What's the best Democratic Presidential Archetype for 2028?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We do... but we need the electable candidate. PP is not wrong, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct, the best person, not someone "chosen" because of their race, gender, etc. yet that’s what this entire thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Talarico for the win. In Texas. For the Senate. And let's keep him in mind as a future Presidential candidate; he's trying to take back Christianity from the cross-wearing hypocrite Republicans and return to the real teachings of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talarico for the win. In Texas. For the Senate. And let's keep him in mind as a future Presidential candidate; he's trying to take back Christianity from the cross-wearing hypocrite Republicans and return to the real teachings of Jesus.

Explain to me how this is an archetype?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We do... but we need the electable candidate. PP is not wrong, sadly.

PP wasn’t wrong that Democrats need to stop focusing on the “type” of candidate, but then they seem to be ignoring their own wisdom. The answer isn’t that the only electable candidate is a white male “type”. The answer is to nominate someone without considering their type.

People say that Kamala Harris lost because too many people were racist and/or sexist to vote for a black woman. While that’s a convenient excuse, it ignores some relevant facts. For one thing, Nikki Haley was pretty popular among Republicans outside the Trump cult, being his main opponent in the primaries. The fact that Kamala Harris was a woman certainly wouldn’t have deterred Nikki Haley primary voters from swinging their votes to Harris in the general. Secondly, a lot of Obama voters (who apparently were fine voting for a black candidate) ended up voting for Trump. If the Democrats had kept all the Obama voters, I think we’d have President Harris now.

I think Kamala Harris is a highly intelligent and accomplished woman, imminently capable of being president. Democrats understandably took umbrage to her being described as a DEI candidate. Unfortunately, it was the Democrats who pigeonholed her into that slot. Instead of Biden saying that after a great deal of research and soul-searching, he had concluded that she was the best running mate and potential Presidential replacement (and the fact that she is both black and female is an interesting coincidence that will be a nice historical footnote but has no bearing on her selection), he vowed to select a woman and then was publicly pressured to select a black woman. So the message wasn’t that he had selected the best candidate who happened to be a black woman, it was that on the short list of black women he was given to consider, she was the best option available.

The next candidate can be black, white, or any other color. They can be male or female. The “type” doesn’t matter. What matters is convincing the electorate that they were chosen not because of any type, but because their policies will be best both for the country as a whole and, perhaps more importantly, for the individual voter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP who posted the video. Will people read him as calm and soothing and tune in because they are afraid and exhausted by Trump....or will they read him as devoid of enthusiasm and energy, feel more demoralized and tune out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP who posted the video. Will people read him as calm and soothing and tune in because they are afraid and exhausted by Trump....or will they read him as devoid of enthusiasm and energy, feel more demoralized and tune out?

He impressed me as a little young, but he’s got the right message. I don’t know how much experience he may have. This is the approach Democrats need to take, whether they run a more experienced candidate or coach this one on presentation and start touting his many significant accomplishments (if they exist).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We do... but we need the electable candidate. PP is not wrong, sadly.

PP wasn’t wrong that Democrats need to stop focusing on the “type” of candidate, but then they seem to be ignoring their own wisdom. The answer isn’t that the only electable candidate is a white male “type”. The answer is to nominate someone without considering their type.

People say that Kamala Harris lost because too many people were racist and/or sexist to vote for a black woman. While that’s a convenient excuse, it ignores some relevant facts. For one thing, Nikki Haley was pretty popular among Republicans outside the Trump cult, being his main opponent in the primaries. The fact that Kamala Harris was a woman certainly wouldn’t have deterred Nikki Haley primary voters from swinging their votes to Harris in the general. Secondly, a lot of Obama voters (who apparently were fine voting for a black candidate) ended up voting for Trump. If the Democrats had kept all the Obama voters, I think we’d have President Harris now.

I think Kamala Harris is a highly intelligent and accomplished woman, imminently capable of being president. Democrats understandably took umbrage to her being described as a DEI candidate. Unfortunately, it was the Democrats who pigeonholed her into that slot. Instead of Biden saying that after a great deal of research and soul-searching, he had concluded that she was the best running mate and potential Presidential replacement (and the fact that she is both black and female is an interesting coincidence that will be a nice historical footnote but has no bearing on her selection), he vowed to select a woman and then was publicly pressured to select a black woman. So the message wasn’t that he had selected the best candidate who happened to be a black woman, it was that on the short list of black women he was given to consider, she was the best option available.

The next candidate can be black, white, or any other color. They can be male or female. The “type” doesn’t matter. What matters is convincing the electorate that they were chosen not because of any type, but because their policies will be best both for the country as a whole and, perhaps more importantly, for the individual voter.

You do realize that’s 2 different people right? As far as "type does not matter" please see the title of the thread….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are going to have a primary and hopefully the DNC will let the people choose.

They'll probably bring in super delegates or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talarico for the win. In Texas. For the Senate. And let's keep him in mind as a future Presidential candidate; he's trying to take back Christianity from the cross-wearing hypocrite Republicans and return to the real teachings of Jesus.

Still at it with Talrico. Two reasons he’ll get whiffed. 1. Texas 2. Christianity

How many times can we tell you that Catholics do not identify as Christians? Christian identifiers are extremist freaks and many are sexual deviants.

Trump has never been religious, ever. Pretty sure he’s always been a pervert though.

No one is voting for some rando TX Christian zealot. We don’t need pulpit sophists or brick and mortar to have faith. Middle men need not apply.

[Anonymous]

Greatest appeal to swing voters is the archetype.

I mean run any archetype you want. Do you WANT to win? Appeal to a swing voter.

[Anonymous]

What if the Dems nominated a ticket with one man and one woman and they were both SUPER hot? Like really really hot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talarico for the win. In Texas. For the Senate. And let's keep him in mind as a future Presidential candidate; he's trying to take back Christianity from the cross-wearing hypocrite Republicans and return to the real teachings of Jesus.

Still at it with Talrico. Two reasons he’ll get whiffed. 1. Texas 2. Christianity

How many times can we tell you that Catholics do not identify as Christians? Christian identifiers are extremist freaks and many are sexual deviants.

Trump has never been religious, ever. Pretty sure he’s always been a pervert though.

No one is voting for some rando TX Christian zealot. We don’t need pulpit sophists or brick and mortar to have faith. Middle men need not apply.

He also seems very passive. The country had been dragged so far to the right that we need to elect someone that can right the ship before we even think about “meeting in the middle” and “extending olive branches.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone whose first act will be to rip off all the tacky WH gold barnacles and juvenile Walk of Fame plaques, crowbar Trump’s name off the Kennedy Center, and invite the public to a ritual bonfire.

Someone who will undo all the “executive orders” of the previous four years.

Someone who values competence over loyalty and doesn’t run the government like a Mafia organization.

Someone who isn’t afraid to arrest, try, and sentence everyone who aided and abetted the war crimes and human rights violations of the previous administration.

I don’t care what color, orientation, or gender they are, so long as they have a backbone.

It sounds like bashing Trump is all you care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if the Dems nominated a ticket with one man and one woman and they were both SUPER hot? Like really really hot

This sounds at least partly sarcastic and silly - but unfortunately it is part serious too. The fixation on superficial is why Dems keep losing.
You may not like Trump but at least he had a real plan and he is doing what he promised.