Early Predictions 2028: AOC, Whitmer, Newsome or …?

[Anonymous]

It might be time to activate the next generation in some of these high-name-recognition political families. Chelsea Clinton, Hunter and Ashley Biden, Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump. They may not be Presidential timber, but they could all play some kind of prominent roles. The crazy thing is that all these “kids” are middle-aged! They are all considerably older than current Vice President J.D. Vance!

[Anonymous]

We keep saying that any Dem will win easily in 2028, but we can’t actually name one who would have won in 2024, and we don’t have an impressive list of possibilities either. We’re two weeks away from the midterm year. The hour is growing very late. If the primary is AOC types vs boring unknown midwest governor types, I’m not so sure the winner is going to triumph in a general election.

We also still haven’t come to terms with why we kept losing to Trump for a decade. Our excuse is apparently that the majority of voters are stupid racists and that therefore we shouldn’t have to change anything about our platform or governing performance.

So far it doesn’t look like we’re on a winning path. We are relying exclusively on Trump to ruin his successor’s chances so we can win without self-reflection, effort, change, or even specific candidates! Maybe Trump can win this thing for us in 2028, but just in case, we should probably start making some effort to WIN votes rather than just waiting for Republicans to lose them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It might be time to activate the next generation in some of these high-name-recognition political families. Chelsea Clinton, Hunter and Ashley Biden, Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump. They may not be Presidential timber, but they could all play some kind of prominent roles. The crazy thing is that all these “kids” are middle-aged! They are all considerably older than current Vice President J.D. Vance!

God please no. When will you people ever learn? Dynasties are bad for our country and for our people. I specifically chose not to vote for Hillary because she was a Clinton. We need to broaden the political class rather than creating royalty. We left the monarchy for a reason remember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We keep saying that any Dem will win easily in 2028, but we can’t actually name one who would have won in 2024, and we don’t have an impressive list of possibilities either. We’re two weeks away from the midterm year. The hour is growing very late. If the primary is AOC types vs boring unknown midwest governor types, I’m not so sure the winner is going to triumph in a general election.

We also still haven’t come to terms with why we kept losing to Trump for a decade. Our excuse is apparently that the majority of voters are stupid racists and that therefore we shouldn’t have to change anything about our platform or governing performance.

So far it doesn’t look like we’re on a winning path. We are relying exclusively on Trump to ruin his successor’s chances so we can win without self-reflection, effort, change, or even specific candidates! Maybe Trump can win this thing for us in 2028, but just in case, we should probably start making some effort to WIN votes rather than just waiting for Republicans to lose them.

Trump and his 35% job approval rating will be the sitting POTUS when the next general election takes place in 2028. It will be the same scenario in 2028 as we experienced in 2020 and 2024 with very unpopular sitting presidents allowing very weak opposition candidates to win the general election.

The goal for the Dem Party is to take advantage of their favorable 2028 position by nominating and electing a normal POTUS with two term potential. Don't worry; no one is concerned about your inability to "name" a front runner for the nomination two years prior to the 2028 primary season. The cream rises to the top when competing against other very serious and very qualified contenders in a primary. Expecting a formidable nominee to rise to the top in any other manner is a recipe for failure as we've witnessed in recent elections.

The best news for Dems is the fact that there isn't a Biden-like candidate for 2028 who is the pre-determined favorite of the mega-donors due to preexisting relationships. The mega-donors will eventually have their favorite and that candidate will have an advantage on the field but that candidate is very likely to be one of our popular state governors. The popular Dem state governors are all reasonably fit and qualified and won't present significant weakness like Biden did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mayor Pete is the best choice. Newsome seems like a used car salesman. He should be a Republican. He looks like Gordon Gekko with that slicked back hair. But Mayor Pete is the total package: smart, young, wonky, articulate, and a member of an oppressed group (gay/trans). He literally IS Democracy.

I like Buttigieg and I think he is a solid executive but as a political realist I must point out that he has two flaws in his political history that gives me reservations about his strength as a POTUS candidate. He has campaigned vigorously for the POTUS position before and was forced out of the race without being a top 2 or 3 consideration for the nomination and secondly, he was a cabinet member of a very unpopular one term POTUS. Disassociating from close ties with a historically unpopular POTUS has proven to be a difficult thing to do.

The third flaw - a poll from this summer showed that Buttigieg has 0% support among Black people. How could he possibly get the nomination if he can't get any support among the Black population?

Or is this oppression Olympics? Hey, we've had our first Black president so let's try to get our first gay president!

[Anonymous]

The “popular” Democratic state governors don’t have great name recognition. And Trump is not running for re-election (probably). His approval ratings may be less relevant for the new GOP candidate than you hope. Also note that Biden’s low approval ratings did not prevent Kamala from being the second biggest Democratic Presidential vote getter and vote turner-outer in the past 50 years, crushing Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc.

[Anonymous]

Buttigieg mainly appeals to upper middle class strivers, like Massachusetts lawyers. They want the traits they share with him (degrees from good colleges, successful interviews with selective employers, professed concern about climate change) to be high status.

But apparently he does not have strong appeal to the black community or to the gay community. (The gay community doesn’t trust him because didn’t come out until age 35 and he got married to the first and only man he ever kissed.)

He does have great name recognition and is a good talker, so he’ll be in the mix, debating against the lesser-known Democratic governors. But he’s a real long shot to win a general election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mayor Pete is the best choice. Newsome seems like a used car salesman. He should be a Republican. He looks like Gordon Gekko with that slicked back hair. But Mayor Pete is the total package: smart, young, wonky, articulate, and a member of an oppressed group (gay/trans). He literally IS Democracy.

I like Buttigieg and I think he is a solid executive but as a political realist I must point out that he has two flaws in his political history that gives me reservations about his strength as a POTUS candidate. He has campaigned vigorously for the POTUS position before and was forced out of the race without being a top 2 or 3 consideration for the nomination and secondly, he was a cabinet member of a very unpopular one term POTUS. Disassociating from close ties with a historically unpopular POTUS has proven to be a difficult thing to do.

The third flaw - a poll from this summer showed that Buttigieg has 0% support among Black people. How could he possibly get the nomination if he can't get any support among the Black population?

Or is this oppression Olympics? Hey, we've had our first Black president so let's try to get our first gay president!

I’m not supporting Buttigieg but that “oppression Olympics” line is just trash. He’s never made an issue of his orientation. By your logic (which is really just another form of identity politics) we need to clear the decks of any gay, lesbian, disabled, or minority candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mayor Pete is the best choice. Newsome seems like a used car salesman. He should be a Republican. He looks like Gordon Gekko with that slicked back hair. But Mayor Pete is the total package: smart, young, wonky, articulate, and a member of an oppressed group (gay/trans). He literally IS Democracy.

I like Buttigieg and I think he is a solid executive but as a political realist I must point out that he has two flaws in his political history that gives me reservations about his strength as a POTUS candidate. He has campaigned vigorously for the POTUS position before and was forced out of the race without being a top 2 or 3 consideration for the nomination and secondly, he was a cabinet member of a very unpopular one term POTUS. Disassociating from close ties with a historically unpopular POTUS has proven to be a difficult thing to do.

The third flaw - a poll from this summer showed that Buttigieg has 0% support among Black people. How could he possibly get the nomination if he can't get any support among the Black population?

Or is this oppression Olympics? Hey, we've had our first Black president so let's try to get our first gay president!

I’m not supporting Buttigieg but that “oppression Olympics” line is just trash. He’s never made an issue of his orientation. By your logic (which is really just another form of identity politics) we need to clear the decks of any gay, lesbian, disabled, or minority candidate.

The only identity politics going on is from the poster who said " But Mayor Pete is the total package: smart, young, wonky, articulate, and a member of an oppressed group (gay/trans)."

[Anonymous]

I like Mark Kelly.

[Anonymous]

I think nominating Newsom would be handing the victory to the GOP. He’s completely wrecked California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The “popular” Democratic state governors don’t have great name recognition. And Trump is not running for re-election (probably). His approval ratings may be less relevant for the new GOP candidate than you hope. Also note that Biden’s low approval ratings did not prevent Kamala from being the second biggest Democratic Presidential vote getter and vote turner-outer in the past 50 years, crushing Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc.

Lol.. Clinton didn't have "great" name recognition in 1989 nor did Obama in 2005. Now, let the young crop of hopefuls debate and campaign on a level playing field and we'll see who the cream of the crop is.

Remember the 2008 Dem primary that produced the most recent successful two term president we could be proud of? Speculators from 2005 to 2007 thought John Edwards and Biden would give HRC a legitimate challenge for the nomination with perhaps the up and coming Senator from Illinois making some noise. By January of 2008, it was clear that HRC and Obama were the cream of the crop while the much weaker Edwards and Biden were out of their league when put on the same stage as legitimate POTUS worthy candidates.

[Anonymous]

Biden is the most successful Presidential vote getter in American history by far, getting 81 million votes. When he was far less impressive and far less coherent than he was in 2008.

[Anonymous]

The problem is, our primary voters are the same people who currently consider AOC, Buttigieg, Harris, and Newsom to be appealing candidates, and the people who run our primaries who gave us Hillary, Biden, and Harris against our will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We keep saying that any Dem will win easily in 2028, but we can’t actually name one who would have won in 2024, and we don’t have an impressive list of possibilities either. We’re two weeks away from the midterm year. The hour is growing very late. If the primary is AOC types vs boring unknown midwest governor types, I’m not so sure the winner is going to triumph in a general election.

We also still haven’t come to terms with why we kept losing to Trump for a decade. Our excuse is apparently that the majority of voters are stupid racists and that therefore we shouldn’t have to change anything about our platform or governing performance.

So far it doesn’t look like we’re on a winning path. We are relying exclusively on Trump to ruin his successor’s chances so we can win without self-reflection, effort, change, or even specific candidates! Maybe Trump can win this thing for us in 2028, but just in case, we should probably start making some effort to WIN votes rather than just waiting for Republicans to lose them.

There is plenty of time left for somebody to emerge. At this point in Obama's second term the Republicans had nobody and we were still a year and a half away from Trump coming down the escalator.