Post your ideas on who might help the Democrats win 2028.

[fskimospy]

Tell me how moving to the right worked this time. Tell me why the fuck the DNC should keep doing it after it cost them elections twice against weak ass Trump.

Funny how you didn’t mention the one in the middle. Why didn’t you?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Funny how you didn’t mention the one in the middle. Why didn’t you?

Wow you went 1 for 3 against Trump, fucking bravo

 

[ondma]

I am being real honest here, Waltz was not a bad choice and nor the reason why Kamala lost. I personally do not think any Democrat candidate from NY and CA is going to have a viable chance of becoming president in the near future. Democrats want a new face, and NY/CA has usually been the defacto standard for Democrats in recent decades.
That is why I always think that in 2028, either a "Andy Beshear - Tim Waltz" or "Roy Cooper - Tim Waltz" will only be able to bring victory to the Democrats. Ask any New Yorker, and they will tell you they are not enthusiastic about how either Hochul or Adams are running their administrations respectively. I am not saying their intended goals of a better New York is bad, it's just how they are doing things, corruption, and the infighting is just starting to annoy people.
So in short, until the Democrats put someone people will find less annoying in CA or NY, I think it would be best for the nominee to be someone outside of these two states.

Beshear sound goods, Cooper I am not familiar with. How about Hakeem Jeffries? He is from NY, but is not a governor or mayor, so might not have the baggage of Hochul. Most on this forum know how I feel about Walz, definitely not my pick for any public office except maybe dog catcher. Realistically though, I think if a white male is the presidential candidate, the Dems will run a woman and/or person of color for VP.

Edit: I purposely omitted Adams, because I think he is a total non-starter.

 

[cytg111]

Help dems win 2028... Hmmm... Storm the capitol?

 

[ondma]

So to be clear you think people who supported Palestine did not vote for Harris and instead supported the person affirmatively in favor of Palestinian genocide?

If they had any sense they wouldn't have voted for Trump, but they may have simply not voted at all rather than support Harris. My personal opinion is that this faction of the Dems was voting (or not voting at all) more on emotion than any logical basis.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow you went 1 for 3 against Trump, fucking bravo

Dude I don’t care. What is your idea that going left is the way to win? What election can you point to?

 

[MrSquished]

Dude I don’t care. What is your idea that going left is the way to win? What election can you point to?

2008 Obama you fucking idiot with the worst political instincts that called everything wrong on this election. You haven't learned an iota.

 

[ondma]

Dude I don’t care. What is your idea that going left is the way to win? What election can you point to?

We have disagreed on a lot of things, but I am with you on this. The electorate was definitely in a conservative mood this election cycle. Maybe for 2026/2028 the mood will have shifted due to the s**t show that is coming from the next administration, but I think it will still take a centrist to win a national election.

 

[cytg111]

No. Squished is actually right on this one. People want change, Bernie Sanders like change, the kind of change that got you the Orange fucking Monkey.
The problem is going to be to get the message out. Information channels. Put Bernie in a 20-30 year younger body and do the messaging right and you will beat MAGA anytime all time allways.

Or maybe that is wishful thinking, maybe you're too far down the fascism hell hole to come back from without a proper bloody civil war. Holy fucks.

edit: Have you seen the Jon Stewart take on why dems lose? Dems plays by rules Repugs dont? So maybe dems shouldnt play by them either? That's fucking fighting words if you really listen to em.

 

[Amol S.]

Is there a Bernie that's under 60?

Phil Scott??? Oh wait... he is a Republican... Michelle Obama??? Oh wait... she does not want to run for pres... Ophera Winfrey??? Oh wait she is an independent...
I know... Kristen Gillabrand!!!

Oh wait.... she will be up against mysoginists, and is also someone NY wants to keep as a senator.

 

[Amol S.]

AOC.

I think some people do feel that she is too far left. AOC is good, it's just the people in Wisconsin, VA, and NV, that she might have a difficult time getting votes from the independents.

 

[MrSquished]

We have disagreed on a lot of things, but I am with you on this. The electorate was definitely in a conservative mood this election cycle. Maybe for 2026/2028 the mood will have shifted due to the s**t show that is coming from the next administration, but I think it will still take a centrist to win a national election.

Nope. People wanted change.

@fskimospy has the political instincts of an ostrich with its head in the sand. He still thinks Biden was the best choice, he still thinks an actual Dem primary was the wrong choice. He is book smart, but outside of that back in reality, a fucking moron.

 

[evident]

So to be clear you think people who supported Palestine did not vote for Harris and instead supported the person affirmatively in favor of Palestinian genocide?

Absolutely. and I also feel your sentiment that it makes no god damn sense. but these people exist, i know 3 of them personally and they just wanted something from Kamala that showed that she would distance herself from "genocide joe's zionist policies"... these people i know did not vote for trump but just sat out. Do they make up the 5% difference in some of the swing states? I really don't know.

and as for the topic, i STRONGLY feel, over ANYTHING else, that we need a charismatic white male christian candidate under 60 that can appeal to the dumbasses in this country.

 

[gothuevos]

Help dems win 2028...

Stop thinking about 2028 and start thinking about 2060.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think some people do feel that she is too far left. AOC is good, it's just the people in Wisconsin, VA, and NV, that she might have a difficult time getting votes from the independents.

Funny, because lots of people in NY voted for her AND trump precisely because she wasn't mainstream.

 

[pmv]

What the electorate clearly didn't want was a status-quo candidate. They wanted one who would shake things up and give vent to their unhappiness. Trump appealed to one part of the identity and self-interests of those who voted for him - unquestionably the worst part.

Seems to me that the best hope of countering that is to appeal just as pro-actively to other parts of their identity and get them enthusiastic about a different kind of crusade.

It's entirely possible that nothing will work, but being "moderate" has been tried and failed twice now (fair enough, it worked _once_ because there's clearly some random variation depending on circumstances*), so surely it's reasonable to try something else?

* which, incidentally, is why I disagree with that aphorism about 'madness is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results'. Sometimes you _do_ get different results from trying the same thing, because circumstances change, often randomly. But at least mix it up a bit and give something else a go occasionally.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

We have disagreed on a lot of things, but I am with you on this. The electorate was definitely in a conservative mood this election cycle. Maybe for 2026/2028 the mood will have shifted due to the s**t show that is coming from the next administration, but I think it will still take a centrist to win a national election.

The electorate was in a fuck the DC establishment mood, which would have played out in the primaries had the DNC not cleared the way for a Harris nomination. The DNC keeps blowing elections that should be layups with these supposed centrist (really they're center-right at best) candidates.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Nope. People wanted change.

@fskimospy has the political instincts of an ostrich with its head in the sand. He still thinks Biden was the best choice, he still thinks an actual Dem primary was the wrong choice. He is book smart, but outside of that back in reality, a fucking moron.

Since the Democrats swung hard to neoliberalism they have lost to Trump twice and stupid Bush twice but we're supposed to believe this no everything is alright neoliberalism should still remain the way forward for the party. All because Clinton got lucky that Ross Perot ran as a spoiler candidate against smart Bush in 1992 and then the party built themselves in his image.

 

[Jaskalas]

You didn’t answer. Was the correct solution for her to move left? If so, why?

Being centrist in policy is to suggest helping fewer people, if anyone.

"Moving left"... probably has a wide gap, and a lot of different meanings, but at my end there is UBI and Housing. First and foremost, with Medicare for All to follow once people comprehend that socialism is just what they named insurance that works. And you get there by hooking them on easier to understand concepts. Like direct payment, and a roof over their head. But I digress...

Yes, god yes. Populist Left is a necessity at this point, is it not?
In a post-fact America, you fight like hell. Say and do anything. So long as it sells.

 

[ondma]

So, for those who think the Dems need to move more left, I have a question for you. If you are drowning in 10 feet of water, your answer is to jump into a pool 20 feet deep? Just double down on what is not working? Good luck with that.

 

[pmv]

So, for those who think the Dems need to move more left, I have a question for you. If you are drowning in 10 feet of water, your answer is to jump into a pool 20 feet deep? Just double down on what is not working? Good luck with that.

But one could say the same thing for those who think they need to move more right. Your analogy just presumes the position you are arguing for. That's not a convincing way to make an argument. What isn't working is being too timid, too conservative and too neo-liberal. You want to double-down on that?

 

[MrSquished]

So, for those who think the Dems need to move more left, I have a question for you. If you are drowning in 10 feet of water, your answer is to jump into a pool 20 feet deep? Just double down on what is not working? Good luck with that.

Please. Tell us about your delusion how the Democrats went left and lost.

Please put it in words we can understand. Maybe try to use the crayons you have.

 

[fskimospy]

But one could say the same thing for those who think they need to move more right. Your analogy just presumes the position you are arguing for. That's not a convincing way to make an argument. What isn't working is being too timid, too conservative and too neo-liberal. You want to double-down on that?

If you lose an election to a party to the right of you it’s reasonable to think the answer is to move right.

 

[IronWing]

If you lose an election to a party to the right of you it’s reasonable to think the answer is to move right.

When your base doesn’t bother to vote because you’ve moved too far to the right, it makes sense to move back to the left to get out the vote. Oh, and you have to deliver on that “left” agenda or your base stays home for the next election. The Dems have seen the same pattern since 2008; it shouldn’t be such a mystery for them.

 

[pmv]

If you lose an election to a party to the right of you it’s reasonable to think the answer is to move right.

Why is that "reasonable"?

Seems more 'simplistic' than 'reasonable'.