What's the best Democratic Presidential Archetype for 2028?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The archetype is Populism.
Ds will follow the same sociopolitical path as the Rs. Different, but the same.

The people vs the elite dynamic is the reality in modern day politics and therefore populism in its truest form may be our best medicine.

In other words, in a government designed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, all other schemes having failed, the Democrats might finally be willing to attempt representing the people.

IF they actually LISTEN to the people and prioritize their general welfare over special interests, they may actually win. On the other hand, if they continue to sneer contemptuously at average voters and try to tell them that the Democrats know what the voters need better than the voters themselves, they might continue to have difficulty, even as bad as Trump/MAGA is. At least the Republicans pretend to listen.

The distribution of wealth and power has become too uneven and the strain of it has society at a breaking point - something’s got to give. The last time there was this much tension between the haves and the have nots, desperate people turned for any solution that offered relief, which led to the rise of both fascist and communist regimes. While they’re typically viewed as opposite poles of the political spectrum, they’re actually just different names for tyranny. Whatever ideology the leaders claimed to seize power, the goal was always power. Once any party had secured their power, the ideology was consigned to window dressing for the government, which was no more interested in the general welfare than the government they had replaced. Right now, the right is already at that place, offering the country dictatorship over a democracy that has been failing the populace. Democrats must be vigilant to remember that the counter to a right wing dictatorship is not a left wing dictatorship, but rather a free country SERVING the will of the people.

I realize Democrats want to remake society into their version of Utopia, and if they can reclaim power and hold unto it, they’ll be able to advance whatever agenda they want. However, people are struggling and need to be given some hope that things can improve for them. Stop dividing voters, and above all, stop alienating them. Who cares if they disagree with you on an issue, as long as they vote to put you in power to do what you want? If they’re considering violating some of their principles (which are as dear to them as yours are to you), you don’t have to insult them. Sometimes I think the Democrats would rather feel smugly superior to voters who voted against them than to win the votes of some who might have incorrect opinions.

[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.

Not true. There are plenty of church-going Christian women who hate Trump that can be persuaded. Not the mega church types perhaps, but the other protestants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Troll

www.google.com

He's apparently a state Congressman in Texas. Not even a national player. How would my not having heard of him make he a troll, idiot? And what has he done to make him worthy of highest office?

+1
The only place I've read about him is right here on DCUM. Nowhere else.
DP

He is running for Senate in Texas. If he can win that seat, he’ll build a national reputation but I think it’s too early for a presidential run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The archetype is Populism.
Ds will follow the same sociopolitical path as the Rs. Different, but the same.

The people vs the elite dynamic is the reality in modern day politics and therefore populism in its truest form may be our best medicine.

In other words, in a government designed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, all other schemes having failed, the Democrats might finally be willing to attempt representing the people.

IF they actually LISTEN to the people and prioritize their general welfare over special interests, they may actually win. On the other hand, if they continue to sneer contemptuously at average voters and try to tell them that the Democrats know what the voters need better than the voters themselves, they might continue to have difficulty, even as bad as Trump/MAGA is. At least the Republicans pretend to listen.

The distribution of wealth and power has become too uneven and the strain of it has society at a breaking point - something’s got to give. The last time there was this much tension between the haves and the have nots, desperate people turned for any solution that offered relief, which led to the rise of both fascist and communist regimes. While they’re typically viewed as opposite poles of the political spectrum, they’re actually just different names for tyranny. Whatever ideology the leaders claimed to seize power, the goal was always power. Once any party had secured their power, the ideology was consigned to window dressing for the government, which was no more interested in the general welfare than the government they had replaced. Right now, the right is already at that place, offering the country dictatorship over a democracy that has been failing the populace. Democrats must be vigilant to remember that the counter to a right wing dictatorship is not a left wing dictatorship, but rather a free country SERVING the will of the people.

I realize Democrats want to remake society into their version of Utopia, and if they can reclaim power and hold unto it, they’ll be able to advance whatever agenda they want. However, people are struggling and need to be given some hope that things can improve for them. Stop dividing voters, and above all, stop alienating them. Who cares if they disagree with you on an issue, as long as they vote to put you in power to do what you want? If they’re considering violating some of their principles (which are as dear to them as yours are to you), you don’t have to insult them. Sometimes I think the Democrats would rather feel smugly superior to voters who voted against them than to win the votes of some who might have incorrect opinions.

The republicans get elected, ruin the economy, start wars. The democrats come along, rescue the economy, try to advance an agenda that helps people, and get kicked out of office because it wasn’t good enough or because the republicans and outside influencers get people riled up about non-existent issues. How can you court voters that don’t share an objective reality with you?

I think that it’s time to stop humoring them and courting thier vote because they aren’t showing up to vote blue and they seem quite happily insane. Let them be and go after all of people that didn’t vote, tens of millions of them. To me that seems like a much better ROI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The archetype is Populism.
Ds will follow the same sociopolitical path as the Rs. Different, but the same.

The people vs the elite dynamic is the reality in modern day politics and therefore populism in its truest form may be our best medicine.

In other words, in a government designed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, all other schemes having failed, the Democrats might finally be willing to attempt representing the people.

IF they actually LISTEN to the people and prioritize their general welfare over special interests, they may actually win. On the other hand, if they continue to sneer contemptuously at average voters and try to tell them that the Democrats know what the voters need better than the voters themselves, they might continue to have difficulty, even as bad as Trump/MAGA is. At least the Republicans pretend to listen.

The distribution of wealth and power has become too uneven and the strain of it has society at a breaking point - something’s got to give. The last time there was this much tension between the haves and the have nots, desperate people turned for any solution that offered relief, which led to the rise of both fascist and communist regimes. While they’re typically viewed as opposite poles of the political spectrum, they’re actually just different names for tyranny. Whatever ideology the leaders claimed to seize power, the goal was always power. Once any party had secured their power, the ideology was consigned to window dressing for the government, which was no more interested in the general welfare than the government they had replaced. Right now, the right is already at that place, offering the country dictatorship over a democracy that has been failing the populace. Democrats must be vigilant to remember that the counter to a right wing dictatorship is not a left wing dictatorship, but rather a free country SERVING the will of the people.

I realize Democrats want to remake society into their version of Utopia, and if they can reclaim power and hold unto it, they’ll be able to advance whatever agenda they want. However, people are struggling and need to be given some hope that things can improve for them. Stop dividing voters, and above all, stop alienating them. Who cares if they disagree with you on an issue, as long as they vote to put you in power to do what you want? If they’re considering violating some of their principles (which are as dear to them as yours are to you), you don’t have to insult them. Sometimes I think the Democrats would rather feel smugly superior to voters who voted against them than to win the votes of some who might have incorrect opinions.

"Democrats might finally be willing to attempt representing the people".... lol.... GOP and Dem politicians will have the freedom to represent the people in the manner intended when the influence of money in politics is greatly reduced. Until then, it's the wealthy mega-donors first and foremost and then if any crumbs are left over, the interests of the American people are fed.

[Anonymous]

When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….

[Anonymous]

How about just a decent human being who leads the whole country, not just his or her followers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….

Trump was a viable presidential candidate in 2016. He was a complete joke of a major party nominee in 2020 and 2024. He lost to the weakest Dem nominee ever in 2020 and then he only won in 2024 because of the extraordinary weakness of the sitting Dem POTUS. The 2020 and 2024 elections are outliers that shall hopefully never be repeated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….

This. Need a middle aged white guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….

This. Need a middle aged white guy.

We "need" the best person for the job you racist low IQ troll.

[Anonymous]

We need someone like Schumer. But like 2010s sex symbol Schumer, not washed up 2020s Schumer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since we can't seem to come up with a candidate, maybe we can at least contemplate the right TYPE of candidate?

Here are a few:

First Female President (Multiple Interesting Possibilities)

First Gay President (Mayor Pete)

Boring White Guy, Little Known Midwestern State Governor, Attempt to Appeal to Centrist and Men who stopped voting for Democrats (Beshear, Shapiro, etc.)

Hard-charging realist a la Rahm Emanuel, here to crack some heads and get Dems back on track

Young Up-and-Coming Unknown (Wesley Moore)

Nepo Baby (Chelsea Clinton, Hunter Biden, Ella Emhoff, etc.) Name recognition matters. A lot.

Squad Leader (AOC)

Evil Emperor (Gavin Newsom)

Which TYPE(S) would be most viable?

Why do Democrats put so much on identity and name? This is one of the reasons they were crushed in 2024. It's all about policies and Democrat policies are terrible. Who cares what race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. they are....what are their policies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….

Trump was a viable presidential candidate in 2016. He was a complete joke of a major party nominee in 2020 and 2024. He lost to the weakest Dem nominee ever in 2020 and then he only won in 2024 because of the extraordinary weakness of the sitting Dem POTUS. The 2020 and 2024 elections are outliers that shall hopefully never be repeated.

The reason Trump won in 2016 was mainly due to blowback on Obama. Obama blew a historic opportunity to unite this country racially and ended up doing the opposite. Obama deserves the moniker "The Great Divider". Also Obamacare and his other domestic policies were terrible. He thought 1.5% GDP growth that the new normal. Nope. Weaponizing the DoJ and IRS didn't help. And he was very weak in foreign policy. Remember the line in the sand with Syria and also Putin took Crimea while Obama was in office. And finally, no one liked Hilary Clinton (and they still don't).

[Anonymous]

OP's idiotic identity classifications reveal how doomed the party is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be honest, straight white male from a southern state. Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton but not dead.

What about James Talarico from Texas?

Yes. Policy plus vibes. Calm, soothing.

Never heard about him but this video is just a bunch of cliche statements delivered in a calculated manner. Totally devoid of enthusiasm and energy that could be expect from someone his age. On the plus side, he does look a bit like a young JFK.