Who is going to be next presidential candidate for democrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a Newsom / Rahm ticket. That is, normal people with rational views who don’t cater to the weirdo fringe.

Dems should be wary of nominating someone who has ties to a jewish zio-terrorist when the party is becoming anti-zionist. That would be Rahm's dad.

You responded to a troll. Rahm Emmanuel is not even in the room when discussing possible presidential candidates.

Not a troll. He seems to be running.

Whether he can get on the stage is a different question, but he's got his sights fixed.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/29/rahm-emanuel-2028-presidential-election-campaign-primary-00848895

https://www.ms.now/opinion/msnbc-opinion/rahm-emanuel-president-election-2028-obama-democrats-rcna209216

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/politics/rahm-emanuel-confirms-hes-eyeing-run-president/

https://www.rahm2028.org/

https://www.axios.com/2026/01/11/rahm-emanuel-2028-campaign-president

I posted this, but I realize I'm not the PP that was being responded to -- I mentioned Rahm a bunch of pages ago, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner/AOC

Too anti-zionist. Dnc would never

You all know that there are people in this country who aren’t in the DSA right? A Platner/AOC ticket might win with hipsters in Brooklyn but never ever a national election.

I think that people are tired of choosing between far right and slightly less far right candidates.

Bingo. I know it will never happen, but I'm just so tired of Democrats pandering to "moderate" Republicans, or being criticized for not pandering enough. Any Democratic ticket is going to be criticized by the right and the middle, so why not just go further to the left and at least energize those of us who are sick of Democrats who are just slightly more ethical Republicans.

Because the majority of America isn't woke and insane and will vote for JD Vance even though they might not want to. Dems need to present a candidate who projects normalcy.

This! JD Vance or Rubio would clobber someone like AOC in states like VA, NC, PA, and Michigan. The vast majority of people are not far left by any measure, especially when it comes to far left social issues. Kamala was dragged for being too far left socially. What do you think will happen to AOC? There are probably reels of clips of her saying outlandish “woke” stuff that the Republicans can play on loops in between Monday Night Football games leading up to the election.

Bernie was more feasible precisely because he had more old school left wing politics that focused on class and not race and gender. He was way more palatable in the Midwest than someone like AOC.

I think there's a lot of copium here. It's possible someone like AOC when when because she's a woman and young but not because of her policies.
So yeah Bernie was more popular because he was an old white man not because his policies were radically different.

But my point is everybody wants to believe the country is centrist but they want change. They want something better, different.

So Dems can offer up the same old same old and people look for change in the grifter like Trump or they can offer up someone who's actually trying like Mamdani and probably win.

No one votes for the centris of the world because her passionate about him. They vote because it's all they've ever been offered.

You didn't read a word the pp said. Sanders was popular because he was focused on class. AOC will have issues because she was very focused on race and gender. Both are called progressives. But one is very inclusive with his focus on class and economic issues. But AOC is perceived as divisive because she has so much on LatinX, CIS gender whatever, restorative justice for violent men, trans women in women's sports, get rid of advanced math because equity, BLM protests, and on and on.

That whole period in 2020 or so was a brief moment in time. And it didn't resonate with the majority of Americans because it divides everyone into smaller and smaller groups and identities. Whereas Sanders stayed away from all that identity stuff and remained focused on class and how the rich are exploiting everyone. That shit has resonated in America since 1776. LatinX and all the other nomenclature about equity and whatever is something dreamed up by some college professors. It doesn't click with white, asian, black, hispanic, and the gazillions of us that are mixed-race who all just want safe neighborhoods, good schools, and an opportunity to make a living and provide for our families and communities.

If Sanders was 30 years younger, he'd clean up in a post-Trump election in 2028. But AOC is going to struggle because she went all in with the identity garbage from 2020. And I like AOC. I think she's great. But I don't think for a minute she's going to win the 7 or so battleground states. Economic progressives will do well. The identity progressives will lose Democrats even more elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner/AOC

Too anti-zionist. Dnc would never

You all know that there are people in this country who aren’t in the DSA right? A Platner/AOC ticket might win with hipsters in Brooklyn but never ever a national election.

I think that people are tired of choosing between far right and slightly less far right candidates.

Bingo. I know it will never happen, but I'm just so tired of Democrats pandering to "moderate" Republicans, or being criticized for not pandering enough. Any Democratic ticket is going to be criticized by the right and the middle, so why not just go further to the left and at least energize those of us who are sick of Democrats who are just slightly more ethical Republicans.

Because the majority of America isn't woke and insane and will vote for JD Vance even though they might not want to. Dems need to present a candidate who projects normalcy.

This! JD Vance or Rubio would clobber someone like AOC in states like VA, NC, PA, and Michigan. The vast majority of people are not far left by any measure, especially when it comes to far left social issues. Kamala was dragged for being too far left socially. What do you think will happen to AOC? There are probably reels of clips of her saying outlandish “woke” stuff that the Republicans can play on loops in between Monday Night Football games leading up to the election.

Bernie was more feasible precisely because he had more old school left wing politics that focused on class and not race and gender. He was way more palatable in the Midwest than someone like AOC.

I think there's a lot of copium here. It's possible someone like AOC when when because she's a woman and young but not because of her policies.
So yeah Bernie was more popular because he was an old white man not because his policies were radically different.

But my point is everybody wants to believe the country is centrist but they want change. They want something better, different.

So Dems can offer up the same old same old and people look for change in the grifter like Trump or they can offer up someone who's actually trying like Mamdani and probably win.

No one votes for the centris of the world because her passionate about him. They vote because it's all they've ever been offered.

You didn't read a word the pp said. Sanders was popular because he was focused on class. AOC will have issues because she was very focused on race and gender. Both are called progressives. But one is very inclusive with his focus on class and economic issues. But AOC is perceived as divisive because she has so much on LatinX, CIS gender whatever, restorative justice for violent men, trans women in women's sports, get rid of advanced math because equity, BLM protests, and on and on.

That whole period in 2020 or so was a brief moment in time. And it didn't resonate with the majority of Americans because it divides everyone into smaller and smaller groups and identities. Whereas Sanders stayed away from all that identity stuff and remained focused on class and how the rich are exploiting everyone. That shit has resonated in America since 1776. LatinX and all the other nomenclature about equity and whatever is something dreamed up by some college professors. It doesn't click with white, asian, black, hispanic, and the gazillions of us that are mixed-race who all just want safe neighborhoods, good schools, and an opportunity to make a living and provide for our families and communities.

If Sanders was 30 years younger, he'd clean up in a post-Trump election in 2028. But AOC is going to struggle because she went all in with the identity garbage from 2020. And I like AOC. I think she's great. But I don't think for a minute she's going to win the 7 or so battleground states. Economic progressives will do well. The identity progressives will lose Democrats even more elections.

who is a younger Sanders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a Roosevelt type. Either Teddy or Franklin.

Both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt would be dream candidates today. But it’s been a very long time since the inherited rich produced people with character, energy, and vision. It’s a lazy and cynical class of families in 2026. Nothing good is coming from the wealthy families today. It’s different times.

It’s getting worrisome no one obvious has emerged yet. After midterms, Republicans are going to move quickly to the post Trump world and may nominate someone tough to beat. Meanwhile, Democrats are languishing in the post Biden/Harris hangover. Schumer and Jeffries are the head of the party. And everyone is blah about Democrats today. The clock is ticking.

All this. The wealthy are mediocre, uninspiring, uninspired. They exist because they do and really don't add much value, only looking for ways to take-- take money, take resources, take data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner/AOC

Too anti-zionist. Dnc would never

You all know that there are people in this country who aren’t in the DSA right? A Platner/AOC ticket might win with hipsters in Brooklyn but never ever a national election.

I think that people are tired of choosing between far right and slightly less far right candidates.

Bingo. I know it will never happen, but I'm just so tired of Democrats pandering to "moderate" Republicans, or being criticized for not pandering enough. Any Democratic ticket is going to be criticized by the right and the middle, so why not just go further to the left and at least energize those of us who are sick of Democrats who are just slightly more ethical Republicans.

Because the majority of America isn't woke and insane and will vote for JD Vance even though they might not want to. Dems need to present a candidate who projects normalcy.

This! JD Vance or Rubio would clobber someone like AOC in states like VA, NC, PA, and Michigan. The vast majority of people are not far left by any measure, especially when it comes to far left social issues. Kamala was dragged for being too far left socially. What do you think will happen to AOC? There are probably reels of clips of her saying outlandish “woke” stuff that the Republicans can play on loops in between Monday Night Football games leading up to the election.

Bernie was more feasible precisely because he had more old school left wing politics that focused on class and not race and gender. He was way more palatable in the Midwest than someone like AOC.

MAGAs are the ones focusing on race and gender. And I'm laughing at you thinking there are clips of AOC saying outlandish things. Have you heard Trump lately? Do you honestly think that JD Vance threatening the Pope ISN'T outlandish?

DP I am not saying it’s right but she will not be taken seriously outside of the more urban and more liberal areas. AOC will not win a national election because she will struggle in swing states. It might not be fair to her but it is what it is.

This. Outside of big Democrat cities that are trying out the likes of Mamdani and female Democrat mayors and governors, no one else is interested in AOC. Republican states abhor her, and she's not worth the risk in swing states as voters would not trust what they'd be getting with her would actually serve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner/AOC

Too anti-zionist. Dnc would never

You all know that there are people in this country who aren’t in the DSA right? A Platner/AOC ticket might win with hipsters in Brooklyn but never ever a national election.

I think that people are tired of choosing between far right and slightly less far right candidates.

Bingo. I know it will never happen, but I'm just so tired of Democrats pandering to "moderate" Republicans, or being criticized for not pandering enough. Any Democratic ticket is going to be criticized by the right and the middle, so why not just go further to the left and at least energize those of us who are sick of Democrats who are just slightly more ethical Republicans.

Because the majority of America isn't woke and insane and will vote for JD Vance even though they might not want to. Dems need to present a candidate who projects normalcy.

This! JD Vance or Rubio would clobber someone like AOC in states like VA, NC, PA, and Michigan. The vast majority of people are not far left by any measure, especially when it comes to far left social issues. Kamala was dragged for being too far left socially. What do you think will happen to AOC? There are probably reels of clips of her saying outlandish “woke” stuff that the Republicans can play on loops in between Monday Night Football games leading up to the election.

Bernie was more feasible precisely because he had more old school left wing politics that focused on class and not race and gender. He was way more palatable in the Midwest than someone like AOC.

I think there's a lot of copium here. It's possible someone like AOC when when because she's a woman and young but not because of her policies.
So yeah Bernie was more popular because he was an old white man not because his policies were radically different.

But my point is everybody wants to believe the country is centrist but they want change. They want something better, different.

So Dems can offer up the same old same old and people look for change in the grifter like Trump or they can offer up someone who's actually trying like Mamdani and probably win.

No one votes for the centris of the world because her passionate about him. They vote because it's all they've ever been offered.

You didn't read a word the pp said. Sanders was popular because he was focused on class. AOC will have issues because she was very focused on race and gender. Both are called progressives. But one is very inclusive with his focus on class and economic issues. But AOC is perceived as divisive because she has so much on LatinX, CIS gender whatever, restorative justice for violent men, trans women in women's sports, get rid of advanced math because equity, BLM protests, and on and on.

That whole period in 2020 or so was a brief moment in time. And it didn't resonate with the majority of Americans because it divides everyone into smaller and smaller groups and identities. Whereas Sanders stayed away from all that identity stuff and remained focused on class and how the rich are exploiting everyone. That shit has resonated in America since 1776. LatinX and all the other nomenclature about equity and whatever is something dreamed up by some college professors. It doesn't click with white, asian, black, hispanic, and the gazillions of us that are mixed-race who all just want safe neighborhoods, good schools, and an opportunity to make a living and provide for our families and communities.

If Sanders was 30 years younger, he'd clean up in a post-Trump election in 2028. But AOC is going to struggle because she went all in with the identity garbage from 2020. And I like AOC. I think she's great. But I don't think for a minute she's going to win the 7 or so battleground states. Economic progressives will do well. The identity progressives will lose Democrats even more elections.

"safe neighborhoods, good schools" are code for white supremacy. Do better.

NP. No they are not, or at least they should not be. There are smart, hardworking students of a variety of skin colors. There are families of all racial backgrounds just looking to raise their kids in decent, safe, affordable places & have their kids get an education solid enough to have a good career as an adult. This is basic stuff & it doesn't matter about gender, race, gay or straight- whatever, just give us safe, stable lives we can afford and stop the divisive nonsense.

Does the PP you are responding to really believe that all people don't want safe neighborhoods for their families? And, good schools?

I don't think free grocery stores are at the top of the list.

[Anonymous]

Hillary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Andy Bashear would be my choice, and then Gretchen Whitmer

no one from the coasts, no one of color, no one with AIPAC issues.

I don’t know if this was pointed out yet….but saying someone should not be a presidential candidate because of the color of their skin is RACIST.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary?

She'll be 80 shortly. I think the one thing everyone agrees on is no more old people for the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary?

She'll be 80 shortly. I think the one thing everyone agrees on is no more old
people for the presidency.

This. Enough is enough. Retire by 65-70 like most with significant assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner/AOC

Too anti-zionist. Dnc would never

You all know that there are people in this country who aren’t in the DSA right? A Platner/AOC ticket might win with hipsters in Brooklyn but never ever a national election.

I think that people are tired of choosing between far right and slightly less far right candidates.

Bingo. I know it will never happen, but I'm just so tired of Democrats pandering to "moderate" Republicans, or being criticized for not pandering enough. Any Democratic ticket is going to be criticized by the right and the middle, so why not just go further to the left and at least energize those of us who are sick of Democrats who are just slightly more ethical Republicans.

Because the majority of America isn't woke and insane and will vote for JD Vance even though they might not want to. Dems need to present a candidate who projects normalcy.

This! JD Vance or Rubio would clobber someone like AOC in states like VA, NC, PA, and Michigan. The vast majority of people are not far left by any measure, especially when it comes to far left social issues. Kamala was dragged for being too far left socially. What do you think will happen to AOC? There are probably reels of clips of her saying outlandish “woke” stuff that the Republicans can play on loops in between Monday Night Football games leading up to the election.

Bernie was more feasible precisely because he had more old school left wing politics that focused on class and not race and gender. He was way more palatable in the Midwest than someone like AOC.

I think there's a lot of copium here. It's possible someone like AOC when when because she's a woman and young but not because of her policies.
So yeah Bernie was more popular because he was an old white man not because his policies were radically different.

But my point is everybody wants to believe the country is centrist but they want change. They want something better, different.

So Dems can offer up the same old same old and people look for change in the grifter like Trump or they can offer up someone who's actually trying like Mamdani and probably win.

No one votes for the centris of the world because her passionate about him. They vote because it's all they've ever been offered.

You didn't read a word the pp said. Sanders was popular because he was focused on class. AOC will have issues because she was very focused on race and gender. Both are called progressives. But one is very inclusive with his focus on class and economic issues. But AOC is perceived as divisive because she has so much on LatinX, CIS gender whatever, restorative justice for violent men, trans women in women's sports, get rid of advanced math because equity, BLM protests, and on and on.

That whole period in 2020 or so was a brief moment in time. And it didn't resonate with the majority of Americans because it divides everyone into smaller and smaller groups and identities. Whereas Sanders stayed away from all that identity stuff and remained focused on class and how the rich are exploiting everyone. That shit has resonated in America since 1776. LatinX and all the other nomenclature about equity and whatever is something dreamed up by some college professors. It doesn't click with white, asian, black, hispanic, and the gazillions of us that are mixed-race who all just want safe neighborhoods, good schools, and an opportunity to make a living and provide for our families and communities.

If Sanders was 30 years younger, he'd clean up in a post-Trump election in 2028. But AOC is going to struggle because she went all in with the identity garbage from 2020. And I like AOC. I think she's great. But I don't think for a minute she's going to win the 7 or so battleground states. Economic progressives will do well. The identity progressives will lose Democrats even more elections.

"safe neighborhoods, good schools" are code for white supremacy. Do better.

'Cause all those black folks love violent neighborhoods and shitty schools. It's their culture and should be celebrated! - say progressives. Are you going to hand out some watermelons and have an ATV party, next? Any other racial tropes you'd like to roll with?

I'm just quoting the chart made by the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture. You'll have to take it up with them.

DP. That's right! I had forgotten about that unbelievable chart. Were they made to take it down? I think that exemplified the lowest low of the far-left nuttiness. I still can't believe they thought that was somehow a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Andy Bashear would be my choice, and then Gretchen Whitmer

no one from the coasts, no one of color, no one with AIPAC issues.

I don’t know if this was pointed out yet….but saying someone should not be a presidential candidate because of the color of their skin is RACIST.

False. Saying "I won't vote for someone because of their skin color" is racist. Saying "someone shouldn't be a presidential candidate because hillbillies in swing states won't vote for them because of their skin color and we'll be stuck with JD Vance as president" is just good planning.

DP. I totally disagree. Obama won two terms and last I checked, he's black.

This is how those who are racist on the left work. They say…..there’s no way we can have ABC.

“Yes, we can!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beshear/Warnock is my dream ticket

Listen to Beshear at 40:30 for about a minute. This is all he has to do all campaign cycle. I think the country is going to be shocked to hear from somebody that sounds Presidential again, particularly since we still have 2+ years of having to suffer Trump's anger, stupidity, and dementia.

That's my governor. 😍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beshear/Warnock is my dream ticket

Boring white male, religious black Democrat

Both from the South, both are fairly moderate. Both could appeal to key Democratic constituents and Independents

I think a lot of people are going to have a strong desire for normalcy after 10+ years of political chaos. I have noticed that Beshear has been mostly been staying out of the way of national politics. (Unlike pritzker). This will probably be to his benefit when the time comes. People are going to want to shut the door on this era, and probably act like it never happened.

I disagree. I absolutely refuse to vote for someone who was silent.

Give me Chris Murphy, or AOC, or Melanie Stansbury, or John Ossoff.

There is zero chance I will support Kamala, who had brunch while the country was burning (and I was a huge supporter of hers).

Bashear has not been silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beshear/Warnock is my dream ticket

Boring white male, religious black Democrat

Both from the South, both are fairly moderate. Both could appeal to key Democratic constituents and Independents

I think a lot of people are going to have a strong desire for normalcy after 10+ years of political chaos. I have noticed that Beshear has been mostly been staying out of the way of national politics. (Unlike pritzker). This will probably be to his benefit when the time comes. People are going to want to shut the door on this era, and probably act like it never happened.

I disagree. I absolutely refuse to vote for someone who was silent.

Give me Chris Murphy, or AOC, or Melanie Stansbury, or John Ossoff.

There is zero chance I will support Kamala, who had brunch while the country was burning (and I was a huge supporter of hers).

Bashear has not been silent.

He hasn’t been silent, but he is definitely more low-key than Newsom. I think keeping a low profile until the time comes is a good thing.