Early Predictions 2028: AOC, Whitmer, Newsome or …?

[Anonymous]

“The gender gap — which had long benefited Democrats — helped Republicans in 2024 as men swung harder to the right.

Now, top party officials, activists and donors are broadly weighing how to rebuild, and reassessing how to speak to voters, how to listen to them and how to reach those who have tuned out entirely…

The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democratic support among young men, especially online. It is code-named SAM — short for “Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan” — and promises investment to “study the syntax, language and content that gains attention* and virality in these spaces.” It recommends buying advertisements in video games, among other things.

“Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone,” it urges.”



The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/25/us/politics/democratic-party-voters.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully none of those mentioned. We need moderates, it’s a landslide if you put up a moderate.

We don't need moderates. We tried that. They don't bring out the voters. Republicans will never switch sides. We need to bring out the progressives who won't come out for "basically a Republican"

This is untrue. I know several long-time Republicans who voted for Biden because he presented at a moderate, sane choice compared to Trump. But he governed as one of the most progressive presidents in history. Those same friends felt they had no choice than to go all in for Trump.2. I'll get sh*t on here (as has already happened when I've mentioned this in earlier threads) but this is true for a significant % of Trump voters this time around.

I believe those on here who say we must double down on the progressive agenda to win are simply hoping that if it is said enough people will believe it, when in reality it will only ensure we have another Republican elected in 2028.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully none of those mentioned. We need moderates, it’s a landslide if you put up a moderate.

We don't need moderates. We tried that. They don't bring out the voters. Republicans will never switch sides. We need to bring out the progressives who won't come out for "basically a Republican"

This is untrue. I know several long-time Republicans who voted for Biden because he presented at a moderate, sane choice compared to Trump. But he governed as one of the most progressive presidents in history. Those same friends felt they had no choice than to go all in for Trump.2. I'll get sh*t on here (as has already happened when I've mentioned this in earlier threads) but this is true for a significant % of Trump voters this time around.

I believe those on here who say we must double down on the progressive agenda to win are simply hoping that if it is said enough people will believe it, when in reality it will only ensure we have another Republican elected in 2028.

Agreed. The people who are politically homeless didn’t vote for trump as much as they voted against progressive policies. You can argue whether Harris was progressive all you want, but that was the crux for many. It would’ve been the same had Biden remained on the ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully none of those mentioned. We need moderates, it’s a landslide if you put up a moderate.

We don't need moderates. We tried that. They don't bring out the voters. Republicans will never switch sides. We need to bring out the progressives who won't come out for "basically a Republican"

This is untrue. I know several long-time Republicans who voted for Biden because he presented at a moderate, sane choice compared to Trump. But he governed as one of the most progressive presidents in history. Those same friends felt they had no choice than to go all in for Trump.2. I'll get sh*t on here (as has already happened when I've mentioned this in earlier threads) but this is true for a significant % of Trump voters this time around.

I believe those on here who say we must double down on the progressive agenda to win are simply hoping that if it is said enough people will believe it, when in reality it will only ensure we have another Republican elected in 2028.

Spot on, mate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ideal candidate would unite the progressive wing and centrist wing.

You lost all 7 swing states. Think about that. Forget about the candidate. Get rid of the progressive agenda.

A progressive's positions can be summed up and lampooned on their riduculousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ideal candidate would unite the progressive wing and centrist wing.

This would appeal to everyone.

- Someone who will woo back the union vote, while also protecting trans kids.

- Someone who will keep the price of eggs low, plus raise the tax rate on millionaires and billionaires to make them pay their fair share.

- Someone who will finally provide universal child-care for working moms, but also fully restore Obamacare and take it all the way to universal healthcare.

- Someone who will make the border safe again for asylum seekers instead of ripping away rights a throwing people to Mexico or worse!

- someone who will finally start a serious conversation on full reparations.

But who can unite the party like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ideal candidate would unite the progressive wing and centrist wing.

This would appeal to everyone.

- Someone who will woo back the union vote, while also protecting trans kids.

- Someone who will keep the price of eggs low, plus raise the tax rate on millionaires and billionaires to make them pay their fair share.

- Someone who will finally provide universal child-care for working moms, but also fully restore Obamacare and take it all the way to universal healthcare.

- Someone who will make the border safe again for asylum seekers instead of ripping away rights a throwing people to Mexico or worse!

- someone who will finally start a serious conversation on full reparations.

But who can unite the party like that?

Clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ideal candidate would unite the progressive wing and centrist wing.

This would appeal to everyone.

- Someone who will woo back the union vote, while also protecting trans kids.

- Someone who will keep the price of eggs low, plus raise the tax rate on millionaires and billionaires to make them pay their fair share.

- Someone who will finally provide universal child-care for working moms, but also fully restore Obamacare and take it all the way to universal healthcare.

- Someone who will make the border safe again for asylum seekers instead of ripping away rights a throwing people to Mexico or worse!

- someone who will finally start a serious conversation on full reparations.

But who can unite the party like that?

Yep. Double down on a losing strategy. We are doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are we working toward?

I'm a moderate and I like butigieg. Crazy, I know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These boomer girl bosses seem so inspiring… yikes.

The Dems are eager to lose in 2028 if any post menopause shrill in royal blue blazer or black leather jacket is on the ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's cute that people think they have a say in who the Dem candidate will be.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are we working toward?

I'm a moderate and I like butigieg. Crazy, I know

I would love to see him debate Vance but he has no chance. America is not ready to have a first husband and black-ish adopted babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are we working toward?

I'm a moderate and I like butigieg. Crazy, I know

I would love to see him debate Vance but he has no chance. America is not ready to have a first husband and black-ish adopted babies.

The main thing we need to worry about is forcing an open primary this might not end up being that big of a deal. We don’t know what the needs of the nation will be in four years, the vote will tell us what actually matters and what doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are we working toward?

I'm a moderate and I like butigieg. Crazy, I know

I would love to see him debate Vance but he has no chance. America is not ready to have a first husband and black-ish adopted babies.

The main thing we need to worry about is forcing an open primary this might not end up being that big of a deal. We don’t know what the needs of the nation will be in four years, the vote will tell us what actually matters and what doesn’t.

The last thing you need to worry about is an open primary. The field is going to be huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are we working toward?

I'm a moderate and I like butigieg. Crazy, I know

He has zero chance of winning.