Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's be honest, straight white male from a southern state. Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton but not dead.
What about James Talarico from Texas?
Yes. Policy plus vibes. Calm, soothing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….
Trump was a viable presidential candidate in 2016. He was a complete joke of a major party nominee in 2020 and 2024. He lost to the weakest Dem nominee ever in 2020 and then he only won in 2024 because of the extraordinary weakness of the sitting Dem POTUS. The 2020 and 2024 elections are outliers that shall hopefully never be repeated.
Anonymous wrote:Since we can't seem to come up with a candidate, maybe we can at least contemplate the right TYPE of candidate?
Here are a few:
First Female President (Multiple Interesting Possibilities)
First Gay President (Mayor Pete)
Boring White Guy, Little Known Midwestern State Governor, Attempt to Appeal to Centrist and Men who stopped voting for Democrats (Beshear, Shapiro, etc.)
Hard-charging realist a la Rahm Emanuel, here to crack some heads and get Dems back on track
Young Up-and-Coming Unknown (Wesley Moore)
Nepo Baby (Chelsea Clinton, Hunter Biden, Ella Emhoff, etc.) Name recognition matters. A lot.
Squad Leader (AOC)
Evil Emperor (Gavin Newsom)
Which TYPE(S) would be most viable?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….
This. Need a middle aged white guy.
Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….
Anonymous wrote:When you stop focusing on the "type" of person you might come up with a winner. Choosing someone because "it’s time for an X" is why you keep losing. Notice the only time Trump lost, was to an old white guy….
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The archetype is Populism.
Ds will follow the same sociopolitical path as the Rs. Different, but the same.
The people vs the elite dynamic is the reality in modern day politics and therefore populism in its truest form may be our best medicine.
In other words, in a government designed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, all other schemes having failed, the Democrats might finally be willing to attempt representing the people.
IF they actually LISTEN to the people and prioritize their general welfare over special interests, they may actually win. On the other hand, if they continue to sneer contemptuously at average voters and try to tell them that the Democrats know what the voters need better than the voters themselves, they might continue to have difficulty, even as bad as Trump/MAGA is. At least the Republicans pretend to listen.
The distribution of wealth and power has become too uneven and the strain of it has society at a breaking point - something’s got to give. The last time there was this much tension between the haves and the have nots, desperate people turned for any solution that offered relief, which led to the rise of both fascist and communist regimes. While they’re typically viewed as opposite poles of the political spectrum, they’re actually just different names for tyranny. Whatever ideology the leaders claimed to seize power, the goal was always power. Once any party had secured their power, the ideology was consigned to window dressing for the government, which was no more interested in the general welfare than the government they had replaced. Right now, the right is already at that place, offering the country dictatorship over a democracy that has been failing the populace. Democrats must be vigilant to remember that the counter to a right wing dictatorship is not a left wing dictatorship, but rather a free country SERVING the will of the people.
I realize Democrats want to remake society into their version of Utopia, and if they can reclaim power and hold unto it, they’ll be able to advance whatever agenda they want. However, people are struggling and need to be given some hope that things can improve for them. Stop dividing voters, and above all, stop alienating them. Who cares if they disagree with you on an issue, as long as they vote to put you in power to do what you want? If they’re considering violating some of their principles (which are as dear to them as yours are to you), you don’t have to insult them. Sometimes I think the Democrats would rather feel smugly superior to voters who voted against them than to win the votes of some who might have incorrect opinions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The archetype is Populism.
Ds will follow the same sociopolitical path as the Rs. Different, but the same.
The people vs the elite dynamic is the reality in modern day politics and therefore populism in its truest form may be our best medicine.
In other words, in a government designed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, all other schemes having failed, the Democrats might finally be willing to attempt representing the people.
IF they actually LISTEN to the people and prioritize their general welfare over special interests, they may actually win. On the other hand, if they continue to sneer contemptuously at average voters and try to tell them that the Democrats know what the voters need better than the voters themselves, they might continue to have difficulty, even as bad as Trump/MAGA is. At least the Republicans pretend to listen.
The distribution of wealth and power has become too uneven and the strain of it has society at a breaking point - something’s got to give. The last time there was this much tension between the haves and the have nots, desperate people turned for any solution that offered relief, which led to the rise of both fascist and communist regimes. While they’re typically viewed as opposite poles of the political spectrum, they’re actually just different names for tyranny. Whatever ideology the leaders claimed to seize power, the goal was always power. Once any party had secured their power, the ideology was consigned to window dressing for the government, which was no more interested in the general welfare than the government they had replaced. Right now, the right is already at that place, offering the country dictatorship over a democracy that has been failing the populace. Democrats must be vigilant to remember that the counter to a right wing dictatorship is not a left wing dictatorship, but rather a free country SERVING the will of the people.
I realize Democrats want to remake society into their version of Utopia, and if they can reclaim power and hold unto it, they’ll be able to advance whatever agenda they want. However, people are struggling and need to be given some hope that things can improve for them. Stop dividing voters, and above all, stop alienating them. Who cares if they disagree with you on an issue, as long as they vote to put you in power to do what you want? If they’re considering violating some of their principles (which are as dear to them as yours are to you), you don’t have to insult them. Sometimes I think the Democrats would rather feel smugly superior to voters who voted against them than to win the votes of some who might have incorrect opinions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My bet is also on James Talarico. He embodies the archetype Kevin Costner played in many of his films (Robinhood, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves)—ethical, charismatic, gentlemanly, protective, and oriented toward building community and bringing people together.
Never heard of him.
Troll
www.google.com
He's apparently a state Congressman in Texas. Not even a national player. How would my not having heard of him make he a troll, idiot? And what has he done to make him worthy of highest office?
+1
The only place I've read about him is right here on DCUM. Nowhere else.
DP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's me plugging James Talarico again. Did anyone listen to him on Joe Rogan? He is so thoughtful and articulate, and seems like a good human. He blends Christian faith with progressive ideas. In a match-up with JD, I think a significant number of Christian right would line up behind him. Even Rogan said he should run for president.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DOYX1RykceJ/
I’ve heard some interviews with him and he sounds like an earnest guy. But do we have to cater to Christians? Remember separation of church and state?
Christians are a big voting block, peeling off a few from R can swing an election.
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/christian-voters-will-play-outsized-role-us-election
Christians vote for who their church tells them to vote and it sure isn’t a dem. Nice thought though.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The archetype is Populism.
Ds will follow the same sociopolitical path as the Rs. Different, but the same.
The people vs the elite dynamic is the reality in modern day politics and therefore populism in its truest form may be our best medicine.