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

[Anonymous]

^^^ favorite, argh

[Anonymous]

Politics will soon be determined by who can increase birth rates in ways that don’t involve oppression. Our major problem is going to be running out of people able and willing to work while more and more people rely on others to do this while unable to do this themselves. Disenchantment with life and especially family building is real in younger generations not having loaded parents to inherit from. As GenX I don’t blame them. None of the status quo politicians have a clue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pritzker.
I disagree that we need a moderate. Republicans cast all democrats, moderates or not, as crazy leftist dems. Since moderates are never seen as moderates anyway, let’s put up a candidate that actually IS progressive.

This is just you trying to rationalize lack of moderation. MAGA is making the same mistake leftists make. The majority of the country do not want your fringe politics. They don't want a revolution every 4-8 years. Winning the White House is not a seal of approval on your agenda. We just got sick of the other parties brand of sh** and need a change.

10000%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish Kinzinger would run as an Independent.

I like him too. Thoughtful. But there is no base of support for him.

The American two party system is very limiting.

This is very true! Don't think for a second our two rotten political parties are going to give up this power anytime soon.

True. The Dem party establishment is not so great either. Who is running things these days?

Money

Isn’t there a newish Dem party chair?

Yes but we prefer to just be called the American people. Nice to meet you. Pull up a seat

Is this supposed to be witty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is a historically unpopular president. Democrats could run Elmo and he'd win in 2028, particularly if Vance is the GOP nominee.

But let's say Nikki Haley is the GOP nominee. That's a problem for Democrats.

Democrats are on the wrong side of a lot issues that motivate voters - illegal immigration, violent crime, schools, racial preferential hiring, and yes, the trans thing. Republicans will go to town on all those issues.

I think a lot of people are confusing economic progressives with social progressives. Social progressives are an anvil for Democrats. But economic progressives are a big win for Democrats. If Bernie Sanders was 20 years younger, he'd win in a heartbeat. AOC is only 35. She's too young to fill that space. But if Democrats could find a middle aged governor who's all about the working and middle class, they will do very well.

I personally like Pritzker right now. He's saying and doing the right things. But there is a lot of space for someone to come out of left field and surprise everyone. The usual names - Newsome, Whitmer, Buttigieg, Shapiro, Walz, Harris - are not happening. You only have one chance to make a first impression, and they all failed. They don't have what it takes to win a competitive race against a Haley.

Agree with most of this. Economic Progressives are a large swath of the American people whether they realize it or not. Sanders and AOC are popular populists for this reason. Too bad the reason they are popular with regular people is the same reason they aren't popular with the wealthy folks steering party decisions.

Haley is not someone Trump will endorse and therefore has no shot at the 2028 nomination. It will be the doomed Trump endorsed candidate vs a very lucky soul not named AOC or Sanders in 2028.

You assume Trump makes it to the end of his term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

She’s not my favor but Whitmer is a moderate and she’s mentioned right there in the thread title. She won by 11 points in a swing state.

Two term Governor of a swing state doesn't need to be labeled moderate, liberal, progressive, conservative, centrist... just give them a fair shot to show the people what they bring to the political table. We used to call these things primaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Omg so wrong

OMG so right! I only voted for Harris as an anti-Trump voter.

You need a moderate to get my vote AND get the votes of those who voted 3rd party or didn't bother to vote at all in 2024. This isn't rocket science. That's the voting base you need to focus on - those who only voted for Harris as anti-Trumpers, those who voted 3rd party, and those who didn't bother to vote at all in 2024.

Going from one extreme to another extreme will not win my vote nor will it win the votes of those who voted 3rd party or didn't bother to vote at all in 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is a historically unpopular president. Democrats could run Elmo and he'd win in 2028, particularly if Vance is the GOP nominee.

But let's say Nikki Haley is the GOP nominee. That's a problem for Democrats.

Democrats are on the wrong side of a lot issues that motivate voters - illegal immigration, violent crime, schools, racial preferential hiring, and yes, the trans thing. Republicans will go to town on all those issues.

I think a lot of people are confusing economic progressives with social progressives. Social progressives are an anvil for Democrats. But economic progressives are a big win for Democrats. If Bernie Sanders was 20 years younger, he'd win in a heartbeat. AOC is only 35. She's too young to fill that space. But if Democrats could find a middle aged governor who's all about the working and middle class, they will do very well.

I personally like Pritzker right now. He's saying and doing the right things. But there is a lot of space for someone to come out of left field and surprise everyone. The usual names - Newsome, Whitmer, Buttigieg, Shapiro, Walz, Harris - are not happening. You only have one chance to make a first impression, and they all failed. They don't have what it takes to win a competitive race against a Haley.

Agree with most of this. Economic Progressives are a large swath of the American people whether they realize it or not. Sanders and AOC are popular populists for this reason. Too bad the reason they are popular with regular people is the same reason they aren't popular with the wealthy folks steering party decisions.

Haley is not someone Trump will endorse and therefore has no shot at the 2028 nomination. It will be the doomed Trump endorsed candidate vs a very lucky soul not named AOC or Sanders in 2028.

You assume Trump makes it to the end of his term.

70% chance he does and even if he doesn't, the 2028 GOP nominee will still be a Trump endorsed candidate. They are stuck with that disadvantage until the 2030s.

[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.

Omg so wrong

OMG so right! I only voted for Harris as an anti-Trump voter.

You need a moderate to get my vote AND get the votes of those who voted 3rd party or didn't bother to vote at all in 2024. This isn't rocket science. That's the voting base you need to focus on - those who only voted for Harris as anti-Trumpers, those who voted 3rd party, and those who didn't bother to vote at all in 2024.

Going from one extreme to another extreme will not win my vote nor will it win the votes of those who voted 3rd party or didn't bother to vote at all in 2024.

Uh buh buh... just put an individual with legitimate POTUS skills in front of these people and they'll very quickly realize that these silly analyses are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

They should all Primary and see who makes it out. I'd vote for AOC in the Primary. I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in the general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should all Primary and see who makes it out. I'd vote for AOC in the Primary. I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in the general.

Silly. Democrats don't do free and open primaries. As always, Democrats will go with whoever the DNC and billionaire donors select.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should all Primary and see who makes it out. I'd vote for AOC in the Primary. I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in the general.

Silly. Democrats don't do free and open primaries. As always, Democrats will go with whoever the DNC and billionaire donors select.

This won't be the case in 2028. The people's voice will be heard. Guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should all Primary and see who makes it out. I'd vote for AOC in the Primary. I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in the general.

Silly. Democrats don't do free and open primaries. As always, Democrats will go with whoever the DNC and billionaire donors select.

This won't be the case in 2028. The people's voice will be heard. Guaranteed.

You have not been paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should all Primary and see who makes it out. I'd vote for AOC in the Primary. I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in the general.

Silly. Democrats don't do free and open primaries. As always, Democrats will go with whoever the DNC and billionaire donors select.

Trump was literally given hundreds of millions by the richest Nazi to win. Why is MAGA on this thread? You sweating?

[Anonymous]

On the off chance that Trump brings the economy back up and does well, who is the candidate to deal with that mess. Failure o imagine such a scenario costs us.