WHO? New Democratic Nominee Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the democrats could choose a candidate that doesn't make the young voters want to end it all, it'd be amazing. Seriously, there is no benefit for any young person to vote in this upcoming election.

I agree, but whenever people make these suggestions, the haters shout them down. "Bernie is too extreme! Schumer is a pipe dream! Pete has no experience!" It's like the old guard wants to lose as long as they can continue to call ALL the shots.

Bernie IS too extreme. Schumer isn't anyone's pipe dream. Pete didn't get anywhere the last time he tried to run for president. Are you desperate to lose? I am not desperate to lose.

Schumer and Pete aren't ideal candidates but they are obviously better than Trump or Biden. Bernie is older than Biden so no. The only losers at this point are people that think Trump or Biden are our best options for POTUS until 2029.

Schumer and Pete both share the liability of being a big "wow!" announcement that fizzles. Sorry of like Desantis was for the right. But I think their natural magnetism coupled by the unusual circumstances of this year's election temper those concerns.

Personally, with Schumer, I think you get equal parts steak and sizzle. With Pete, you get a dash less sizzle but much less steak.

There's no sizzle or steak with either of them. FFS get your heads out of your NY/LA asses. PA, MI, WI and AZ are the ONLY states that matter. If someone does not appeal to those states more than old man Biden and Harris then there is no point and you need to circle the wagons around Joe.

Just about anyone with a pulse is more appealing than Biden in all states at this point. Get your head out of the sand or else the blood of a second Trump term will be on your hands.

Die hard dems might be enchanted by Joe Biden, but nobody else likes Biden. They don’t hate him or feel any type of way about him. He’s just there. Voters need to be excited about a candidate to vote for them. There’s no excitement around Joe Biden; there is the opposite now after the debate- disgust, derision, disbelief he’s even alive much less running the country.

Under normal circumstances this is true. But when the opponent is Trump the circumstances are anything but normal and many of us will enthusiastically vote for anybody who is not Trump.

Biden will not inspire regular people to drive to the polls and vote. He has now gone in the opposite direction and will inspire people to drive to the polls to vote for Trump.

I could be wrong, I don’t think I am though. We will see in November.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure I’ve ever been “excited” about a political candidate other than Hilary.
Doesnt impact the fact that I always vote. Theres always a better candidate and one that is better suited to my values. Who cares about excitement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not saying it's practical, but a Schumer / Jeffries ticket would positively electrify the electorate and capture the youth vote that has drifted from Biden as of late

He is 73 yo. It's obvious you are not around GenZ on a daily basis.

I am honestly shocked how many older GenX and young Boomers have their head in the sand. The old-line Dems are sinking the ship and the captain has no idea.

I will confess I find the idea of a second American Camelot (which this would be) positively thrilling. though I do believe it would appear to generation z, as well.

You think Schumer would be a second Camelot???? Please tell me no. Kennedy was 43 and had a glamorous wife and lifestyle.

Lol. Exactly.

Chuck Schumer is married to Iris Weinshall, the COO for the New York Public Library. They are 100% a power couple. I'm sorry if they're not young and fit enough for you, but for the rest of us here in the real world, they're positively invigorating. And if people think he's too "old," well, Hakeem Jeffries would be on the ticket, as well.

Americans would be breaking down the doors to the polling stations to get inside and vote for Chuck and Iris, NYC power couple, to win the WH.

There is nothing, nothing, that American voters admire more than NYC power couples.

LOL PLEASE RUN CHUCK JEWMER

That is another name being lobbed around as a possible replacement. I am serious when I ask this: who in the democrat party thinks that Chuck Schumer is appealing as a viable national candidate? Are you high on meth and fentanyl? How long have you been high on that combo to think Schumer would be the one? I don’t understand how these candidates are considered as possible contenders. I swear to God an intelligent breed dog could run against Schumer for president and win. He has no appeal to anyone outside of NY/dem circles.

Schumer, like any other living Dem politician, is a better option than Biden but he is far from a strong national candidate otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Any name put in would have to have a reason why you are putting in this name instead of the guy who was voted for in primaries.

The answer to that question would require removing Biden as the current President and having President Harris.

So the answer to the question is Kamala Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe isn’t leaving, nobody is taking his job.
Why can’t you understand that? The same way people denied he was deteriorating, they are denying his solid determination to stay in the race.

I agree with this, with one caveat: If national polls show a consistent double-digit lead for Trump post-debate, the calls for Biden to step down prior to the convention will become deafening. If Biden agreed to this, he would endorse Kamala Harris and the party would rally behind her because what choice would they have? She’s the sitting Vice-President and bypassing her for a white male or white female would obliterate the Democratic coalition. It would be a complete sh*tshow.

If Harris became the nominee at the convention, she would likely choose a well-known, probably white male VP. Well-known because there wouldn’t be time for a proper vetting. Maybe someone like Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut.

And it would be a Reagan-like landslide for Trump if Democrats went with Kamala Harris. And they'd lose the Senate and the House would remain Republican.

So, you know, there's also that to consider.

Maybe yes, maybe no. But I would much rather take my chances with Harris over Whitmer/Newsom and a blown-up coalition.

Why don't you research who you want and their results instead of just throwing names around because they have a "D" next to it? Why would I want Gavin Newsom given his record?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/11/how-california-became-a-warning-to-the-world/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any name put in would have to have a reason why you are putting in this name instead of the guy who was voted for in primaries.

The answer to that question would require removing Biden as the current President and having President Harris.

So the answer to the question is Kamala Harris.

Harris is clearly a better option than Trump or Biden but if Biden were to step away from seeking a second term, Harris would not be an auto choice as the nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any name put in would have to have a reason why you are putting in this name instead of the guy who was voted for in primaries.

The answer to that question would require removing Biden as the current President and having President Harris.

So the answer to the question is Kamala Harris.

Not if you actually want to win. Considering that this election is the dividing line between democracy and autocracy - she, and her friends, need to put their egos aside and do what's best for the country.

Maybe Kamala and Pence can run together on a third party ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the democrats could choose a candidate that doesn't make the young voters want to end it all, it'd be amazing. Seriously, there is no benefit for any young person to vote in this upcoming election.

I agree, but whenever people make these suggestions, the haters shout them down. "Bernie is too extreme! Schumer is a pipe dream! Pete has no experience!" It's like the old guard wants to lose as long as they can continue to call ALL the shots.

Bernie IS too extreme. Schumer isn't anyone's pipe dream. Pete didn't get anywhere the last time he tried to run for president. Are you desperate to lose? I am not desperate to lose.

Schumer and Pete aren't ideal candidates but they are obviously better than Trump or Biden. Bernie is older than Biden so no. The only losers at this point are people that think Trump or Biden are our best options for POTUS until 2029.

Schumer and Pete both share the liability of being a big "wow!" announcement that fizzles. Sorry of like Desantis was for the right. But I think their natural magnetism coupled by the unusual circumstances of this year's election temper those concerns.

Personally, with Schumer, I think you get equal parts steak and sizzle. With Pete, you get a dash less sizzle but much less steak.

There's no sizzle or steak with either of them. FFS get your heads out of your NY/LA asses. PA, MI, WI and AZ are the ONLY states that matter. If someone does not appeal to those states more than old man Biden and Harris then there is no point and you need to circle the wagons around Joe.

Just about anyone with a pulse is more appealing than Biden in all states at this point. Get your head out of the sand or else the blood of a second Trump term will be on your hands.

My head is not in the sand. Schumer, Harris, and Buttigieg are all less electable than Weekend at Bernie's Joe. It's a freakin nightmarish joke that people even suggest them in good faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I’ve ever been “excited” about a political candidate other than Hilary.
Doesnt impact the fact that I always vote. Theres always a better candidate and one that is better suited to my values. Who cares about excitement.

Ok well you need to think about young people. You might always vote but let's face it young people sometimes stay home. Yes they put in the work to vote for Obama but they probably won't do the same for Biden. So before you decide you don't "need" a candidate like Chuck or Pete or whoever else, think about what's likely to happen with young voters on election day.

[Anonymous]

Gina Raimondo
Gretchen Whitmer

[Anonymous]

Taylor Swift would solve this entire problem for democrats. She would decimate Trump. Voter turnout would be astronomical.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pete Buttigieg

LOL middle america is not voting for a openly gay man

+1
Especially when he is unqualified and incompetent, not to mention openly gay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Swift would solve this entire problem for democrats. She would decimate Trump. Voter turnout would be astronomical.

Very true, and she would have the ability to serve as President about equal to Biden or Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She does this a lot. On debate night in 3 different interviews she said the exact same "Slow start, but I thought he had a really strong ending."