Who should run for the Dems?

Donal said:
The billionaires that own the media pay centrist talking heads to tell us how popular centrism is. Surely, they couldn't be wrong.

Its not that progressives are super popular because of their ideas. Centrism prizes compromise above all. In case you haven't noticed, you can't compromise with people who just want to dominate you.

So, centrist Democrats look weak and ineffective. And by "look", I mean "are completely". Progressives like Sanders and AOC come out with actual plans and fire. Right-wing DINOs like Tom Suozzi and Rahm Emmanuel try to emulate it, but no one wants to hear from them.

Its been 10 years. Can Democrats realize that no one wants the status quo and establishment candidates?
Click to expand...
Um......how many people voted for Biden and Kamala?

A lot.
 
Okay, here's one. Amy Klobuchar. She ran and lost in the past, and so have others yet still won later. I can sorta see it.
 
Donal said:
Or, someone who isn't a weak ineffective centrist.
Click to expand...
Don't know where you're getting how she's weak and ineffective.

She's helped get a lot of good bills passed with narrow margins and is known as a competent consensus-builder.
 
Last edited:
Ritchie Torres, heard him for the first time a few days ago. Give four years and maybe but I don't think many folks have heard off him yet.

On Amy Klobuchar, I know her name and that's about it. I am also curious what is weak and ineffective about her. In my experience that mostly means someone nominally on my side but not quite enough on my side for my liking.
 
theprestige said:
That's an interesting take. The conventional wisdom* around here seems to be that the Democrats lost to Trump because they weren't openly far left enough.
Click to expand...
Even though Harris's own polling firm found that the most-important reason she lost to Trump was that she was perceived to be too woke.

If the Dems keep thinking that they need to move even further to the left, they will keep losing elections.
 
jt512 said:
Even though Harris's own polling firm found that the most-important reason she lost to Trump was that she was perceived to be too woke.

If the Dems keep thinking that they need to move even further to the left, they will keep losing elections.
Click to expand...
I mean.... AOC could be a hardcore Marxist-Leninist without being heavily into woke-ass nonsense. That would certainly be a refreshing change of pace, for me.
 
jt512 said:
Even though Harris's own polling firm found that the most-important reason she lost to Trump was that she was perceived to be too woke.
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
Really? Or is that just your spin on what they found?
Click to expand...
Yes, really. I've posted the polling results, which are directly from Harris's own polling firm, Blueprint, multiple times. I'm sure you've seen them. It is not my spin; it is their own numbers.

Below are the results again for those whose memories are conveniently short. Look at the all-important column, "Swing Voters Who Chose Trump." The top reason swing voters who voted for Trump gave for not supporting Harris is, "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues than helping the middle class."


Here is the webpage from Harris's polling where the results were reported.
 
PitPat said:
I highly doubt it will be AOC not for any other reason than that she is too far left for the American voters at large.

True her past comments will come back to haunt her during the primary ad blitz. But then again, so did Trump's and look where that got him. Nonetheless I don't see her getting through the first few months of the primaries, if indeed she choose to throw her hat in the ring.
Click to expand...
It's not the voters she's too left for, but the money men that are strangling the balls of the Dem leadership (who are the same money men behind TACO).
 
Donal said:
The billionaires that own the media pay centrist talking heads to tell us how popular centrism is. Surely, they couldn't be wrong.

Its not that progressives are super popular because of their ideas. Centrism prizes compromise above all. In case you haven't noticed, you can't compromise with people who just want to dominate you.

So, centrist Democrats look weak and ineffective. And by "look", I mean "are completely". Progressives like Sanders and AOC come out with actual plans and fire. Right-wing DINOs like Tom Suozzi and Rahm Emmanuel try to emulate it, but no one wants to hear from them.

Its been 10 years. Can Democrats realize that no one wants the status quo and establishment candidates?
Click to expand...
Centrism prioritises capitulation to the right over all. If they were genuinely interested in compromise, the US would have proper workers rights and a working national health service and social welfare system.
 
ahhell said:
Ritchie Torres, heard him for the first time a few days ago. Give four years and maybe but I don't think many folks have heard off him yet.
Click to expand...
Another centrist donor stooge. Went to Michigan to go lecture Muslims about not voting for Harris.
ahhell said:
On Amy Klobuchar, I know her name and that's about it. I am also curious what is weak and ineffective about her. In my experience that mostly means someone nominally on my side but not quite enough on my side for my liking.
Click to expand...
Or just not effective at passing meaningful legislation. She's good at watering down meaningful legislation though
 
jt512 said:
Even though Harris's own polling firm found that the most-important reason she lost to Trump was that
she was perceived to be too woke.

If the Dems keep thinking that they need to move even further to the left, they will keep losing elections.
Click to expand...
This is the key part right here. The right wing spent a fortune trying to make Harris seem to be a leftist wacko, and the Harris campaign responded by running away from the left. It didn't help because the right wing would have painted her as a leftist wacko regardless of what she did. The people who vote based on "vibes" rather than hard facts do not change their minds when a candidate changes their policies for the simple reason that they are not basing their votes on policy in the first place.

Running to the right when accused of being a lefty just doesn't work for Democrats. They lose votes from people who actually want a leftist, don't pick up the so-called "moderates" to make up for it, and right-wing voters were never going to vote for them in the first place because they have been instructed to believe that the Democrat is "too woke". It's a suckers play.

Frequently, the better move when accused of being a liberal is to just own it. Say, "Yes, I am a liberal, here is why..." Don't give the right anywhere to go with it. Sanders and AOC are unabashed liberals, and are some of the most popular people in Congress. Chuck Schumer is a staunch defender of bipartisanship and is hated by everyone
 
Random said:
This is the key part right here. The right wing spent a fortune trying to make Harris seem to be a leftist wacko, and the Harris campaign responded by running away from the left. It didn't help because the right wing would have painted her as a leftist wacko regardless of what she did. The people who vote based on "vibes" rather than hard facts do not change their minds when a candidate changes their policies for the simple reason that they are not basing their votes on policy in the first place.
Click to expand...
DING DING DING! Harris could have promised abolish the IRS, SEC, FTC, EPA , etc, repealed all federal gun laws, give ICE armored divisions to roll through American cities, and to personally shoot transgender teachers in the head and she still would have been called a radical leftist.
Random said:
Running to the right when accused of being a lefty just doesn't work for Democrats. They lose votes from people who actually want a leftist, don't pick up the so-called "moderates" to make up for it, and right-wing voters were never going to vote for them in the first place because they have been instructed to believe that the Democrat is "too woke". It's a suckers play.
Click to expand...
What gets me is, they know this stuff is just the republicans trying to draw attention away from real issues. They have even plainly stated it. Yet, they can't help themselves. It advances Republican talking points and puts Democrats on their back foot.

Walz was nailing the Republicans by calling them "weird" and laughing off their nonsense. Harris was adopting that strategy to. But, the donors and consultants didn't want that. They had to do things "the right way" with their West Wing "debate for the sake of debate" ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
Random said:
Frequently, the better move when accused of being a liberal is to just own it. Say, "Yes, I am a liberal, here is why..." Don't give the right anywhere to go with it. Sanders and AOC are unabashed liberals, and are some of the most popular people in Congress. Chuck Schumer is a staunch defender of bipartisanship and is hated by everyone
Click to expand...
"Yes, I want to protect Medicare and Medicaid. I want to make sure every child has an education. I want to make sure every working person is protected from harm on the job. I want to make sure we all have clean air to breath and clean water to drink. That weirdo on the other side wants you to ignore all that so he can do genital checks at high school basketball games."
 
jt512 said:
Below are the results again for those whose memories are conveniently short. Look at the all-important column, "Swing Voters Who Chose Trump." The top reason swing voters who voted for Trump gave for not supporting Harris is, "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues than helping the middle class."
Click to expand...
Ah, so it was the Trump voters' reasoning. What was the reason for people who didn't vote at all?
 
Random said:
This is the key part right here. The right wing spent a fortune trying to make Harris seem to be a leftist wacko, and the Harris campaign responded by running away from the left. It didn't help because the right wing would have painted her as a leftist wacko regardless of what she did. The people who vote based on "vibes" rather than hard facts do not change their minds when a candidate changes their policies for the simple reason that they are not basing their votes on policy in the first place.
Click to expand...
Harris was the one who decided to come out in favor of taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery for prisoners and illegal aliens. That falls pretty squarely in leftist wacko territory. I voted for her, but I pretty much knew the race was over when Trump started airing those "Kamala is for they/them," ads.
 
arthwollipot said:
See this is what I mean about spin. The numbers are the numbers. But you didn't say it was why people chose to vote for Trump, you said it was why people chose not to vote for Kamala. Spin.
Click to expand...
Spin? *LOL* The heading on the table, as published by Harris's own polling firm was, "Reasons To Not Choose Kamila Harris," and the table itself was in a section of the report titled, "Reasons Voters Did Not Choose Harris."
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Harris was the one who decided to come out in favor of taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery for prisoners and illegal aliens. That falls pretty squarely in leftist wacko territory. I voted for her, but I pretty much knew the race was over when Trump started airing those "Kamala is for they/them," ads.
Click to expand...
She made rhose statements during the 2020 cyle, which Dems won. She avoided the topic in 2024, where Dems lost. Running away from left-wing positions is not the winner people think it is.
 
jt512 said:
Spin? *LOL* The heading on the table, as published by Harris's own polling firm was, "Reasons To Not Choose Kamila Harris," and the table itself was in a section of the report titled, "Reasons Voters Did Not Choose Harris."
Click to expand...
Of course they did. But what they were actually reporting was "Reasons people chose Trump instead of Harris".

Like I said, it'd be interesting to canvass the opinions of those who chose neither Harris nor Trump. But they didn't do that, because as @ahhell said, nobody cares what the people who don't care think.
 
Last edited:
Noted that, unable to defend your spin argument (the motte), you have silently abandoned it, and pivoted to the non-voter issue (the bailey).
arthwollipot said:
Of course they did. But what they were actually reporting was "Reasons people chose Trump instead of Harris".#
Click to expand...
Harris lost to Trump, Trump voters, especially the late-deciders for hin, are the most import group to understand: they are the ones that Harris had the most potential to win over, but failed to.
arthwollipot said:
Like I said, it'd be interesting to canvass the opinions of those who chose neither Harris nor Trump. But they didn't do that, because as @ahhell said, nobody cares what the people who don't care think.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what you are getting at. The poll was designed to determine why voters, especially swing voters—late deciders, who were the most persuadable candidates—voted why they did.
 
Brainster said:
Harris was the one who decided to come out in favor of taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery for prisoners and illegal aliens. That falls pretty squarely in leftist wacko territory. I voted for her, but I pretty much knew the race was over when Trump started airing those "Kamala is for they/them," ads.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that was what she said? Or was that her discussing what is required under a law signed by Donald Trump?
 
jt512 said:
I don't really understand what you are getting at. The poll was designed to determine why voters, especially swing voters—late deciders, who were the most persuadable candidates—voted why they did.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. It was designed to determine why those people voted for Trump.
 
arthwollipot said:
No it wasn't. It was designed to determine why those people voted for Trump.
Click to expand...
Largely a distinction without a difference, but, technically, you are wrong, as the poll includes third-party voters as well.
 
Last edited:
Random said:
She made rhose statements during the 2020 cyle, which Dems won. She avoided the topic in 2024, where Dems lost. Running away from left-wing positions is not the winner people think it is.
Click to expand...
So you think if she had just embraced left-wing positions like taxpayer-funded dickectomies, she would have won?
 
Donal said:
Are you sure that was what she said? Or was that her discussing what is required under a law signed by Donald Trump?
Click to expand...
Yes. No.

She gave an interview to the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund’s founding director, Mara Keisling, on Oct. 4, 2019 — a clip of which Trump’s campaign used in its ad.

“I made sure that they changed the policy in the state of California so that every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access to the medical care that they desired and need,” Harris said.

Harris said something similar in response to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union candidate questionnaire.

“As President,” the questionnaire asked, “will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?”

Harris checked “yes” and wrote, “I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained.”
Click to expand...
Note that although that site is sympathetic to taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery, they grudgingly rate Trump's statement about Harris supporting it, as "mostly true."
 
So, she's too far left for proposing an executive action to support legislation Trump signed?
 
Tim Walz. Not Harris. Maybe Pete as his VP. Two middle America, military veterans. Both smart and charismatic.
 
acbytesla said:
Tim Walz. Not Harris. Maybe Pete as his VP. Two middle America, military veterans. Both smart and charismatic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not sure about that. At most maybe a surge early going but not that much more. I mean Trump's VP couldn't even get a starting chance after he stole the election by not certifying the 2020 election results.

Of course not serious about that, but Waltz might be too old news and I would almost suspect Harris to run again before him.

He has been outspoken about Trump recently however. But I could see him being trounced worse in the general than another Minnesota politician who ran for president in the general election back in the day if it's even possible. Looking at you, Mondale.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if the Dems weren't fully into their rightward shift and actually supported their candidate, '84 wouldn't have been such a bloodbath. Granted, any candidate they put up would have probably been beaten.
 
PitPat said:
Yeah, not sure about that. At most maybe a surge early going but not that much more. I mean Trump's VP couldn't even get a starting chance after he stole the election by not certifying the 2020 election results.

Of course not serious about that, but Waltz might be too old news and I would almost suspect Harris to run again before him.

He has been outspoken about Trump recently however. But I could see him being trounced worse in the general than another Minnesota politician who ran for president in the general election back in the day if it's even possible. Looking at you, Mondale.
Click to expand...
I think it is obvious that Walz is running. And he is a far better candidate than Mondale ever was. Mondale was boring as hell. So I don't buy the comparison.
 
Also, people aren't head over heels for Trump economics. We can see the damage in real time instead of dealing with it over decades.
 
I'm unsold on Walz's charisma but Pete for VP is a great choice. He has the charisma and is probably the best at being a politician* as the dems have right now. The reasons I'd say VP and P is that Mayor and Transportation secretary aren't exactly traditionally direct steppingstones to the oval office and being gay won't help, probably hasten minority men's move away from the dems.

I'm still on either Shapiro or Whitmer. I've haven't seen a lot of them but they both seem to decent records as governor, not nearly as polarizing as Newsom or Cuomo.

*The selling yourself and your party part, charming and glib.
 
ahhell said:
I'm unsold on Walz's charisma but Pete for VP is a great choice. He has the charisma and is probably the best at being a politician* as the dems have right now. The reasons I'd say VP and P is that Mayor and Transportation secretary aren't exactly traditionally direct steppingstones to the oval office and being gay won't help, probably hasten minority men's move away from the dems.

I'm still on either Shapiro or Whitmer. I've haven't seen a lot of them but they both seem to decent records as governor, not nearly as polarizing as Newsom or Cuomo.

*The selling yourself and your party part, charming and glib.
Click to expand...
I think Walz is very charismatic and appeals to middle America in a way that Shapiro never could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom