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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Any “type” will lose. Democrats need to stop trying to game the system with identity politics. Pick someone whose identity is just an American person who listens to voters. If they happen to fall into an archetypal subcategory, great, but that should be a side effect and not the reason they’re selected.

Democrats need to run on issues and those issues had better take into consideration the needs of the average voter. Instead of sneering at the type of people who shop at Walmart, prioritize their needs. Instead of loan forgiveness for graduates who have jobs obtained with their college degree, help those who gelt they couldn’t afford college. Go after private equity. Go after monopolies. Push for consumer protection. I’m all for universal, single payer healthcare, but you still need to cut costs rather than to just shovel more money to Big Pharma/Healthcare companies. Tax the rich is great, but in addition to raising the rate, you also need to close the loopholes for the wealthy who just avoid taxes altogether.

Let’s be honest, the debt is so high that neither the Democrats’ tax raises nor the Republicans’ spending cuts will solve the problem. Acknowledge that cuts will have to be made and suggest some. At least offer Republican initiatives to sacrifice and consider giving up a little Democrat pork. Try to tackle the causes of problems rather than just throwing money at them so that you can claim credit.

America is below ground zero, and will need to dig itself out to get to the surface. The time for playing politics is over. We need someone to come forward with constructive solutions to govern FOR THE PEOPLE. Mamdani won not because of his type, but because people felt that he might try to help them and wanted to give him a chance to do so. That’s why people like Bernie, and even Trump. Trump doesn’t care about the people’s problems, and even if he did, his “solutions” wouldn’t be capable of fixing them, but at least he acknowledges their problems.

The Democrats are more likely to dismiss the problems, or even claim the voters are the problem. Allow people to disagree with you on some issues without turning them into the enemy. If someone disagrees with you about immigration, abortion, global warming, trans issues, etc., instead of accusing them of being evil, just allow them to be wrong on that issue, but point out the other issues where you may have common ground. If they vote for you, you can do whatever you want once you’re in power.

Hate to break it to you but identity politics has worked great for Trump.

Anonymous wrote:Wes Moore has bowed out. He also stated unchecked immigration was wrong this past weekend.

Anonymous wrote:If we are going for archetypes, I think Beshear is it. We like nominating governors. The Midwest swing states don’t want a coastal elite. If Pritzker wasn’t a nepo billionaire he would also be an archetype.

I would be happy with either one. I hope they know how to run a campaign or at least hire the right people to run a good campaign.

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance Vance will be the nominee. Democrats should assume Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley will be the Republican nominee - someone untouched by the Trump stench.

Democrats seem to assume the White House will fall into their lap in 2028. But DeSantis and/or Haley are going to be strong candidates. Both can very plausibly run as anti-Trump Republicans. And if Democrats don't come up with a good nominee, a lot of independents may break their way.

I am still not seeing a strong potential Democratic nominee who can easily beat DeSantis or Haley in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada and so on. And Democratic over-confidence has been a big problem. See Hilary Clinton and Kamala Harris.

There seems to be an assumption that since Gavin Newsom is a white man that fixes all the problem. But I am very confident Newsom will lose to DeSantis or Haley in the battleground states. Someone else needs to pop soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Chris Murphy, Senator from CT? Any red flags?

Dork

Chris Van Hollen is similar but much better

Why go for the diet version when you can get CVH

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just had a thought, I’m sure many of you already had. Roosevelt was from money and the elite. So why not Pritzker?

I’m pretty sure Pritzker is going to run. He did a great job standing up to Trump while ICE was in Chicago.

Pritzker is literally a prewar walking caricature

Yes, let’s run a billionaire corpulent Jewish dude from one of the most corrupt and financially mismanaged states.

The attack ads write themselves. Would love to be a consultant opposing him - easy work

Anonymous wrote:What about Chris Murphy, Senator from CT? Any red flags?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just had a thought, I’m sure many of you already had. Roosevelt was from money and the elite. So why not Pritzker?

I’m pretty sure Pritzker is going to run. He did a great job standing up to Trump while ICE was in Chicago.

Anonymous wrote:I just had a thought, I’m sure many of you already had. Roosevelt was from money and the elite. So why not Pritzker?