What's the best Democratic Presidential Archetype for 2028?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOC needs time to learn. I'm not sure who to blame. AOC or her staff.She ws completely unprepared for Muncih. Venezuela gaff, word salad, ridiculing Rubio on the cowboys originating in Spain. They were called vaqueros, who are cow herders, which mortared in Mexico then US as cowboys. With Hispanic heritage, that makes it even. worse.

Both Newsom and AOC are a mess. So much baggage. Wes Moore caught lying. (and I liked him!) Gov Pete and too soft. We need something just shy of middle age who is dynamic like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I think Newsom could have won who CA is a mess.Pritzker is a mess. 2 badly run states with huge problems. Chris Murphy is holier than though with zero personality. Andy Bershear (Sp) is boring.

I wouldn't risk a woman at this point. Maybe for VP. But I think AOC as VP would be like Vance. Not viable as president. I think Pelosi gave her advice. Learn, get some chops, then be the new generation.

But who would have guessed Mamadai would win NYC. Though he is good looking and personably, and his opponents were hard Nos. Perfect storm for him to get elected.

Most off the radar sane people have little interest in turning their lives upside down to run for president.

We don’t need a charismatic superstar. I’m tired of the Presidency as a cult of personality - give me someone who is rational, diligent, and competent as a Chief Executive. I’d be fine with Beshear or Kelly.

Kelly would be perfect if he weren't such a boring speaker.

- reddish purple state with decent amount of electoral votes
- ex-military
- pro gun control
- untouchable personal life

And he's an astronaut!

But he comes across like dry toast personified when he speaks.

I don’t disagree with you on these points. My DH watches MSNow and Kelly is a regular on the shows there, I feel like he’s trying to practice and improve his “presence”. I hope he succeeds because the idea of him as our president after whatever this era of crazy is such a relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more names floated here the more I think AOC is the only viable choice.

I guess you didn't see her looking like a fool at the Munich Conference. Get clued in.

yes, I did and she sounds more Presidential than our current President and more authentic then the BWM (ie boring white men) mentioned here.

I’m opened to other ideas but Newsome, Murphy, Prtizker, none inspiring. AOC at least opens up some real emotion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to be Gavin Newsom. Straight from central casting.

His ex-wife is currently Trump’s Ambassador to Greece and she was formerly engaged to Trump’s son. I think that should sink him.

Agreed. Poor judgement. It matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more names floated here the more I think AOC is the only viable choice.

Yeah, someone who may not be able to win an election for statewide office in NY is a totally viable candidate in a national election 🙄

Her career ceiling is capped where she is now because she hasn't yet committed to selling herself to the megadonors. I commend her for not selling out.

Her career ceiling is capped at the moment because up until recently she has been so unabashedly far left that she had no chance winning outside of her small liberal district. To be honest I think she’s too scared to challenge Schumer because if she can’t win a statewide race in NY you can stick a fork her in her national aspirations.

Oh yes. Let the lesson learned from Trump’s reelection after inciting violence in the Capitol and being convinced of assault be that we only focus on candidates that are not “far” anything (ie have true conviction). If that’s the bar you are setting we’ve lost already.people in ur country clearly want change. They’ve voted for that in the last 5 Presidential elections (since Obama’s “hope” election). Do you want someone to ride that wave taking us farther right or left? The rightward shift we are riding now is terrible IMO and vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOC needs time to learn. I'm not sure who to blame. AOC or her staff.She ws completely unprepared for Muncih. Venezuela gaff, word salad, ridiculing Rubio on the cowboys originating in Spain. They were called vaqueros, who are cow herders, which mortared in Mexico then US as cowboys. With Hispanic heritage, that makes it even. worse.

Both Newsom and AOC are a mess. So much baggage. Wes Moore caught lying. (and I liked him!) Gov Pete and too soft. We need something just shy of middle age who is dynamic like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I think Newsom could have won who CA is a mess.Pritzker is a mess. 2 badly run states with huge problems. Chris Murphy is holier than though with zero personality. Andy Bershear (Sp) is boring.

I wouldn't risk a woman at this point. Maybe for VP. But I think AOC as VP would be like Vance. Not viable as president. I think Pelosi gave her advice. Learn, get some chops, then be the new generation.

But who would have guessed Mamadai would win NYC. Though he is good looking and personably, and his opponents were hard Nos. Perfect storm for him to get elected.

Most off the radar sane people have little interest in turning their lives upside down to run for president.

We don’t need a charismatic superstar. I’m tired of the Presidency as a cult of personality - give me someone who is rational, diligent, and competent as a Chief Executive. I’d be fine with Beshear or Kelly.

Like it or not, charisma is more important now than ever before. And if you look at modern two-term presidents, they all had charisma - Reagan, Clinton, Obama, even W. The only time boring and bland worked was with Biden - and look where we are today. Biden was meant to be the dull placeholder after Trump 1.0, which led directly to the disaster that is Trump 2.0.

Plus, we don't know who the Republican candidate will be. It's foolish to assume it'll be Vance. This very well could be a real competitive race if the GOP gets over its Trump problem. Kelly and Beasher seem like perfectly decent men, but they don't inspire. And Democrats need a genuine leader for the next 8 years to undue all the damage that Trump has done. The vast majority of voters are not policy wonks inside the beltway. Democrats need someone that can transcend all the media noise and really connect with average Americans. And I'm still not seeing anyone from among the usual names. I agree that AOC took a giant step backwards with her appearance in Munich - not ready for primetime. And Newsom with his slick hair and California baggage is never winning PA, MI, WI, GA, NC and other states that Democrats really need to win. But somebody better emerge soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has to be Gavin Newsom. Straight from central casting.

As a Californian, this is an astonishing idea. Have you seen what he has done to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOC needs time to learn. I'm not sure who to blame. AOC or her staff.She ws completely unprepared for Muncih. Venezuela gaff, word salad, ridiculing Rubio on the cowboys originating in Spain. They were called vaqueros, who are cow herders, which mortared in Mexico then US as cowboys. With Hispanic heritage, that makes it even. worse.

Both Newsom and AOC are a mess. So much baggage. Wes Moore caught lying. (and I liked him!) Gov Pete and too soft. We need something just shy of middle age who is dynamic like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I think Newsom could have won who CA is a mess.Pritzker is a mess. 2 badly run states with huge problems. Chris Murphy is holier than though with zero personality. Andy Bershear (Sp) is boring.

I wouldn't risk a woman at this point. Maybe for VP. But I think AOC as VP would be like Vance. Not viable as president. I think Pelosi gave her advice. Learn, get some chops, then be the new generation.

But who would have guessed Mamadai would win NYC. Though he is good looking and personably, and his opponents were hard Nos. Perfect storm for him to get elected.

Most off the radar sane people have little interest in turning their lives upside down to run for president.

We don’t need a charismatic superstar. I’m tired of the Presidency as a cult of personality - give me someone who is rational, diligent, and competent as a Chief Executive. I’d be fine with Beshear or Kelly.

Kelly would be perfect if he weren't such a boring speaker.

- reddish purple state with decent amount of electoral votes
- ex-military
- pro gun control
- untouchable personal life

And he's an astronaut!

But he comes across like dry toast personified when he speaks.

I’ll take dry toast that values our allies, wasn’t best friends with a pedo, respects his wife, doesn’t tweet embarrassing insanity at 2 am, doesn’t threaten to invade Greenland, and golly gee doesn’t f$&! with our Constitutional rights on a daily basis. Oh, and dry toast without dementia. Imagine waking up in 2029 and such dry toast is POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to be Gavin Newsom. Straight from central casting.

As a Californian, this is an astonishing idea. Have you seen what he has done to us.

He was elected Gov twice by landslides. So, someone in CA must like him, even if you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOC needs time to learn. I'm not sure who to blame. AOC or her staff.She ws completely unprepared for Muncih. Venezuela gaff, word salad, ridiculing Rubio on the cowboys originating in Spain. They were called vaqueros, who are cow herders, which mortared in Mexico then US as cowboys. With Hispanic heritage, that makes it even. worse.

Both Newsom and AOC are a mess. So much baggage. Wes Moore caught lying. (and I liked him!) Gov Pete and too soft. We need something just shy of middle age who is dynamic like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I think Newsom could have won who CA is a mess.Pritzker is a mess. 2 badly run states with huge problems. Chris Murphy is holier than though with zero personality. Andy Bershear (Sp) is boring.

I wouldn't risk a woman at this point. Maybe for VP. But I think AOC as VP would be like Vance. Not viable as president. I think Pelosi gave her advice. Learn, get some chops, then be the new generation.

But who would have guessed Mamadai would win NYC. Though he is good looking and personably, and his opponents were hard Nos. Perfect storm for him to get elected.

Most off the radar sane people have little interest in turning their lives upside down to run for president.

We don’t need a charismatic superstar. I’m tired of the Presidency as a cult of personality - give me someone who is rational, diligent, and competent as a Chief Executive. I’d be fine with Beshear or Kelly.

Kelly would be perfect if he weren't such a boring speaker.

- reddish purple state with decent amount of electoral votes
- ex-military
- pro gun control
- untouchable personal life

And he's an astronaut!

But he comes across like dry toast personified when he speaks.

I don’t disagree with you on these points. My DH watches MSNow and Kelly is a regular on the shows there, I feel like he’s trying to practice and improve his “presence”. I hope he succeeds because the idea of him as our president after whatever this era of crazy is such a relief.

You guys are foolish and going to lose the election again if you don’t make practical decisions about who runs for president in 2028. Mark Kelly has an annoying voice and most people would not consider him good looking. If you want to win, you need to pick someone good looking that is pleasant to listen to. Think about it, many of these politicians that win elections at federal level were hot when they were younger and are much more attractive than the average person. Nancy Pelosi was gorgeous, Obama and RFK jr. were quite handsome. Hillary Clinton was also beautiful. The research is clear that hot people are more likely to win elections, so don’t waste your time with him if you want to win in 2028.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to be Gavin Newsom. Straight from central casting.

As a Californian, this is an astonishing idea. Have you seen what he has done to us.

Is it worse than what Trump has done to us?

[Anonymous]

Can someone knowledgable about Illinois weigh in on Pritzger?

I've been in the "Illinois is an economic disaster" camp, and basically ruled out Pritzger because of that baggage. But I tuned into r/Illinois (which does skew young and left) and they seem to really like him. In particular, the consensus is that the Illinois pension liability issue exploded under previous governors, and Pritzger has been working diligently to whittle it down (although it remains a long term problem).

So, is there a counter-narrative to the "Illinois disaster" narrative that supports Pritzger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOC needs time to learn. I'm not sure who to blame. AOC or her staff.She ws completely unprepared for Muncih. Venezuela gaff, word salad, ridiculing Rubio on the cowboys originating in Spain. They were called vaqueros, who are cow herders, which mortared in Mexico then US as cowboys. With Hispanic heritage, that makes it even. worse.

Both Newsom and AOC are a mess. So much baggage. Wes Moore caught lying. (and I liked him!) Gov Pete and too soft. We need something just shy of middle age who is dynamic like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I think Newsom could have won who CA is a mess.Pritzker is a mess. 2 badly run states with huge problems. Chris Murphy is holier than though with zero personality. Andy Bershear (Sp) is boring.

I wouldn't risk a woman at this point. Maybe for VP. But I think AOC as VP would be like Vance. Not viable as president. I think Pelosi gave her advice. Learn, get some chops, then be the new generation.

But who would have guessed Mamadai would win NYC. Though he is good looking and personably, and his opponents were hard Nos. Perfect storm for him to get elected.

Most off the radar sane people have little interest in turning their lives upside down to run for president.

We don’t need a charismatic superstar. I’m tired of the Presidency as a cult of personality - give me someone who is rational, diligent, and competent as a Chief Executive. I’d be fine with Beshear or Kelly.

Kelly would be perfect if he weren't such a boring speaker.

- reddish purple state with decent amount of electoral votes
- ex-military
- pro gun control
- untouchable personal life

And he's an astronaut!

But he comes across like dry toast personified when he speaks.

I don’t disagree with you on these points. My DH watches MSNow and Kelly is a regular on the shows there, I feel like he’s trying to practice and improve his “presence”. I hope he succeeds because the idea of him as our president after whatever this era of crazy is such a relief.

You guys are foolish and going to lose the election again if you don’t make practical decisions about who runs for president in 2028. Mark Kelly has an annoying voice and most people would not consider him good looking. If you want to win, you need to pick someone good looking that is pleasant to listen to. Think about it, many of these politicians that win elections at federal level were hot when they were younger and are much more attractive than the average person. Nancy Pelosi was gorgeous, Obama and RFK jr. were quite handsome. Hillary Clinton was also beautiful. The research is clear that hot people are more likely to win elections, so don’t waste your time with him if you want to win in 2028.

This is some paid astroturfing BS right here. Trump is “hot”? This means that Kelly is a threat because the smear is already starting lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone knowledgable about Illinois weigh in on Pritzger?

I've been in the "Illinois is an economic disaster" camp, and basically ruled out Pritzger because of that baggage. But I tuned into r/Illinois (which does skew young and left) and they seem to really like him. In particular, the consensus is that the Illinois pension liability issue exploded under previous governors, and Pritzger has been working diligently to whittle it down (although it remains a long term problem).

So, is there a counter-narrative to the "Illinois disaster" narrative that supports Pritzger?

Pritzker is a very competent governor. He's quick on his feet. He's empathetic. He's good on a stage. His biggest problem is that he was a born a billionaire. And once people start digging into the Hyatt Hotels fortune and where Pritzker invests his billions and how he avoids taxes, people will see that he is completely unrelatable. It does not help that his cousin, Thomas Pritzker, is closely linked to Epstein and just resigned as Executive Chairman of Hyatt. Plus, it is clear that a lot of progressives won't for anyone Jewish. So I don't think Gov Pritzker is viable at this moment in time. There is zero demand for yet another billionaire with any kind of links to Epstein, indirect or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AOC needs time to learn. I'm not sure who to blame. AOC or her staff.She ws completely unprepared for Muncih. Venezuela gaff, word salad, ridiculing Rubio on the cowboys originating in Spain. They were called vaqueros, who are cow herders, which mortared in Mexico then US as cowboys. With Hispanic heritage, that makes it even. worse.

Both Newsom and AOC are a mess. So much baggage. Wes Moore caught lying. (and I liked him!) Gov Pete and too soft. We need something just shy of middle age who is dynamic like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I think Newsom could have won who CA is a mess.Pritzker is a mess. 2 badly run states with huge problems. Chris Murphy is holier than though with zero personality. Andy Bershear (Sp) is boring.

I wouldn't risk a woman at this point. Maybe for VP. But I think AOC as VP would be like Vance. Not viable as president. I think Pelosi gave her advice. Learn, get some chops, then be the new generation.

But who would have guessed Mamadai would win NYC. Though he is good looking and personably, and his opponents were hard Nos. Perfect storm for him to get elected.

Most off the radar sane people have little interest in turning their lives upside down to run for president.

58% of democrats say the D party has gone too far to the left. - CNN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone knowledgable about Illinois weigh in on Pritzger?

I've been in the "Illinois is an economic disaster" camp, and basically ruled out Pritzger because of that baggage. But I tuned into r/Illinois (which does skew young and left) and they seem to really like him. In particular, the consensus is that the Illinois pension liability issue exploded under previous governors, and Pritzger has been working diligently to whittle it down (although it remains a long term problem).

So, is there a counter-narrative to the "Illinois disaster" narrative that supports Pritzger?

Pritzker is a very competent governor. He's quick on his feet. He's empathetic. He's good on a stage. His biggest problem is that he was a born a billionaire. And once people start digging into the Hyatt Hotels fortune and where Pritzker invests his billions and how he avoids taxes, people will see that he is completely unrelatable. It does not help that his cousin, Thomas Pritzker, is closely linked to Epstein and just resigned as Executive Chairman of Hyatt. Plus, it is clear that a lot of progressives won't for anyone Jewish. So I don't think Gov Pritzker is viable at this moment in time. There is zero demand for yet another billionaire with any kind of links to Epstein, indirect or otherwise.

His state is in shambles. Is he competent?