What's the best Democratic Presidential Archetype for 2028?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Pretty funny, your post. The only thing Obama did that was divisive, was be born with the "wrong" skin color. Obamacare is popular and would be more successful if the GOP supported its own healthcare solution, the ACA. 1.5% GDP growth was pretty darned good given what Bush left him to clean up. And it was a far cry better than what Trump left in 2021. Obama didn't surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban - trump did that. Should he have been tougher with Putin? Absolutely, but at least he didn't bow down to him and hand the rest of Ukraine over to Putin like Trump is currently doing. |
Anonymous
Which is why he had his party tank its own immigration reform bill, so he could release his own gestapo on the workers of this country. 
|
Anonymous
Actually, no it isn't. At least not in practice, but then again, the GOP is great at gaslighting and lying. |
Anonymous
Trump got more votes, by far, in 2020 and 2024 than any Republican ever. Not just absolutely, but as a % of registered voters and as a % of the population too. Your analysis that he just won because of weak Democrats is not supported by the numbers. (And, by the way, those weak Democrats in 2020 and 2024 also got more votes by far than any Democrats ever. Also because of Trump.) Dismissing Trump's performances in 2016 and 2020 as outliers that we didn't need to reckon with is the reason he won again in 2024. And dismissing his 2024 victory as an outlier is making the same mistake that has already burned us. We need to stop telling people why they voted for him ("You're stupid and you made a mistake") and start ASKING people why they voted for him. |
Anonymous
|
Gavin Newsom is a fine lookin' sociopath. Which is usually perfect for politics. But he's got a few problems: 1) As slick as he is with friendly media, he's not great in debates and he's going to have a tough time messaging against JD Vance, who is just plain smarter than Gavin 2) One-party rule in California hasn't worked out that well. California Democrats make the Minnesota Somali frauds look like childs play. California Democratic Party insiders have essentially stolen many tens of billions in funding for homelessness reduction and for building high speed rail. San Francisco crime has risen a lot under Newsom, with lots of shoplifting, lots of car thefts, lots of poop on the streets, and lots of businesses and stores just closing down. The natural disasters haven't been handled well at all. The Covid policies in California (YEARS of school closures, arrests of people trying to get fresh air, Gavin and his cronies caught enjoying maskless luxury meals during lockdowns, etc.) Liberal policies on trans, illegal immigration, etc. are extreme enough in California (thanks in part to the lack of corrective influence from a second competitive politial party) that they won't play well in Peoria. A lot of the sexual stuff that State Senator Weiner has successfully pushed through the legislature will shock swing voters in other states. 3) Gavin's wife is an asset and a liability. Tragically, she was raped by Harvey Weinstein, but then suffered some kind of Stockholm Syndrome and stayed in touch with him afterwards, asking for political advice. She's a victim and deserves sympathy, but purely from the political image standpoint, it's not ideal. Any association with Weinstein will play as kind of seedy and somehow quintessentially Californian. Gavin is famous and good-looking, but his track record is a problem. First of all, it's bad. And second of all, it's bad in a way that opponents will use to discredit Democrats. People have often looked to California as "where the future happens first." And a lot of Americans will say no thank you to that. From forest fires to school closures, to homelessness, to crime, to illegal immigration, California will be portrayed as "where Democrats want to take the whole country," and that's a problem. I wonder if Gavin could be a VP candidate to a female Presidential candidate? That would let us take advantage of his good traits, while maybe taking the California track record off of center stage. It'll be like, look, Dems have good looking, charming, looks the part candidates, but don't worry about California, the key policies will be set by the Prez who is from Arizona or wherever. |
Anonymous
Trump was a formidable populist candidate in 2016. In 2020, with all the advantages of being the incumbent, he lost to a 77 year old politician who had never had previous success outside of Delaware even when he was much more fit for office. In 2024, Trump could only garner 50% of the popular vote and 312 electoral votes when running against a last minute replacement candidate who was the VP for the very unpopular POTUS she replaced. A normal or at least average POTUS candidate would have won at least 60% of the popular vote and 500 electoral votes if running against the unprecedented Dem Party election debacle in 2024. Trump was a very weak major party nominee in 2020 and 2024 and him being the current sitting POTUS puts all GOP politicians running for office in a very vulnerable position through 2028. The numbers don't lie. Any objective-minded political scientist would tell you the same. It is what it is. |
Anonymous
|
You're completely wrong, and you're the demoralization guy again. Telling Dems that the decade of anguish they've endured under Trump doesn't mean anything or contain any clues they can learn from. "Trump was such a weak candidate in 2020 and 2024."
The numbers don't lie, indeed, and Trump's voter increase between 2016 and 2020 was massive by historical standards. He picked up more than 14 million ADDITIONAL votes vs. his 2016 victory, the biggest incumbent President vote increase in 50 years. And indeed Joe Biden was a terrible candidate--a shell of his former self who had failed to garner even significant primary support in his multiple previous Presidential bids while younger, sharper, and healthier. But he needed to beat Barack Obama's vote getting record by more than 12 million votes to eke out a victory over the strong candidate Trump. He needed a pandemic, a change in mail-in voting rules, 25 million extra voters, and an extra week of counting to win by 70,000 votes across the three deciding swing states. Joe Biden's electoral performance in 2020 was astonishing, the strongest by any Presidential candidate ever. And it was NEEDED, because Trump's electoral performance in 2020 was also astonishing, the strongest by any Presidential candidate ever except for Joe Biden 2020. Trump had been demonized as a Russian spy for years by Democrats and had already been impeached, and still he set these records. Maybe you just hate Trump and have to keep insisting to yourself that he was a weak candidate? But I suspect you hate the Democrats more and you want them to keep sleepwalking, keep ignoring voter preferences, and keep hoping they can win solely by campaigning against Trump even though Trump won't be running. Anyway, I think it's wonderful that you're always here on every thread about how Democrats can win, and with which candidate, to insist again and again and again that Democrats should do nothing, don't have to worry about it, don't need to think about strong candidates, and can just trust that Democrats will easily win with whatever candidate emerges from the DNC-donor-controlled primaries that you say will "hopefully" be fair this time. LOL. This poster has your back, Dems. He says you don't need a candidate, you shouldn't change any policies, and you'll easily beat any Republican who runs. He'll say it hundreds of more times! He's got a very high tolerance for typing the same things over and over again! |
Anonymous
Joe Biden was elected Vice President of the United States. Twice. |
Anonymous
Trump LOST to Joe frickin Biden. Enough said. Dems can run another Joe Biden in 2028 and they'll still win because Trump will be the sitting POTUS with a 38% job approval rating. Stop overthinking it. Unpopular presidents lead to guaranteed losses and that's all we've seen since 2017. Policy means nothing when the sitting POTUS is an unfit 80 year old. Been here, done this. |
Anonymous
Wow. So wrong. |
Anonymous
Ummm... Obama was elected, yes. Biden was the 2008 Dem canditate who got crushed, absolutely destroyed, by legitimate POTUS candidates Obama and HRC in 2008 primary. Anyone who thought that idiot was our best bet to pin down MAGA for 8 years is as stupid as the MAGA idiots. |
Anonymous
Democrats, we can stop strategizing now. Our friendly demoralization specialist prolific poster keeps telling us that Republicans can't win because Trump's approval rating is low. This is the pattern he says he has seen since 2017. So we're all set. We don't need a candidate and we don't need policies that appeal to voters. We just need to sit back, relax, and enjoy this pattern that will guarantee us an easy victory. |
Anonymous
…and even if they could win we don’t need another milquetoast centrist, because nothing will change he and we will be just as bad off in 4-8 years. We need a fighter that’s going to right the ship and go after the criminals in the current administration. |
Anonymous
I feel the same way about the criminals in the current administration that you do. But how do you prosecute them without giving MAGA their "lawfare" and "weaponization" talking points? The Biden administration went out of their way to allow Jack Smith to be independent, but you wouldn't know that from watching Fox News. The Mueller investigation gets the same treatment even though Mueller is a Republican appointed by Trump's own Deputy AG. |