What's the best Democratic Presidential Archetype for 2028?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s down to Kelly and Breshear based on a positive record of accomplishment and electability. Unfortunately current polls have Newsom and Harris far in the lead. Let’s hope early debates change things around.

I’m a right-leaning Trump-hostile independent. Beshear is on my “do not vote for” list because of COVID. Based on past experience, I assume someone will chime in to the effect of “lol screw you maga!” But (1) I’m not MAGA and (2) if you’re hoping to win elections, you should try to win votes like mine!

Maybe that could be done if you'd spend less time on people/personalities and more time on what policies you would like to see.

My issue with beshear is his policy. I don’t know anything about his personality. He could be the chillest dude on earth and I wouldn’t vote for him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's me plugging James Talarico again. Did anyone listen to him on Joe Rogan? He is so thoughtful and articulate, and seems like a good human. He blends Christian faith with progressive ideas. In a match-up with JD, I think a significant number of Christian right would line up behind him. Even Rogan said he should run for president.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DOYX1RykceJ/

I’ve heard some interviews with him and he sounds like an earnest guy. But do we have to cater to Christians? Remember separation of church and state?

DP. Was going to suggest him as well. 62% of Americans identify as Christian. Why leave votes on the table?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s down to Kelly and Breshear based on a positive record of accomplishment and electability. Unfortunately current polls have Newsom and Harris far in the lead. Let’s hope early debates change things around.

I’m a right-leaning Trump-hostile independent. Beshear is on my “do not vote for” list because of COVID. Based on past experience, I assume someone will chime in to the effect of “lol screw you maga!” But (1) I’m not MAGA and (2) if you’re hoping to win elections, you should try to win votes like mine!

The problem is that there are lots of single issue voters like you. You’re all about COVID policy. Someone else is all about immigration. Someone else is up in arms about trans rights. Maybe we should just poll test every single issue and create an AI candidate that optimizes among all possible positions. Or… don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

That’s fine. You can do what you want. I’m just explaining why you lose voters like me. You might be okay with that, but the traditional strategy in an election is to try to win lots and lots of votes in hopes of eking out a winning number of them!

You’re absolutely right. I’m willing to sacrifice the 1-2% of voters that like you will vote based on an epidemic eight years earlier, and instead cater to the 70% of voters who vote based on jobs and economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s down to Kelly and Breshear based on a positive record of accomplishment and electability. Unfortunately current polls have Newsom and Harris far in the lead. Let’s hope early debates change things around.

I’m a right-leaning Trump-hostile independent. Beshear is on my “do not vote for” list because of COVID. Based on past experience, I assume someone will chime in to the effect of “lol screw you maga!” But (1) I’m not MAGA and (2) if you’re hoping to win elections, you should try to win votes like mine!

The problem is that there are lots of single issue voters like you. You’re all about COVID policy. Someone else is all about immigration. Someone else is up in arms about trans rights. Maybe we should just poll test every single issue and create an AI candidate that optimizes among all possible positions. Or… don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

That’s fine. You can do what you want. I’m just explaining why you lose voters like me. You might be okay with that, but the traditional strategy in an election is to try to win lots and lots of votes in hopes of eking out a winning number of them!

You’re absolutely right. I’m willing to sacrifice the 1-2% of voters that like you will vote based on an epidemic eight years earlier, and instead cater to the 70% of voters who vote based on jobs and economics.

Exactly, we’ve let extreme crazies have an equal voice and treated their insane ideologies as worthy of discussion, and what did it get us? Another insane Trump presidency. Drop the antivax and anti science nuts. Let maga have them all. I think that the biggest problem was trying to cater to weirdos and it turned off tens of millions of voters that didn’t even bother to show up.

[Anonymous]

My bet is also on James Talarico. He embodies the archetype Kevin Costner played in many of his films (Robinhood, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves)—ethical, charismatic, gentlemanly, protective, and oriented toward building community and bringing people together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s down to Kelly and Breshear based on a positive record of accomplishment and electability. Unfortunately current polls have Newsom and Harris far in the lead. Let’s hope early debates change things around.

I’m a right-leaning Trump-hostile independent. Beshear is on my “do not vote for” list because of COVID. Based on past experience, I assume someone will chime in to the effect of “lol screw you maga!” But (1) I’m not MAGA and (2) if you’re hoping to win elections, you should try to win votes like mine!

The problem is that there are lots of single issue voters like you. You’re all about COVID policy. Someone else is all about immigration. Someone else is up in arms about trans rights. Maybe we should just poll test every single issue and create an AI candidate that optimizes among all possible positions. Or… don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

That’s fine. You can do what you want. I’m just explaining why you lose voters like me. You might be okay with that, but the traditional strategy in an election is to try to win lots and lots of votes in hopes of eking out a winning number of them!

You’re absolutely right. I’m willing to sacrifice the 1-2% of voters that like you will vote based on an epidemic eight years earlier, and instead cater to the 70% of voters who vote based on jobs and economics.

Exactly, we’ve let extreme crazies have an equal voice and treated their insane ideologies as worthy of discussion, and what did it get us? Another insane Trump presidency. Drop the antivax and anti science nuts. Let maga have them all. I think that the biggest problem was trying to cater to weirdos and it turned off tens of millions of voters that didn’t even bother to show up.

See points (1) and (2) in the top-level post!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s down to Kelly and Breshear based on a positive record of accomplishment and electability. Unfortunately current polls have Newsom and Harris far in the lead. Let’s hope early debates change things around.

I’m a right-leaning Trump-hostile independent. Beshear is on my “do not vote for” list because of COVID. Based on past experience, I assume someone will chime in to the effect of “lol screw you maga!” But (1) I’m not MAGA and (2) if you’re hoping to win elections, you should try to win votes like mine!

The problem is that there are lots of single issue voters like you. You’re all about COVID policy. Someone else is all about immigration. Someone else is up in arms about trans rights. Maybe we should just poll test every single issue and create an AI candidate that optimizes among all possible positions. Or… don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

That’s fine. You can do what you want. I’m just explaining why you lose voters like me. You might be okay with that, but the traditional strategy in an election is to try to win lots and lots of votes in hopes of eking out a winning number of them!

You’re absolutely right. I’m willing to sacrifice the 1-2% of voters that like you will vote based on an epidemic eight years earlier, and instead cater to the 70% of voters who vote based on jobs and economics.

Well, you’ll have to ask what share of that 70% thinks the Democrats are better than the Republicans on jobs and economics. The momentum is trending in the Dems’ favor, but it’s not like this was previously or is guaranteed to become a winning issue for the Dems. If you’re going to intentionally dump your gf for a better looking gal, you better make sure that other gal is actually into you.

[Anonymous]

It should be an exciting time because the dem possibilities will have many young, qualified and dedicated candidates. Unlike the Rs that are stuck with a distorted dystopian Vance,and by that time, will look like a walking-dead maga relic with a stained past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My bet is also on James Talarico. He embodies the archetype Kevin Costner played in many of his films (Robinhood, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves)—ethical, charismatic, gentlemanly, protective, and oriented toward building community and bringing people together.

Never heard of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark Kelly won't win. He looks like one of those deep sea fish at the bottom of the ocean.

AOC is your best bet but you won't pick her because *everyone else* is a sexist and racist. The democrats in this thread repeatedly demanded a white man as president, particularly a southern white man. You know, for... all those deplorable racists.

Newsom is most likely. He's the white man you want. But he will lose because he has cocaine finance bro vibes, admitted to sleeping with a teen, and has run California into the ground.

Lol. Mark Kelly isn’t sexy enough to win says the Trump supporter.

NP. Interesting that you can't refute any of the PP's points. The line about how Mark Kelly looks, btw, was because Democrats seem to care deeply about how their candidate presents - how they look. Just review this thread. The PP was spot on in their assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's me plugging James Talarico again. Did anyone listen to him on Joe Rogan? He is so thoughtful and articulate, and seems like a good human. He blends Christian faith with progressive ideas. In a match-up with JD, I think a significant number of Christian right would line up behind him. Even Rogan said he should run for president.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DOYX1RykceJ/

I’ve heard some interviews with him and he sounds like an earnest guy. But do we have to cater to Christians? Remember separation of church and state?

Christians are a big voting block, peeling off a few from R can swing an election.

https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/christian-voters-will-play-outsized-role-us-election

Christians vote for who their church tells them to vote and it sure isn’t a dem. Nice thought though.

Um, not this Christian. Nice stereotyping though.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's me plugging James Talarico again. Did anyone listen to him on Joe Rogan? He is so thoughtful and articulate, and seems like a good human. He blends Christian faith with progressive ideas. In a match-up with JD, I think a significant number of Christian right would line up behind him. Even Rogan said he should run for president.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DOYX1RykceJ/

Hmm. I guess you don’t Catholics among Christians. They have always been a mix of left and right here.

I’ve heard some interviews with him and he sounds like an earnest guy. But do we have to cater to Christians? Remember separation of church and state?

Christians are a big voting block, peeling off a few from R can swing an election.

https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/christian-voters-will-play-outsized-role-us-election

Christians vote for who their church tells them to vote and it sure isn’t a dem. Nice thought though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark Kelly won't win. He looks like one of those deep sea fish at the bottom of the ocean.

AOC is your best bet but you won't pick her because *everyone else* is a sexist and racist. The democrats in this thread repeatedly demanded a white man as president, particularly a southern white man. You know, for... all those deplorable racists.

Newsom is most likely. He's the white man you want. But he will lose because he has cocaine finance bro vibes, admitted to sleeping with a teen, and has run California into the ground.

Lol. Mark Kelly isn’t sexy enough to win says the Trump supporter.

NP. Interesting that you can't refute any of the PP's points. The line about how Mark Kelly looks, btw, was because Democrats seem to care deeply about how their candidate presents - how they look. Just review this thread. The PP was spot on in their assessment.

You are referring to a RWNJ narrative that some idiots keep trying to push on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s down to Kelly and Breshear based on a positive record of accomplishment and electability. Unfortunately current polls have Newsom and Harris far in the lead. Let’s hope early debates change things around.

I’m a right-leaning Trump-hostile independent. Beshear is on my “do not vote for” list because of COVID. Based on past experience, I assume someone will chime in to the effect of “lol screw you maga!” But (1) I’m not MAGA and (2) if you’re hoping to win elections, you should try to win votes like mine!

Because of what the dems did during Covid I would be happy to see them suffer and suffer and suffer electorally until the end of time.

If just one of them would come forward and apologize for their conduct, policies, and rhetoric during that time I might consider voting for them.

But they never will. Because being a dem means never having to say you’re sorry.

You are fvked in the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's me plugging James Talarico again. Did anyone listen to him on Joe Rogan? He is so thoughtful and articulate, and seems like a good human. He blends Christian faith with progressive ideas. In a match-up with JD, I think a significant number of Christian right would line up behind him. Even Rogan said he should run for president.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DOYX1RykceJ/

Hmm. I guess you don’t Catholics among Christians. They have always been a mix of left and right here.

I’ve heard some interviews with him and he sounds like an earnest guy. But do we have to cater to Christians? Remember separation of church and state?

Christians are a big voting block, peeling off a few from R can swing an election.

https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/christian-voters-will-play-outsized-role-us-election

Christians vote for who their church tells them to vote and it sure isn’t a dem. Nice thought though.

DP. It’s going to blow your mind when you realize there are non-white Christians in this country that do not always vote Republican