Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to turn this thread around: What will *Republicans* run on in 2026 and 2028? They’ve just passed a monumentally unpopular budget bill that explodes the debt and cut government programs in red states. Trump’s popularity is cratering, especially with GenZ. What positive message can Republicans run on that would counteract this train crash of an administration?

They are just going to manufacture something fake (like trans rights) and get Russia on it and in 4 years, people will forget this cycle and lap it up again.

If democrats keep insisting that men should play in women's sports, the GOP will have no problems.

I know lots of Democrats and not a single one of them think men should play women's sports. You must live in California or perhaps you need to step out of your bubble and talk to real people.

Then I guess a lot of democrats are out of sync with their own party platform. Seems a reckoning is needed.

There is no nationwide political agenda to make men playing in women's sports a thing. This forum is dedicated to national politics. If you want to discuss what may be happening on local levels in a few parts of the country, find an online forum specific to those locations. The Dem Party currently has no national leader and therefore no national platform. You and some of your low IQ friends may have been duped into to thinking this men in women's sports thing is part of the national Dem Party platform but anyone with an IQ over 90 knows better.

Their first major coordinated action in Congress post-inauguration (other than holding up little signs when Trump spoke) was to vote to protect men in women’s sports. Obviously it is part of the national goals of the Democratic Party and they obviously care deeply about protecting those trans girls and women who want to play in women’s sports.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-athletes-congress-dfd81b15ebc09409f1bf6c8642f130f3

Yes, Federal level Dem politicians voted to leave it up to states and local jurisdictions to determine if transgender females can compete in men's sports. Suggesting that permitting transgender females in female sports is part of a national Dem Party platform agenda is as ridiculous as suggesting Oklahoma's absurd abortion laws are a part of a national GOP Party platform agenda. You don't want to go there.

PP here. Fine. Take this approach to the voters. See how popular this is with the critical swing state voters we need to win.

This thread is so incredibly aggravating because it feels like none of the Democratic partisans here ever want to actually win a national election again. They want to double down on wildly unpopular policies while letting Trump entirely control the narrative, destroy civil liberties, drive educated immigrants that transform our economy out of the country, and balloon the debt. Great job fighting hard for the trans athletes, Dems! I’m sure we will appreciate your singleminded dedication to that issue above all else when Trump has instituted a dictatorship. 🤦

The Dem Party got rid of their Biden mistake in 2024. They now have a clean slate with no leader and no national platform. GOP politicians running for election and re-election will be hindered by the Trump mistake through at least January of 2029. I can understand why there aren't many confident and proud Dem loyalists in 2025 but those who understand political science and American history know that Dems will have a political advantage through the 2028 election cycle.

I understand political science but consider this time period to be aberrant, and I think your confidence is unwarranted.

If you understand political science you understood why any Dem nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2020 before it happened and why any GOP nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2024 before it happened. Did you? If not, I can see how you are confused about the direction of the political pendulum through the 2028 election cycle. The vote for change swing voters who determine POTUS elections will be in full swing mode by 2028. This isn't rocket science.

I have correctly predicted the winner of the presidential race the spring/summer before the election for every single election dating back to 2008. I’ve literally never gotten it wrong. I predicted Trump would win in May/June 2016.

And I’m telling you, I do not think this is standard political science. If Medicaid does end up getting slashed deeply in swing states, then yes, we are back to normal cycles. Otherwise, I am not nearly as confident as you are. I don’t think you grasp just how deeply unpopular Democrats are now.

Who is the unpopular leader of the Dems you are referring to? Dems have no leader. A leader creates their own messaging and introduces a party platform. If you think a Clinton, Obama, or Reagan caliber of politician would allow the opposition party to pin the crap the GOP has pinned on Dems since 2016, you simply weren't alive and/or paying attention back when we had real presidents.

When you have had no leader and the opposition has been creating your messaging for eight years, you're going to be "unpopular". Sure, there is 15% to 25% chance Trump's presidency evolves to where he isn't the Trump2020/Biden2024 level of unpopular in 2028 and that combined with once again no legitimate Dem nominee emerging could give the GOP 2028 nominee a fighting chance. Anything is possible. We might be able to give 100% assurance of victory by the Dems by summer 2028 but in 2025, we can use common sense, historical fact, and political science to say Dems are a heavy favorite with at least a 75% chance of winning in 2028.

Question for you: did you think Clinton was going to win in 2016?

I knew she was in big, big trouble when I saw Sanders beat her in the Michigan Dem primary while Trump was campaigning his butt off in the mid-western swing states. Trump was the change candidate swing voters were looking for in 2016. I will say that it was difficult to fathom ahead of time how my fellow Americans could be duped into electing someone who I clearly saw mock a physically handicapped person in front of the entire world to see but at the end of the day, Trump's 2016 victory fit the script.

So, the answer is yes, you thought Clinton was going to win. Well, I didn’t. I knew Trump was going to win and I knew it early in June 2016. And yes, that was a horrifying realization.

What I am telling you is that I think it is absolutely foolish to rely on political science norms for 2028, at least at this point. If things continue roughly as they are, Vance will win, even with Trump being very unpopular. Why? Because the Democrats are more unpopular and less trusted. I know, I know, you can’t believe that. But it is true. The Democrats, at this point, are less trusted than Trump. That is appalling, but where we are.

If Trump destroys healthcare access for millions in swing states, this calculus changes. Or, if the economy crashes out (thank you idiotic tariff war). There are a few other black swan type events that I think would change things. But absent those, I don’t see the Democrats winning in 2028. I’m not even sure I see them picking up a lot in 2026, though that’s a much closer call.

Well he just destroyed healthcare access for millions in swing states, and Hillary won the popular vote. You clearly haven’t been paying attention to local elections this year.

Winning the popular vote is not winning the presidency. Nobody cares that Clinton won the popular vote. The reason I knew Trump would win in June 2016 was because I did the electoral college math. It doesn’t matter if you predicted Clinton won the popular vote. It is irrelevant.

And yes, quite obviously I’m talking about this week’s events with respect to healthcare, but we will need to see how it plays out. If it remains truly destroyed, then yes, I think the Democrats have a good chance on 2028 and 2026.

And I do not care about local elections. I care about the presidency.

Look, I do not get your complacency here, or the complacency of the Democrats in general. I see no competent presidential candidates on the horizon for the party at this point. Vance is weirdly accessible to voters in a way that only AOC manages for the Democrats (maybe now Mamdani too) and as profoundly dislikable as the man is, he is carving out a strong political identity for himself. Trump is unpopular but the Democrats are even more unpopular and have no good national leaders. Maybe one will emerge like Obama did, but absent that or the other events I mentioned, the Republicans will cruise to victory in 2028. The Democrats don’t stand for anything that is popular with voters, they are not trusted by voters, and there aren’t any good candidates for the presidency. It is grim.

Are democrats unpopular or are their policies unpopular?

That is a very good question. I think it is a combination of both. What I see is that the Democrats have adopted policies (and beliefs) that are deeply unpopular, and that leads to a lack of trust in the party as a whole.

A lot of commentators believe the Democrats lost trust just because of Biden. I see it differently. I see a party that arrogantly believed it could fool the voters because the party does not care if the voters trust it, since the party believes it knows better than the voters. In other words, Biden happened because there was already a deep fissure between the voters and the party. A party leadership delusional enough to run the man we saw in the first debate is not a party that understood going into that debate how untrustworthy they are.

I do think there is room for an Obama-like candidate who rebuilds trust with swing state voters, but that’s going to require admission of wrong and I don’t think the current party campaign infrastructure can handle that.

Re the question above, the majority of Americans support Dem policies. The only contention is how immigration is handled. On its face, this question of unpopularity is dumb. Fewer than 30% of Americans supported BBB and the elected MAGA went against the will of the people to make it law. Are we talking about their unlikability? No. We have minority rule and too many people are silent. Why are we even talking about this instead of the blatant corruption of this admin?

I don't care if the majority of Americans support Dem policies.

Ten people go out to eat. One person pays the bill. Nine others support that policy.

BFD.

The democrat party made the borders open to change demographics, plain and simple. They were doing it for party power, not for anything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to turn this thread around: What will *Republicans* run on in 2026 and 2028? They’ve just passed a monumentally unpopular budget bill that explodes the debt and cut government programs in red states. Trump’s popularity is cratering, especially with GenZ. What positive message can Republicans run on that would counteract this train crash of an administration?

They are just going to manufacture something fake (like trans rights) and get Russia on it and in 4 years, people will forget this cycle and lap it up again.

If democrats keep insisting that men should play in women's sports, the GOP will have no problems.

I know lots of Democrats and not a single one of them think men should play women's sports. You must live in California or perhaps you need to step out of your bubble and talk to real people.

Then I guess a lot of democrats are out of sync with their own party platform. Seems a reckoning is needed.

There is no nationwide political agenda to make men playing in women's sports a thing. This forum is dedicated to national politics. If you want to discuss what may be happening on local levels in a few parts of the country, find an online forum specific to those locations. The Dem Party currently has no national leader and therefore no national platform. You and some of your low IQ friends may have been duped into to thinking this men in women's sports thing is part of the national Dem Party platform but anyone with an IQ over 90 knows better.

Their first major coordinated action in Congress post-inauguration (other than holding up little signs when Trump spoke) was to vote to protect men in women’s sports. Obviously it is part of the national goals of the Democratic Party and they obviously care deeply about protecting those trans girls and women who want to play in women’s sports.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-athletes-congress-dfd81b15ebc09409f1bf6c8642f130f3

Yes, Federal level Dem politicians voted to leave it up to states and local jurisdictions to determine if transgender females can compete in men's sports. Suggesting that permitting transgender females in female sports is part of a national Dem Party platform agenda is as ridiculous as suggesting Oklahoma's absurd abortion laws are a part of a national GOP Party platform agenda. You don't want to go there.

PP here. Fine. Take this approach to the voters. See how popular this is with the critical swing state voters we need to win.

This thread is so incredibly aggravating because it feels like none of the Democratic partisans here ever want to actually win a national election again. They want to double down on wildly unpopular policies while letting Trump entirely control the narrative, destroy civil liberties, drive educated immigrants that transform our economy out of the country, and balloon the debt. Great job fighting hard for the trans athletes, Dems! I’m sure we will appreciate your singleminded dedication to that issue above all else when Trump has instituted a dictatorship. 🤦

The Dem Party got rid of their Biden mistake in 2024. They now have a clean slate with no leader and no national platform. GOP politicians running for election and re-election will be hindered by the Trump mistake through at least January of 2029. I can understand why there aren't many confident and proud Dem loyalists in 2025 but those who understand political science and American history know that Dems will have a political advantage through the 2028 election cycle.

I understand political science but consider this time period to be aberrant, and I think your confidence is unwarranted.

If you understand political science you understood why any Dem nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2020 before it happened and why any GOP nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2024 before it happened. Did you? If not, I can see how you are confused about the direction of the political pendulum through the 2028 election cycle. The vote for change swing voters who determine POTUS elections will be in full swing mode by 2028. This isn't rocket science.

I have correctly predicted the winner of the presidential race the spring/summer before the election for every single election dating back to 2008. I’ve literally never gotten it wrong. I predicted Trump would win in May/June 2016.

And I’m telling you, I do not think this is standard political science. If Medicaid does end up getting slashed deeply in swing states, then yes, we are back to normal cycles. Otherwise, I am not nearly as confident as you are. I don’t think you grasp just how deeply unpopular Democrats are now.

Who is the unpopular leader of the Dems you are referring to? Dems have no leader. A leader creates their own messaging and introduces a party platform. If you think a Clinton, Obama, or Reagan caliber of politician would allow the opposition party to pin the crap the GOP has pinned on Dems since 2016, you simply weren't alive and/or paying attention back when we had real presidents.

When you have had no leader and the opposition has been creating your messaging for eight years, you're going to be "unpopular". Sure, there is 15% to 25% chance Trump's presidency evolves to where he isn't the Trump2020/Biden2024 level of unpopular in 2028 and that combined with once again no legitimate Dem nominee emerging could give the GOP 2028 nominee a fighting chance. Anything is possible. We might be able to give 100% assurance of victory by the Dems by summer 2028 but in 2025, we can use common sense, historical fact, and political science to say Dems are a heavy favorite with at least a 75% chance of winning in 2028.

Question for you: did you think Clinton was going to win in 2016?

I knew she was in big, big trouble when I saw Sanders beat her in the Michigan Dem primary while Trump was campaigning his butt off in the mid-western swing states. Trump was the change candidate swing voters were looking for in 2016. I will say that it was difficult to fathom ahead of time how my fellow Americans could be duped into electing someone who I clearly saw mock a physically handicapped person in front of the entire world to see but at the end of the day, Trump's 2016 victory fit the script.

So, the answer is yes, you thought Clinton was going to win. Well, I didn’t. I knew Trump was going to win and I knew it early in June 2016. And yes, that was a horrifying realization.

What I am telling you is that I think it is absolutely foolish to rely on political science norms for 2028, at least at this point. If things continue roughly as they are, Vance will win, even with Trump being very unpopular. Why? Because the Democrats are more unpopular and less trusted. I know, I know, you can’t believe that. But it is true. The Democrats, at this point, are less trusted than Trump. That is appalling, but where we are.

If Trump destroys healthcare access for millions in swing states, this calculus changes. Or, if the economy crashes out (thank you idiotic tariff war). There are a few other black swan type events that I think would change things. But absent those, I don’t see the Democrats winning in 2028. I’m not even sure I see them picking up a lot in 2026, though that’s a much closer call.

Well he just destroyed healthcare access for millions in swing states, and Hillary won the popular vote. You clearly haven’t been paying attention to local elections this year.

Winning the popular vote is not winning the presidency. Nobody cares that Clinton won the popular vote. The reason I knew Trump would win in June 2016 was because I did the electoral college math. It doesn’t matter if you predicted Clinton won the popular vote. It is irrelevant.

And yes, quite obviously I’m talking about this week’s events with respect to healthcare, but we will need to see how it plays out. If it remains truly destroyed, then yes, I think the Democrats have a good chance on 2028 and 2026.

And I do not care about local elections. I care about the presidency.

Look, I do not get your complacency here, or the complacency of the Democrats in general. I see no competent presidential candidates on the horizon for the party at this point. Vance is weirdly accessible to voters in a way that only AOC manages for the Democrats (maybe now Mamdani too) and as profoundly dislikable as the man is, he is carving out a strong political identity for himself. Trump is unpopular but the Democrats are even more unpopular and have no good national leaders. Maybe one will emerge like Obama did, but absent that or the other events I mentioned, the Republicans will cruise to victory in 2028. The Democrats don’t stand for anything that is popular with voters, they are not trusted by voters, and there aren’t any good candidates for the presidency. It is grim.

Are democrats unpopular or are their policies unpopular?

That is a very good question. I think it is a combination of both. What I see is that the Democrats have adopted policies (and beliefs) that are deeply unpopular, and that leads to a lack of trust in the party as a whole.

A lot of commentators believe the Democrats lost trust just because of Biden. I see it differently. I see a party that arrogantly believed it could fool the voters because the party does not care if the voters trust it, since the party believes it knows better than the voters. In other words, Biden happened because there was already a deep fissure between the voters and the party. A party leadership delusional enough to run the man we saw in the first debate is not a party that understood going into that debate how untrustworthy they are.

I do think there is room for an Obama-like candidate who rebuilds trust with swing state voters, but that’s going to require admission of wrong and I don’t think the current party campaign infrastructure can handle that.

Re the question above, the majority of Americans support Dem policies. The only contention is how immigration is handled. On its face, this question of unpopularity is dumb. Fewer than 30% of Americans supported BBB and the elected MAGA went against the will of the people to make it law. Are we talking about their unlikability? No. We have minority rule and too many people are silent. Why are we even talking about this instead of the blatant corruption of this admin?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to turn this thread around: What will *Republicans* run on in 2026 and 2028? They’ve just passed a monumentally unpopular budget bill that explodes the debt and cut government programs in red states. Trump’s popularity is cratering, especially with GenZ. What positive message can Republicans run on that would counteract this train crash of an administration?

They are just going to manufacture something fake (like trans rights) and get Russia on it and in 4 years, people will forget this cycle and lap it up again.

If democrats keep insisting that men should play in women's sports, the GOP will have no problems.

I know lots of Democrats and not a single one of them think men should play women's sports. You must live in California or perhaps you need to step out of your bubble and talk to real people.

Then I guess a lot of democrats are out of sync with their own party platform. Seems a reckoning is needed.

There is no nationwide political agenda to make men playing in women's sports a thing. This forum is dedicated to national politics. If you want to discuss what may be happening on local levels in a few parts of the country, find an online forum specific to those locations. The Dem Party currently has no national leader and therefore no national platform. You and some of your low IQ friends may have been duped into to thinking this men in women's sports thing is part of the national Dem Party platform but anyone with an IQ over 90 knows better.

Their first major coordinated action in Congress post-inauguration (other than holding up little signs when Trump spoke) was to vote to protect men in women’s sports. Obviously it is part of the national goals of the Democratic Party and they obviously care deeply about protecting those trans girls and women who want to play in women’s sports.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-athletes-congress-dfd81b15ebc09409f1bf6c8642f130f3

Yes, Federal level Dem politicians voted to leave it up to states and local jurisdictions to determine if transgender females can compete in men's sports. Suggesting that permitting transgender females in female sports is part of a national Dem Party platform agenda is as ridiculous as suggesting Oklahoma's absurd abortion laws are a part of a national GOP Party platform agenda. You don't want to go there.

PP here. Fine. Take this approach to the voters. See how popular this is with the critical swing state voters we need to win.

This thread is so incredibly aggravating because it feels like none of the Democratic partisans here ever want to actually win a national election again. They want to double down on wildly unpopular policies while letting Trump entirely control the narrative, destroy civil liberties, drive educated immigrants that transform our economy out of the country, and balloon the debt. Great job fighting hard for the trans athletes, Dems! I’m sure we will appreciate your singleminded dedication to that issue above all else when Trump has instituted a dictatorship. 🤦

The Dem Party got rid of their Biden mistake in 2024. They now have a clean slate with no leader and no national platform. GOP politicians running for election and re-election will be hindered by the Trump mistake through at least January of 2029. I can understand why there aren't many confident and proud Dem loyalists in 2025 but those who understand political science and American history know that Dems will have a political advantage through the 2028 election cycle.

I understand political science but consider this time period to be aberrant, and I think your confidence is unwarranted.

If you understand political science you understood why any Dem nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2020 before it happened and why any GOP nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2024 before it happened. Did you? If not, I can see how you are confused about the direction of the political pendulum through the 2028 election cycle. The vote for change swing voters who determine POTUS elections will be in full swing mode by 2028. This isn't rocket science.

I have correctly predicted the winner of the presidential race the spring/summer before the election for every single election dating back to 2008. I’ve literally never gotten it wrong. I predicted Trump would win in May/June 2016.

And I’m telling you, I do not think this is standard political science. If Medicaid does end up getting slashed deeply in swing states, then yes, we are back to normal cycles. Otherwise, I am not nearly as confident as you are. I don’t think you grasp just how deeply unpopular Democrats are now.

Who is the unpopular leader of the Dems you are referring to? Dems have no leader. A leader creates their own messaging and introduces a party platform. If you think a Clinton, Obama, or Reagan caliber of politician would allow the opposition party to pin the crap the GOP has pinned on Dems since 2016, you simply weren't alive and/or paying attention back when we had real presidents.

When you have had no leader and the opposition has been creating your messaging for eight years, you're going to be "unpopular". Sure, there is 15% to 25% chance Trump's presidency evolves to where he isn't the Trump2020/Biden2024 level of unpopular in 2028 and that combined with once again no legitimate Dem nominee emerging could give the GOP 2028 nominee a fighting chance. Anything is possible. We might be able to give 100% assurance of victory by the Dems by summer 2028 but in 2025, we can use common sense, historical fact, and political science to say Dems are a heavy favorite with at least a 75% chance of winning in 2028.

Question for you: did you think Clinton was going to win in 2016?

I knew she was in big, big trouble when I saw Sanders beat her in the Michigan Dem primary while Trump was campaigning his butt off in the mid-western swing states. Trump was the change candidate swing voters were looking for in 2016. I will say that it was difficult to fathom ahead of time how my fellow Americans could be duped into electing someone who I clearly saw mock a physically handicapped person in front of the entire world to see but at the end of the day, Trump's 2016 victory fit the script.

So, the answer is yes, you thought Clinton was going to win. Well, I didn’t. I knew Trump was going to win and I knew it early in June 2016. And yes, that was a horrifying realization.

What I am telling you is that I think it is absolutely foolish to rely on political science norms for 2028, at least at this point. If things continue roughly as they are, Vance will win, even with Trump being very unpopular. Why? Because the Democrats are more unpopular and less trusted. I know, I know, you can’t believe that. But it is true. The Democrats, at this point, are less trusted than Trump. That is appalling, but where we are.

If Trump destroys healthcare access for millions in swing states, this calculus changes. Or, if the economy crashes out (thank you idiotic tariff war). There are a few other black swan type events that I think would change things. But absent those, I don’t see the Democrats winning in 2028. I’m not even sure I see them picking up a lot in 2026, though that’s a much closer call.

Well he just destroyed healthcare access for millions in swing states, and Hillary won the popular vote. You clearly haven’t been paying attention to local elections this year.

Winning the popular vote is not winning the presidency. Nobody cares that Clinton won the popular vote. The reason I knew Trump would win in June 2016 was because I did the electoral college math. It doesn’t matter if you predicted Clinton won the popular vote. It is irrelevant.

And yes, quite obviously I’m talking about this week’s events with respect to healthcare, but we will need to see how it plays out. If it remains truly destroyed, then yes, I think the Democrats have a good chance on 2028 and 2026.

And I do not care about local elections. I care about the presidency.

Look, I do not get your complacency here, or the complacency of the Democrats in general. I see no competent presidential candidates on the horizon for the party at this point. Vance is weirdly accessible to voters in a way that only AOC manages for the Democrats (maybe now Mamdani too) and as profoundly dislikable as the man is, he is carving out a strong political identity for himself. Trump is unpopular but the Democrats are even more unpopular and have no good national leaders. Maybe one will emerge like Obama did, but absent that or the other events I mentioned, the Republicans will cruise to victory in 2028. The Democrats don’t stand for anything that is popular with voters, they are not trusted by voters, and there aren’t any good candidates for the presidency. It is grim.

Are democrats unpopular or are their policies unpopular?

That is a very good question. I think it is a combination of both. What I see is that the Democrats have adopted policies (and beliefs) that are deeply unpopular, and that leads to a lack of trust in the party as a whole.

A lot of commentators believe the Democrats lost trust just because of Biden. I see it differently. I see a party that arrogantly believed it could fool the voters because the party does not care if the voters trust it, since the party believes it knows better than the voters. In other words, Biden happened because there was already a deep fissure between the voters and the party. A party leadership delusional enough to run the man we saw in the first debate is not a party that understood going into that debate how untrustworthy they are.

I do think there is room for an Obama-like candidate who rebuilds trust with swing state voters, but that’s going to require admission of wrong and I don’t think the current party campaign infrastructure can handle that.

Anonymous wrote:The dems will stand for restoring Medicaid and Medicare and eliminating the tax cuts for the billionaires.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this crowing about Biden and other Democrats. If people are honest (but they aren’t) they will admit it was stable. No insanity with breaking down agencies like the FAA, state department, FDA, CDC just to start with, not throwing birthday parades for himself, no insane tweeting, not sending the military in against folks exercising their first amendment rights.

This just shows why the red states are at the bottom with education.

Sure. But people don't want stasis either. And that's all that Democrats are offering. Schumer and Jeffries - the leaders of the Democratic Party - aren't exactly change agents. It's more like the corruption goes in slightly different directions with the current crop of Democratic leaders.

Take a look at Pelosi"s wealth. She's never earned more than $180,000 in her life. She's presently worth $115 million because of her insider trading. Don't think for a moment that Democrats are less corrupt than this generation of Republicans. And the Biden corruption - while not on Trump levels, was profound too. Hunter Biden made nearly $2 million from his "paintings," which doesn't compare to what Donald jr and Eric Trump are making from their crypto scams. But still.

Republicans suck. But so too Democrats.

No idea if what any of you said is true. But who do you want in charge if some widespread disease broke out? If something happened to our water supply? Power grid? Do you have confidence in the FAA? Trump is not only a person you can’t take seriously, he is dangerous. Just take a look at his cabinet. Would you rather have those folks running the show or the people from Biden‘s cabinet?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this crowing about Biden and other Democrats. If people are honest (but they aren’t) they will admit it was stable. No insanity with breaking down agencies like the FAA, state department, FDA, CDC just to start with, not throwing birthday parades for himself, no insane tweeting, not sending the military in against folks exercising their first amendment rights.

This just shows why the red states are at the bottom with education.

Sure. But people don't want stasis either. And that's all that Democrats are offering. Schumer and Jeffries - the leaders of the Democratic Party - aren't exactly change agents. It's more like the corruption goes in slightly different directions with the current crop of Democratic leaders.

Take a look at Pelosi"s wealth. She's never earned more than $180,000 in her life. She's presently worth $115 million because of her insider trading. Don't think for a moment that Democrats are less corrupt than this generation of Republicans. And the Biden corruption - while not on Trump levels, was profound too. Hunter Biden made nearly $2 million from his "paintings," which doesn't compare to what Donald jr and Eric Trump are making from their crypto scams. But still.

Republicans suck. But so too Democrats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to turn this thread around: What will *Republicans* run on in 2026 and 2028? They’ve just passed a monumentally unpopular budget bill that explodes the debt and cut government programs in red states. Trump’s popularity is cratering, especially with GenZ. What positive message can Republicans run on that would counteract this train crash of an administration?

They are just going to manufacture something fake (like trans rights) and get Russia on it and in 4 years, people will forget this cycle and lap it up again.

If democrats keep insisting that men should play in women's sports, the GOP will have no problems.

I know lots of Democrats and not a single one of them think men should play women's sports. You must live in California or perhaps you need to step out of your bubble and talk to real people.

Then I guess a lot of democrats are out of sync with their own party platform. Seems a reckoning is needed.

There is no nationwide political agenda to make men playing in women's sports a thing. This forum is dedicated to national politics. If you want to discuss what may be happening on local levels in a few parts of the country, find an online forum specific to those locations. The Dem Party currently has no national leader and therefore no national platform. You and some of your low IQ friends may have been duped into to thinking this men in women's sports thing is part of the national Dem Party platform but anyone with an IQ over 90 knows better.

Their first major coordinated action in Congress post-inauguration (other than holding up little signs when Trump spoke) was to vote to protect men in women’s sports. Obviously it is part of the national goals of the Democratic Party and they obviously care deeply about protecting those trans girls and women who want to play in women’s sports.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-athletes-congress-dfd81b15ebc09409f1bf6c8642f130f3

Yes, Federal level Dem politicians voted to leave it up to states and local jurisdictions to determine if transgender females can compete in men's sports. Suggesting that permitting transgender females in female sports is part of a national Dem Party platform agenda is as ridiculous as suggesting Oklahoma's absurd abortion laws are a part of a national GOP Party platform agenda. You don't want to go there.

PP here. Fine. Take this approach to the voters. See how popular this is with the critical swing state voters we need to win.

This thread is so incredibly aggravating because it feels like none of the Democratic partisans here ever want to actually win a national election again. They want to double down on wildly unpopular policies while letting Trump entirely control the narrative, destroy civil liberties, drive educated immigrants that transform our economy out of the country, and balloon the debt. Great job fighting hard for the trans athletes, Dems! I’m sure we will appreciate your singleminded dedication to that issue above all else when Trump has instituted a dictatorship. 🤦

The Dem Party got rid of their Biden mistake in 2024. They now have a clean slate with no leader and no national platform. GOP politicians running for election and re-election will be hindered by the Trump mistake through at least January of 2029. I can understand why there aren't many confident and proud Dem loyalists in 2025 but those who understand political science and American history know that Dems will have a political advantage through the 2028 election cycle.

I understand political science but consider this time period to be aberrant, and I think your confidence is unwarranted.

If you understand political science you understood why any Dem nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2020 before it happened and why any GOP nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2024 before it happened. Did you? If not, I can see how you are confused about the direction of the political pendulum through the 2028 election cycle. The vote for change swing voters who determine POTUS elections will be in full swing mode by 2028. This isn't rocket science.

I have correctly predicted the winner of the presidential race the spring/summer before the election for every single election dating back to 2008. I’ve literally never gotten it wrong. I predicted Trump would win in May/June 2016.

And I’m telling you, I do not think this is standard political science. If Medicaid does end up getting slashed deeply in swing states, then yes, we are back to normal cycles. Otherwise, I am not nearly as confident as you are. I don’t think you grasp just how deeply unpopular Democrats are now.

Who is the unpopular leader of the Dems you are referring to? Dems have no leader. A leader creates their own messaging and introduces a party platform. If you think a Clinton, Obama, or Reagan caliber of politician would allow the opposition party to pin the crap the GOP has pinned on Dems since 2016, you simply weren't alive and/or paying attention back when we had real presidents.

When you have had no leader and the opposition has been creating your messaging for eight years, you're going to be "unpopular". Sure, there is 15% to 25% chance Trump's presidency evolves to where he isn't the Trump2020/Biden2024 level of unpopular in 2028 and that combined with once again no legitimate Dem nominee emerging could give the GOP 2028 nominee a fighting chance. Anything is possible. We might be able to give 100% assurance of victory by the Dems by summer 2028 but in 2025, we can use common sense, historical fact, and political science to say Dems are a heavy favorite with at least a 75% chance of winning in 2028.

Question for you: did you think Clinton was going to win in 2016?

I knew she was in big, big trouble when I saw Sanders beat her in the Michigan Dem primary while Trump was campaigning his butt off in the mid-western swing states. Trump was the change candidate swing voters were looking for in 2016. I will say that it was difficult to fathom ahead of time how my fellow Americans could be duped into electing someone who I clearly saw mock a physically handicapped person in front of the entire world to see but at the end of the day, Trump's 2016 victory fit the script.

So, the answer is yes, you thought Clinton was going to win. Well, I didn’t. I knew Trump was going to win and I knew it early in June 2016. And yes, that was a horrifying realization.

What I am telling you is that I think it is absolutely foolish to rely on political science norms for 2028, at least at this point. If things continue roughly as they are, Vance will win, even with Trump being very unpopular. Why? Because the Democrats are more unpopular and less trusted. I know, I know, you can’t believe that. But it is true. The Democrats, at this point, are less trusted than Trump. That is appalling, but where we are.

If Trump destroys healthcare access for millions in swing states, this calculus changes. Or, if the economy crashes out (thank you idiotic tariff war). There are a few other black swan type events that I think would change things. But absent those, I don’t see the Democrats winning in 2028. I’m not even sure I see them picking up a lot in 2026, though that’s a much closer call.

Well he just destroyed healthcare access for millions in swing states, and Hillary won the popular vote. You clearly haven’t been paying attention to local elections this year.

Winning the popular vote is not winning the presidency. Nobody cares that Clinton won the popular vote. The reason I knew Trump would win in June 2016 was because I did the electoral college math. It doesn’t matter if you predicted Clinton won the popular vote. It is irrelevant.

And yes, quite obviously I’m talking about this week’s events with respect to healthcare, but we will need to see how it plays out. If it remains truly destroyed, then yes, I think the Democrats have a good chance on 2028 and 2026.

And I do not care about local elections. I care about the presidency.

Look, I do not get your complacency here, or the complacency of the Democrats in general. I see no competent presidential candidates on the horizon for the party at this point. Vance is weirdly accessible to voters in a way that only AOC manages for the Democrats (maybe now Mamdani too) and as profoundly dislikable as the man is, he is carving out a strong political identity for himself. Trump is unpopular but the Democrats are even more unpopular and have no good national leaders. Maybe one will emerge like Obama did, but absent that or the other events I mentioned, the Republicans will cruise to victory in 2028. The Democrats don’t stand for anything that is popular with voters, they are not trusted by voters, and there aren’t any good candidates for the presidency. It is grim.

Are democrats unpopular or are their policies unpopular?

That is a very good question. I think it is a combination of both. What I see is that the Democrats have adopted policies (and beliefs) that are deeply unpopular, and that leads to a lack of trust in the party as a whole.

A lot of commentators believe the Democrats lost trust just because of Biden. I see it differently. I see a party that arrogantly believed it could fool the voters because the party does not care if the voters trust it, since the party believes it knows better than the voters. In other words, Biden happened because there was already a deep fissure between the voters and the party. A party leadership delusional enough to run the man we saw in the first debate is not a party that understood going into that debate how untrustworthy they are.

I do think there is room for an Obama-like candidate who rebuilds trust with swing state voters, but that’s going to require admission of wrong and I don’t think the current party campaign infrastructure can handle that.

Anonymous wrote:All this crowing about Biden and other Democrats. If people are honest (but they aren’t) they will admit it was stable. No insanity with breaking down agencies like the FAA, state department, FDA, CDC just to start with, not throwing birthday parades for himself, no insane tweeting, not sending the military in against folks exercising their first amendment rights.

This just shows why the red states are at the bottom with education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to turn this thread around: What will *Republicans* run on in 2026 and 2028? They’ve just passed a monumentally unpopular budget bill that explodes the debt and cut government programs in red states. Trump’s popularity is cratering, especially with GenZ. What positive message can Republicans run on that would counteract this train crash of an administration?

They are just going to manufacture something fake (like trans rights) and get Russia on it and in 4 years, people will forget this cycle and lap it up again.

If democrats keep insisting that men should play in women's sports, the GOP will have no problems.

I know lots of Democrats and not a single one of them think men should play women's sports. You must live in California or perhaps you need to step out of your bubble and talk to real people.

Then I guess a lot of democrats are out of sync with their own party platform. Seems a reckoning is needed.

There is no nationwide political agenda to make men playing in women's sports a thing. This forum is dedicated to national politics. If you want to discuss what may be happening on local levels in a few parts of the country, find an online forum specific to those locations. The Dem Party currently has no national leader and therefore no national platform. You and some of your low IQ friends may have been duped into to thinking this men in women's sports thing is part of the national Dem Party platform but anyone with an IQ over 90 knows better.

Their first major coordinated action in Congress post-inauguration (other than holding up little signs when Trump spoke) was to vote to protect men in women’s sports. Obviously it is part of the national goals of the Democratic Party and they obviously care deeply about protecting those trans girls and women who want to play in women’s sports.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-athletes-congress-dfd81b15ebc09409f1bf6c8642f130f3

Yes, Federal level Dem politicians voted to leave it up to states and local jurisdictions to determine if transgender females can compete in men's sports. Suggesting that permitting transgender females in female sports is part of a national Dem Party platform agenda is as ridiculous as suggesting Oklahoma's absurd abortion laws are a part of a national GOP Party platform agenda. You don't want to go there.

PP here. Fine. Take this approach to the voters. See how popular this is with the critical swing state voters we need to win.

This thread is so incredibly aggravating because it feels like none of the Democratic partisans here ever want to actually win a national election again. They want to double down on wildly unpopular policies while letting Trump entirely control the narrative, destroy civil liberties, drive educated immigrants that transform our economy out of the country, and balloon the debt. Great job fighting hard for the trans athletes, Dems! I’m sure we will appreciate your singleminded dedication to that issue above all else when Trump has instituted a dictatorship. 🤦

The Dem Party got rid of their Biden mistake in 2024. They now have a clean slate with no leader and no national platform. GOP politicians running for election and re-election will be hindered by the Trump mistake through at least January of 2029. I can understand why there aren't many confident and proud Dem loyalists in 2025 but those who understand political science and American history know that Dems will have a political advantage through the 2028 election cycle.

I understand political science but consider this time period to be aberrant, and I think your confidence is unwarranted.

If you understand political science you understood why any Dem nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2020 before it happened and why any GOP nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2024 before it happened. Did you? If not, I can see how you are confused about the direction of the political pendulum through the 2028 election cycle. The vote for change swing voters who determine POTUS elections will be in full swing mode by 2028. This isn't rocket science.

I have correctly predicted the winner of the presidential race the spring/summer before the election for every single election dating back to 2008. I’ve literally never gotten it wrong. I predicted Trump would win in May/June 2016.

And I’m telling you, I do not think this is standard political science. If Medicaid does end up getting slashed deeply in swing states, then yes, we are back to normal cycles. Otherwise, I am not nearly as confident as you are. I don’t think you grasp just how deeply unpopular Democrats are now.

Who is the unpopular leader of the Dems you are referring to? Dems have no leader. A leader creates their own messaging and introduces a party platform. If you think a Clinton, Obama, or Reagan caliber of politician would allow the opposition party to pin the crap the GOP has pinned on Dems since 2016, you simply weren't alive and/or paying attention back when we had real presidents.

When you have had no leader and the opposition has been creating your messaging for eight years, you're going to be "unpopular". Sure, there is 15% to 25% chance Trump's presidency evolves to where he isn't the Trump2020/Biden2024 level of unpopular in 2028 and that combined with once again no legitimate Dem nominee emerging could give the GOP 2028 nominee a fighting chance. Anything is possible. We might be able to give 100% assurance of victory by the Dems by summer 2028 but in 2025, we can use common sense, historical fact, and political science to say Dems are a heavy favorite with at least a 75% chance of winning in 2028.

Question for you: did you think Clinton was going to win in 2016?

I knew she was in big, big trouble when I saw Sanders beat her in the Michigan Dem primary while Trump was campaigning his butt off in the mid-western swing states. Trump was the change candidate swing voters were looking for in 2016. I will say that it was difficult to fathom ahead of time how my fellow Americans could be duped into electing someone who I clearly saw mock a physically handicapped person in front of the entire world to see but at the end of the day, Trump's 2016 victory fit the script.

So, the answer is yes, you thought Clinton was going to win. Well, I didn’t. I knew Trump was going to win and I knew it early in June 2016. And yes, that was a horrifying realization.

What I am telling you is that I think it is absolutely foolish to rely on political science norms for 2028, at least at this point. If things continue roughly as they are, Vance will win, even with Trump being very unpopular. Why? Because the Democrats are more unpopular and less trusted. I know, I know, you can’t believe that. But it is true. The Democrats, at this point, are less trusted than Trump. That is appalling, but where we are.

If Trump destroys healthcare access for millions in swing states, this calculus changes. Or, if the economy crashes out (thank you idiotic tariff war). There are a few other black swan type events that I think would change things. But absent those, I don’t see the Democrats winning in 2028. I’m not even sure I see them picking up a lot in 2026, though that’s a much closer call.

Well he just destroyed healthcare access for millions in swing states, and Hillary won the popular vote. You clearly haven’t been paying attention to local elections this year.

Winning the popular vote is not winning the presidency. Nobody cares that Clinton won the popular vote. The reason I knew Trump would win in June 2016 was because I did the electoral college math. It doesn’t matter if you predicted Clinton won the popular vote. It is irrelevant.

And yes, quite obviously I’m talking about this week’s events with respect to healthcare, but we will need to see how it plays out. If it remains truly destroyed, then yes, I think the Democrats have a good chance on 2028 and 2026.

And I do not care about local elections. I care about the presidency.

Look, I do not get your complacency here, or the complacency of the Democrats in general. I see no competent presidential candidates on the horizon for the party at this point. Vance is weirdly accessible to voters in a way that only AOC manages for the Democrats (maybe now Mamdani too) and as profoundly dislikable as the man is, he is carving out a strong political identity for himself. Trump is unpopular but the Democrats are even more unpopular and have no good national leaders. Maybe one will emerge like Obama did, but absent that or the other events I mentioned, the Republicans will cruise to victory in 2028. The Democrats don’t stand for anything that is popular with voters, they are not trusted by voters, and there aren’t any good candidates for the presidency. It is grim.

Are democrats unpopular or are their policies unpopular?

That is a very good question. I think it is a combination of both. What I see is that the Democrats have adopted policies (and beliefs) that are deeply unpopular, and that leads to a lack of trust in the party as a whole.

A lot of commentators believe the Democrats lost trust just because of Biden. I see it differently. I see a party that arrogantly believed it could fool the voters because the party does not care if the voters trust it, since the party believes it knows better than the voters. In other words, Biden happened because there was already a deep fissure between the voters and the party. A party leadership delusional enough to run the man we saw in the first debate is not a party that understood going into that debate how untrustworthy they are.

I do think there is room for an Obama-like candidate who rebuilds trust with swing state voters, but that’s going to require admission of wrong and I don’t think the current party campaign infrastructure can handle that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to turn this thread around: What will *Republicans* run on in 2026 and 2028? They’ve just passed a monumentally unpopular budget bill that explodes the debt and cut government programs in red states. Trump’s popularity is cratering, especially with GenZ. What positive message can Republicans run on that would counteract this train crash of an administration?

They are just going to manufacture something fake (like trans rights) and get Russia on it and in 4 years, people will forget this cycle and lap it up again.

If democrats keep insisting that men should play in women's sports, the GOP will have no problems.

I know lots of Democrats and not a single one of them think men should play women's sports. You must live in California or perhaps you need to step out of your bubble and talk to real people.

Then I guess a lot of democrats are out of sync with their own party platform. Seems a reckoning is needed.

There is no nationwide political agenda to make men playing in women's sports a thing. This forum is dedicated to national politics. If you want to discuss what may be happening on local levels in a few parts of the country, find an online forum specific to those locations. The Dem Party currently has no national leader and therefore no national platform. You and some of your low IQ friends may have been duped into to thinking this men in women's sports thing is part of the national Dem Party platform but anyone with an IQ over 90 knows better.

Their first major coordinated action in Congress post-inauguration (other than holding up little signs when Trump spoke) was to vote to protect men in women’s sports. Obviously it is part of the national goals of the Democratic Party and they obviously care deeply about protecting those trans girls and women who want to play in women’s sports.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-athletes-congress-dfd81b15ebc09409f1bf6c8642f130f3

Yes, Federal level Dem politicians voted to leave it up to states and local jurisdictions to determine if transgender females can compete in men's sports. Suggesting that permitting transgender females in female sports is part of a national Dem Party platform agenda is as ridiculous as suggesting Oklahoma's absurd abortion laws are a part of a national GOP Party platform agenda. You don't want to go there.

PP here. Fine. Take this approach to the voters. See how popular this is with the critical swing state voters we need to win.

This thread is so incredibly aggravating because it feels like none of the Democratic partisans here ever want to actually win a national election again. They want to double down on wildly unpopular policies while letting Trump entirely control the narrative, destroy civil liberties, drive educated immigrants that transform our economy out of the country, and balloon the debt. Great job fighting hard for the trans athletes, Dems! I’m sure we will appreciate your singleminded dedication to that issue above all else when Trump has instituted a dictatorship. 🤦

The Dem Party got rid of their Biden mistake in 2024. They now have a clean slate with no leader and no national platform. GOP politicians running for election and re-election will be hindered by the Trump mistake through at least January of 2029. I can understand why there aren't many confident and proud Dem loyalists in 2025 but those who understand political science and American history know that Dems will have a political advantage through the 2028 election cycle.

I understand political science but consider this time period to be aberrant, and I think your confidence is unwarranted.

If you understand political science you understood why any Dem nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2020 before it happened and why any GOP nominee with a pulse was going to win in 2024 before it happened. Did you? If not, I can see how you are confused about the direction of the political pendulum through the 2028 election cycle. The vote for change swing voters who determine POTUS elections will be in full swing mode by 2028. This isn't rocket science.

I have correctly predicted the winner of the presidential race the spring/summer before the election for every single election dating back to 2008. I’ve literally never gotten it wrong. I predicted Trump would win in May/June 2016.

And I’m telling you, I do not think this is standard political science. If Medicaid does end up getting slashed deeply in swing states, then yes, we are back to normal cycles. Otherwise, I am not nearly as confident as you are. I don’t think you grasp just how deeply unpopular Democrats are now.

Who is the unpopular leader of the Dems you are referring to? Dems have no leader. A leader creates their own messaging and introduces a party platform. If you think a Clinton, Obama, or Reagan caliber of politician would allow the opposition party to pin the crap the GOP has pinned on Dems since 2016, you simply weren't alive and/or paying attention back when we had real presidents.

When you have had no leader and the opposition has been creating your messaging for eight years, you're going to be "unpopular". Sure, there is 15% to 25% chance Trump's presidency evolves to where he isn't the Trump2020/Biden2024 level of unpopular in 2028 and that combined with once again no legitimate Dem nominee emerging could give the GOP 2028 nominee a fighting chance. Anything is possible. We might be able to give 100% assurance of victory by the Dems by summer 2028 but in 2025, we can use common sense, historical fact, and political science to say Dems are a heavy favorite with at least a 75% chance of winning in 2028.

Question for you: did you think Clinton was going to win in 2016?

I knew she was in big, big trouble when I saw Sanders beat her in the Michigan Dem primary while Trump was campaigning his butt off in the mid-western swing states. Trump was the change candidate swing voters were looking for in 2016. I will say that it was difficult to fathom ahead of time how my fellow Americans could be duped into electing someone who I clearly saw mock a physically handicapped person in front of the entire world to see but at the end of the day, Trump's 2016 victory fit the script.

So, the answer is yes, you thought Clinton was going to win. Well, I didn’t. I knew Trump was going to win and I knew it early in June 2016. And yes, that was a horrifying realization.

What I am telling you is that I think it is absolutely foolish to rely on political science norms for 2028, at least at this point. If things continue roughly as they are, Vance will win, even with Trump being very unpopular. Why? Because the Democrats are more unpopular and less trusted. I know, I know, you can’t believe that. But it is true. The Democrats, at this point, are less trusted than Trump. That is appalling, but where we are.

If Trump destroys healthcare access for millions in swing states, this calculus changes. Or, if the economy crashes out (thank you idiotic tariff war). There are a few other black swan type events that I think would change things. But absent those, I don’t see the Democrats winning in 2028. I’m not even sure I see them picking up a lot in 2026, though that’s a much closer call.

Well he just destroyed healthcare access for millions in swing states, and Hillary won the popular vote. You clearly haven’t been paying attention to local elections this year.

Winning the popular vote is not winning the presidency. Nobody cares that Clinton won the popular vote. The reason I knew Trump would win in June 2016 was because I did the electoral college math. It doesn’t matter if you predicted Clinton won the popular vote. It is irrelevant.

And yes, quite obviously I’m talking about this week’s events with respect to healthcare, but we will need to see how it plays out. If it remains truly destroyed, then yes, I think the Democrats have a good chance on 2028 and 2026.

And I do not care about local elections. I care about the presidency.

Look, I do not get your complacency here, or the complacency of the Democrats in general. I see no competent presidential candidates on the horizon for the party at this point. Vance is weirdly accessible to voters in a way that only AOC manages for the Democrats (maybe now Mamdani too) and as profoundly dislikable as the man is, he is carving out a strong political identity for himself. Trump is unpopular but the Democrats are even more unpopular and have no good national leaders. Maybe one will emerge like Obama did, but absent that or the other events I mentioned, the Republicans will cruise to victory in 2028. The Democrats don’t stand for anything that is popular with voters, they are not trusted by voters, and there aren’t any good candidates for the presidency. It is grim.

Are democrats unpopular or are their policies unpopular?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going to cause Ds to lose their minds again and they'll put forth someone like AOC when a moderate Newsom would've sealed the deal and we'll be stuck eit president Vance. I don't even know what coalition the D candidate will roll with. Jew hating trannies?

Newsome is not a moderate. His liberal policies destroyed SF and Cali. Given the chance, he will do the same to the USA. Recently, he’s been trying to come off as a moderate to appeal to middle America. We would all be better off if he stuck to sleeping with campaign chief’s wife.

+100

But I don’t care if they run him. Hell will freeze over before middle America votes for him and then Vance or whoever will sail to victory.