Politics 2028

[BillOfRights]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but Jimmy Carter won the nomination and election in 1976 despite being a virtual unknown nationally when he started his campaign. Carter's entire political experience when he ran for POTUS was four years as an obscure state senator in Georgia, a failed run for governor in 1966, and a successful run for governor in 1970, where he served a single obscure term. Virtually no one nationally had heard of him when he announced his candidacy for the 1976 Democratic nomination. He won in large part because he turned out to be the perfect candidate for his time - in the aftermath of Watergate he had no connection to Washington nor was he seen as a party insider, and he ran as an outsider who was untainted by DC scandals, said he would never lie to the American people (as LBJ and Nixon had), and would be a fresh face on the national scene. He ran as much on his personal character and integrity as he did on the issues, which would also seem to be a strength of Beshear. He also had no foreign-policy experience at all, although he had served in the military in the Navy and had graduated from the Naval Academy.

Admittedly, Carter's single unhappy term as POTUS may only add to your point, but I do think that the liabilities you mentioned for Beshear may not hurt him at all, and his status as a DC outsider may well help him in 2028, especially after four exhausting and chaotic years of Dear Leader.

All good points, but I think we can throw 20th century political precedents out the window. The electorate is no longer tethered to reality, foreign countries have successfully influenced our elections, AI will have an unpredictable impact, who knows if any rules will still apply. I like the way Newsom is fighting back, but California will be defined as a failed communist experiment now being run by MS-13. If we could use AI to make Gavin Beshear or Andy Newsom the candidate, then maybe....

 

[Mulberry Heel]

All good points, but I think we can throw 20th century political precedents out the window. The electorate is no longer tethered to reality, foreign countries have successfully influenced our elections, AI will have an unpredictable impact, who knows if any rules will still apply. I like the way Newsom is fighting back, but California will be defined as a failed communist experiment now being run by MS-13. If we could use AI to make Gavin Beshear or Andy Newsom the candidate, then maybe....

I get what you're saying, but if all of that proves to be true in future elections then it is very likely that any Democratic candidacy is hopeless and no Democrat will be able to win future presidential elections without some kind of freak miracle or event. In which case there's not much need to even care about future elections as all Democratic candidacies will be hopeless and doomed to failure from the beginning because the electorate and political system and money and AI will all be so rigged against them that their candidacies will be hopeless. I know that liberals are justifiably deeply cynical and pessimistic right now, but if the argument is going to be that no Democrat can win then we're all screwed and perhaps just need to move on and focus on happier aspects of our personal lives. And you may well be correct - I could easily see Republicans rigging or overturning future elections and Democrats may not have a chance going forward - but I would like to think there is still some light at the end of this nightmare tunnel we're currently traveling through.

 

[BillOfRights]

I get what you're saying, but if all of that proves to be true in future elections then it is very likely that any Democratic candidacy is hopeless and no Democrat will be able to win future presidential elections without some kind of freak miracle or event. In which case there's not much need to even care about future elections as all Democratic candidacies will be hopeless and doomed to failure from the beginning because the electorate and political system and money and AI will all be so rigged against them that their candidacies will be hopeless. I know that liberals are justifiably deeply cynical and pessimistic right now, but if the argument is going to be that no Democrat can win then we're all screwed and perhaps just need to move on and focus on happier aspects of our personal lives. And you may well be correct - I could easily see Republicans rigging or overturning future elections and Democrats may not have a chance going forward - but I would like to think there is still some light at the end of this nightmare tunnel we're currently traveling through.

I just think it's gonna take something different to win in the current environment, and I don't know what it is. Some combination of Beshear, Newsom, Mark Cuban, and Jesus Christ, although I doubt any of them could win as a standalone candidate.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I just think it's gonna take something different to win in the current environment, and I don't know what it is. Some combination of Beshear, Newsom, Mark Cuban, and Jesus Christ, although I doubt any of them could win as a standalone candidate.

Beshear likely has as good a chance as anyone, but certainly somebody else not even as prominent as he is could come from nowhere to get the nomination as Carter did in 76. Given the current political environment, I wonder if a celebrity would have more chance of winning than a traditional pol, although I have my doubts as how effectively they would govern. One sign that we're living in an idiocracy is that so many people seem to prefer celebrities to experienced politicians now.

 

[Centerpiece]

Please explain.

He’s talking at me about Bruce and Defund

 

[farce©]

Please explain.

Your premise is that Democrats ran on issues of identity politics. That is how they were framed by the Republicans when in fact they ran on plenty of dinner table, working class issues. They just got drowned out because the media repeated the nonsense about school children getting sex change operation#s without parental consent and Haitians eating people pets in Ohio or defunding the police.

 

[Centerpiece]

Your premise is that Democrats ran on issues of identity politics. That is how they were framed by the Republicans when in fact they ran on plenty of dinner table, working class issues. They just got drowned out because the media repeated the nonsense about school children getting sex change operation#s without parental consent and Haitians eating people pets in Ohio or defunding the police.

Point taken. But how to flip the narrative to fit the mold? It shouldn’t be a negative to speak out on behalf of the disenfranchised, until it is.

 

[mpaer]

It shouldn’t be a negative to speak out on behalf of the disenfranchised, until it is.

Thats the dillema

 

[Kingpin]

Whoever runs as a Democrat 2028 needs to drop identity politics and start getting in touch with the poor and working class. Or we're going to keep losing.

Great article ...
-> ‘The Interview’: Robert Reich Thinks the Baby Boomers Blew It

"We see more and more big money undermining our democratic institutions."
"Some Democrats don’t want to tell the true story of concentrated wealth and power because they are drinking at the same trough as Republicans."

Agree but to be fair, Pubs made that THE issue even where and when Dems were not making it an issue. They defined Dems in that way. Dems need to find a narrative that blunts that because Pubs will try again.

 

[mpaer]

So as I understand it the ,say $350,000 to say $500,000 a year crowd , has grown a lot the last couple decades (even if you factor in inflation ). That is a"new crowd" and they use to be families that were just comfortable middle class So we have the rich, and now we have a bigger hunk than we use to that is really not middle class-the almost rich.
And everyone below that on the aggregate is flat or "worse off"
It's easy to say "tax the Billionaires" but harder now to say "tax the folks worth a couple million ".
So MPER rambling , my point is wealth distribution is morphing.........So adressing it must continue to adjust.

 

[BlueSmoke]

What is Bashear going to run on? That he was a figurehead governor in a Republican State? How many of his vetoes got overridden? Is he going to run on the success he had in that situation? If he's going to claim he was successful, then isn't he really running on Republican success?

I realize he's the early flavor of the month. But more then likely there will be competition for the nomination that can easily exploit his background which includes being from a long time political family.

 

[CFordUNC]

So as I understand it the ,say $350,000 to say $500,000 a year crowd , has grown a lot the last couple decades (even if you factor in inflation ). That is a"new crowd" and they use to be families that were just comfortable middle class So we have the rich, and now we have a bigger hunk than we use to that is really not middle class-the almost rich.
And everyone below that on the aggregate is flat or "worse off"
It's easy to say "tax the Billionaires" but harder now to say "tax the folks worth a couple million ".
So MPER rambling , my point is wealth distribution is morphing.........So adressing it must continue to adjust.

I do agree that addressing wealth distribution must adjust, but I will say, as someone who has recently entered a HHI level a bit above the range you mentioned above, but who grew up in the lower class and has been solidly middle class over the last several years, I still think that one of the biggest farces in our tax policy is that people who earn W2 income get “punished” the hardest, and the folks with income from assets in the tens/hundreds of millions or billions get taxed the least comparatively. I’m all about being able to generate income, money, and wealth- in other words I’m as pro capitalism as can be- but I think its ridiculous that people like me who can take advantage of every possible tax-advantaged savings account *still* get hit much harder comparatively on our earned income than someone with assets in the hundreds of millions or billions.

 

[mpaer]

I do agree that addressing wealth distribution must adjust, but I will say, as someone who has recently entered a HHI level a bit above the range you mentioned above, but who grew up in the lower class and has been solidly middle class over the last several years, I still think that one of the biggest farces in our tax policy is that people who earn W2 income get “punished” the hardest, and the folks with income from assets in the tens/hundreds of millions or billions get taxed the least comparatively. I’m all about being able to generate income, money, and wealth- in other words I’m as pro capitalism as can be- but I think its ridiculous that people like me who can take advantage of every possible tax-advantaged savings account *still* get hit much harder comparatively on our earned income than someone with assets in the hundreds of millions or billions.

I was hoping you would chime in-poster child on IC for my discussion ! Agree the entire "income Tax" structure needs revamping. Jeff Bezos can increase his wealth 50 billion dollars in a year and have zero tax basically Corporate tax is likely more convoluted than indivual income tax
One point re your W-2 taxes. I do think State income tax should be more progessive-we have done a dumb job of capping our State income tax, individual and Corporate

 

[Centerpiece]

What is Bashear going to run on? That he was a figurehead governor in a Republican State? How many of his vetoes got overridden? Is he going to run on the success he had in that situation? If he's going to claim he was successful, then isn't he really running on Republican success?

I realize he's the early flavor of the month. But more then likely there will be competition for the nomination that can easily exploit his background which includes being from a long time political family.

It's Beshear
1) His electoral success in Kentucky, a reliably Republican state
2) He's still a dark horse and not as well-known as Harris, Newsom, Shapiro (which isn't a bad thing)
3) He's one of the most popular governors in the country.
4) He was considered a possible running mate with Harris in 2024
5) His approval rating is especially impressive given President Donald Trump's 30-point victory in Kentucky. He won nearly 65 percent of the vote, compared to former Vice President Kamala Harris' 34 percent, in the 2024 election.
6) He hasn't fucked anything up
7) He's a white, Christian male who isn't old (probably a strong point moving forward in today's political climate)

 

[Icky Mettle]

What is Bashear going to run on? That he was a figurehead governor in a Republican State? How many of his vetoes got overridden? Is he going to run on the success he had in that situation? If he's going to claim he was successful, then isn't he really running on Republican success?

I realize he's the early flavor of the month. But more then likely there will be competition for the nomination that can easily exploit his background which includes being from a long time political family.

Yeah, it’s all too early to tell. Remember when it was Beto O’Rourke’s moment and he looked like the future of the Dem Party? That fizzled out pretty quickly.

 

[mpaer]

What is Bashear going to run on? That he was a figurehead governor in a Republican State? How many of his vetoes got overridden? Is he going to run on the success he had in that situation? If he's going to claim he was successful, then isn't he really running on Republican success?

I realize he's the early flavor of the month. But more then likely there will be competition for the nomination that can easily exploit his background which includes being from a long time political family.

Well there is big part of the electorate that just wants to have "hope" I don't know-charisma of some sort
I men what did Bill Clinton run on as a gov of a nothing state ? Who knew who Barcak Obama was

 

[Centerpiece]

There's a couple of different ways to look at this:
1) Who do you think stands a chance of getting the Dem nomination AND who stands a chance of winning it all in 2028
2) Who do you LIKE, and who would YOU like to see be successful at #1 - whether or not they stand a snowball's chance?

Right now, I'm only addressing #2: I like Andy, I like Newsom, I like Roy and/or Jeff Jack, I like Whitmer, I like Shapiro, I like Walz.

Given those names - who do I think stands a chance at #1? That's a good question

 

[finesse]

Agree but to be fair, Pubs made that THE issue even where and when Dems were not making it an issue. They defined Dems in that way. Dems need to find a narrative that blunts that because Pubs will try again.

They need to find a news outlet that will give them a chance to be heard. Pretty much every one of them today have Preparation H on their lips.

 

[GoHeelsweeeehoooo]

Not sure if he's interested in running but I wonder if Mark Cuban would be a good candidate

 

[superrific]

I do agree that addressing wealth distribution must adjust, but I will say, as someone who has recently entered a HHI level a bit above the range you mentioned above, but who grew up in the lower class and has been solidly middle class over the last several years, I still think that one of the biggest farces in our tax policy is that people who earn W2 income get “punished” the hardest, and the folks with income from assets in the tens/hundreds of millions or billions get taxed the least comparatively. I’m all about being able to generate income, money, and wealth- in other words I’m as pro capitalism as can be- but I think its ridiculous that people like me who can take advantage of every possible tax-advantaged savings account *still* get hit much harder comparatively on our earned income than someone with assets in the hundreds of millions or billions.

It's not just bias against "W2" income. There is also a bias in favor of passive income that is reported on a W2 but is subject to a weird carve out for S corps that reduces taxes by 20%+.