of the notion that Donald Trump can and will be president any longer than January 21, 2029. It’s simply not going to happen. It’s a complete non-starter. Not one single Democratically-led state, and I would imagine all but the most hopelessly gerrymandered ruby red states, would not participate in an election where Donald Trump is on the ticket in violation of the United States Constitution.

I do think that if and when Trump is able to implement the policy aims and goals that he and his people have been broadcasting openly for months, I don’t think 2028 is going to be a problem for the Democrats as it pertains to the presidential election.

Trump‘s election in 2016 was an anti-incumbent reaction to eight years of a Democratic presidential administration. Joe Biden‘s election in 2020 was an anti-incumbent reaction to the last year of a presidential administration that was a complete and utter abject failure by every single measure imaginable. Trump‘s election in 2024 is an anti-incumbent reaction rooted primarily in economic anxiety.

The Democrats have a pretty deep bench of talented politicians waiting in the wings. If the party can put all of these old dinosaurs out to pasture- Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, etc.- and actually let the next generation of leadership take the reins, they should be well to take advantage of the anti-incumbent backlash in 2028.
Click to expand...
I think you are absolutely right when it comes to Trump no longer being president after January,21,2029 based upon your assumption that there will be a presidential election in 2028.

What I'm about speculate will sound crazy but look where we are now...

What if Trump is successful in taking full control of the military by removing the current military leadership and replacing them with his fascist supporters under the leadership of fascist white Christian nationalist DOD secretary Hegseth ?

What if Trump takes full control of the DOJ and transforms it into his Gestapo ?

Who would stop him from declaring himself president for life ?

I suppose the courts could whine that it is not legal and maybe SCOTUS could get a 5-4 vote declaring it unconstitutional , but who would enforce their findings ?
 
heelinhell said:
I think you are absolutely right when it comes to Trump no longer being president after January,21,2029 based upon your assumption that there will be a presidential election in 2028.

What I'm about speculate will sound crazy but look where we are now...

What if Trump is successful in taking full control of the military by removing the current military leadership and replacing them with his fascist supporters under the leadership of fascist white Christian nationalist DOD secretary Hegseth ?

What if Trump takes full control of the DOJ and transforms it into his Gestapo ?

Who would stop him from declaring himself president for life ?

I suppose the courts could whine that it is not legal and maybe SCOTUS could get a 5-4 vote declaring it unconstitutional , but who would enforce their findings ?
Click to expand...
There are few compelling explanations for his cabinet selections other than this. Authoritarians always promote unqualified hacks, because those people are then completely dependent on the leader. What would Matt Gaetz do if he wasn't AG? He's out of the House. He's not going to have a career in politics. Start practicing law? LOL. Most people in his position go into lobbying, but not the guy who everyone hates. So unlike, say, Rex Tillerson, he has no ability to say fuck you and leave.

This might be why Trump is reconsidering on Treasury. The names he has floated previously, like Lutnick, are independently wealthy (not to mention invested in economic stability in a way that Trump is not). If he were to tell Lutnick to default on the debt, Lutnick would almost certainly refuse and make Trump fire him. He would have no such issue with a Hesgeth type person.

The fact that Trump is appointing normies to agencies like Interior, Energy and State -- positions that do not intersect with his dictatorial lust -- but appointing the hacks to the power-related agencies should be a glaring, blinking, five alarm sign as to his intentions.

And the media, of course, is covering the nominations pick by pick, as if there's nothing to be learned from the whole basket.
 
superrific said:
There are few compelling explanations for his cabinet selections other than this. Authoritarians always promote unqualified hacks, because those people are then completely dependent on the leader. What would Matt Gaetz do if he wasn't AG? He's out of the House. He's not going to have a career in politics. Start practicing law? LOL. Most people in his position go into lobbying, but not the guy who everyone hates. So unlike, say, Rex Tillerson, he has no ability to say fuck you and leave.

This might be why Trump is reconsidering on Treasury. The names he has floated previously, like Lutnick, are independently wealthy (not to mention invested in economic stability in a way that Trump is not). If he were to tell Lutnick to default on the debt, Lutnick would almost certainly refuse and make Trump fire him. He would have no such issue with a Hesgeth type person.

The fact that Trump is appointing normies to agencies like Interior, Energy and State -- positions that do not intersect with his dictatorial lust -- but appointing the hacks to the power-related agencies should be a glaring, blinking, five alarm sign as to his intentions.

And the media, of course, is covering the nominations pick by pick, as if there's nothing to be learned from the whole basket.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Eyes on the prize here, people. Not all cabinet positions are equal. AG, SecDef, DNI -- those are the prizes. Even non-cabinet positions like FBI are far more consequential than some of the secretaries.

I do think State is a big role, but Rubio's just a stand-in there anyway (much like Vance). Trump will effectively be his own SOS.
 
Callatoroy said:
Per Newsweek:

Kamala Harris is by some margin Democratic voters most favored candidate to be the party's 2028 presidential election candidate, according to a new poll.
Echelon Insights surveyed 1,010 likely voters between November 14 and 18 with a 3.5 point margin of error. Of the 393 polled who said they support the Democrats 41 percent stated that "if the 2028 Democratic presidential primary were being held today" they would vote for Harris, well ahead of second placed California Governor Gavin Newsom on eight percent.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro came third with seven percent, followed by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Harris's 2024 running mate, with six percent each.

If that is true, then maybe she was prophetic "What Can Be, Unburdened By What Has Been"

Is she the board's choice for 2028?
Click to expand...
Guess we have to wait and see if there will be an election in 2028 or if trump has changed the rules.

If there is then we would also need to evaluate the condition of the country and the candidates.
 
Callatoroy said:
Is that not newsworthy Ford? Given the endless articles diagnosing the reasons behind the election results to see that she is still preferred by others who seemingly would be stronger candidates.
Click to expand...
No it isn't at this point.

Unlike trump I we don't have a need to whine about the loss for 4 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top