Who should run for the Dems?

Brainster said:
We might get a chance to see how the Democrats perform running to the Left. Bernie seems to be anointing AOC as his successor. She has the name recognition, she has a proven ability to shake the money tree and her most likely rivals for the nomination (Buttigieg and Newsom) are a pair of boring white guys.
Click to expand...
The last thing the Dems need is another boring white guy who refuses to drop out early enough before a left-wing woman is nominated.
 
Donal said:
In the hotel business no less. He says a lot of the right things, but ya, the optics aren't great.
Click to expand...

This really all it takes right now. Ridiculously low-hanging fruit that the majority of the Democratic establishment refuses to grab.
 
I'm no expert strategist, nor do I have broad knowledge of the talent in the pipeline, but I'm beginning to see that team Trump is not a MAGA monolith - it's actually a coalition. Some free traders, Russia hawks and national security realists aren't thrilled with Trump's early actions.

As Republicans continue to send messages that tariffs are terrific, Putin is of no consequence and large group chats are the perfect platform for sharing military secrets ... well, some on the right are getting a teensy bit skeptical about their guy. Trump's "own goals' are creating excellent opportunities for intelligent, disciplined Democratic leadership on all kinds of issues.

I'm thinking less about "Who to run" and more about "What should Democrats do to show their support of free trade, their commitment to Ukraine and their insistence on secure channels for military planning." Whether it's bills they introduce, candidates they run or people they invite to brief Congress on the issues mentioned above.

There are many issues such as these where I believe Trump is going to be fairly vulnerable. But Democrats need to focus and Trump is giving them great starting points. For example, Obama had some damn impressive deportation numbers. His party should be developing a systematic way of identifying violent adjudicated offenders, removing them with whatever due process is specified by law and selling the country on this being the best use of ICE resources.

(As opposed to hustling 4-year-old U.S. citizens with cancer out of the country without medications or a proper treatment plan in place. Mention that, yeh? But have a plan for what you'd do differently, don't just wring your freakin' hands.)

Study Obama's aggressiveness, codify it, introduce it as a bill in Congress. It takes the heat off the people who are working, raising families, starting businesses etc. Or those poor DACA folks, caught for 20 years in limbo because neither side will give the other a win.

Sorry, this is too long. The main thing is don't just be "against Trump." Be for: beneficial trade, steady rules for U.S. manufacturers, "need to know" protocol in sensitive operations, priorities in immigration enforcement ... all good things and sellable. Use Trump's actions to inspire bills to then be legitimately sold to the public as protecting U.S. jobs, expediting removal of criminals, penalizing casual sharing of war plans (not "classified materials," war plans.) Democrats need to get in the news more for the actions they are taking and less for their criticisms of Trump.

This probably belongs more in the "resistance" thread and I'd be happy to put it (I mean move it there) there. As far as who Democrats should run?

George Clooney works for me, his face would be a nice relief from Don's. But a woman, a younger person, a browner person is fine, maybe better. I don't want it to be AOC.

ETA: Minor fixes (and: who thinks I should move this to another thread?? I'd be happy to!)
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
The main thing is don't just be "against Trump."
Click to expand...
This. Despite his and his fanboys' fantasies, Trump is not going to be running in 2028.

George Clooney works for me, his face would be a nice relief from Don's. But a woman, a younger person, a browner person is fine, maybe better. I don't want it to be AOC.
Click to expand...
You'd like to have George Clooney or a woman or a younger person or a browner person. You do realize you have described most of the people on Earth?
 
Minoosh said:
George Clooney works for me, his face would be a nice relief from Don's. But a woman, a younger person, a browner person is fine, maybe better. I don't want it to be AOC.
Click to expand...
I love the Democrats. "All we need is an actor, a woman, or a minority." And you guys think the Republicans are deranged.
 
Last edited:
Whoever they pick, it should be someone the public is responding to. Not someone whose turn it is or who is good for donors in a couple of states that will go Republican anyway. If they aren't running themselves, leaders in the Democratic party should keep their opinions and endorsements to themselves.

And maybe avoid people who like to tell us how great Republicans are.

What I'm saying is ban Newsom and Slotkin. And Seth Moulton.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
Expect to see a lot more of that from them going forward ;) .
Click to expand...

No doubt. It's fun to watch Team Dumb White Guy criticize Democrats for their candidate selection, especially when they say "Democrats" they mean one person on an internet forum who doesn't identify as a Democrat.
 
Minoosh said:
As far as who Democrats should run?

George Clooney works for me, his face would be a nice relief from Don's. But a woman, a younger person, a browner person is fine, maybe better. I don't want it to be AOC.
Click to expand...
jt512 said:
I love the Democrats. "All we need is an actor, a woman, or a minority." And you guys think the Republicans are deranged.
Click to expand...
Minoosh said:
Yeah, that's not even close to what I said.
Click to expand...
Why do people post things like this when anyone can see with their own eyes that's what you said.

How about they run Kamala again. She ticks three of four of your boxes, and look how well that went.

Maybe their are more important questions than the candidate's sex, age, and race.
 
jt512 said:
Why do people post things like this when anyone can see with their own eyes that's what you said.

How about they run Kamala again. She ticks three of four of your boxes, and look how well that went.

Maybe their are more important questions than the candidate's sex, age, and race.
Click to expand...
Well based on the behaviour of Trump and his supporters apparently not.
 
jt512 said:
I love the Democrats. "All we need is an actor, a woman, or a minority." And you guys think the Republicans are deranged.
Click to expand...

jt512 said:
Maybe their are more important questions than the candidate's sex, age, and race.
Click to expand...

Maybe everyone in the thread knew that the candidate would all hold similar Democratic values and that their lived experience (sex, age, race) adds that extra something nominees need.

And maybe you knew that but wanted to take a cheap shot in retaliation for the justified insults Trump gets that put shame to your vote.
 
jt512 said:
Why do people post things like this when anyone can see with their own eyes that's what you said.

How about they run Kamala again. She ticks three of four of your boxes, and look how well that went.

Maybe their are more important questions than the candidate's sex, age, and race.
Click to expand...

Yes, like How quickly will this candidate destroy the economy? or Exactly how many children will this candidate kill with preventable diseases? or Will this candidate wipe their ass with the Constitution or merely piss on it?

These are the questions that Trump voters ask themselves because they are smart and discerning people and we should listen to them.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Maybe everyone in the thread knew that the candidate would all hold similar Democratic values and that their lived experience (sex, age, race) adds that extra something nominees need.
Click to expand...
In other words, Democratic candidates are indistinguishable apart from their sex, age, and race, so those are the only factors that need to be considered.
 
jt512 said:
In other words, Democratic candidates are indistinguishable apart from their sex, age, and race, so those are the only factors that need to be considered.
Click to expand...

Only someone whose cognitive abilities led them to think Trump would be good for the economy could so wildly miss a point.
 
It struck me this morning that one day, the president is going to be someone who came up through YouTube and social media.

So. Why not one of the bread tube personalities? They're popular on YouTube, left-leaning, and well-informed. You and I may never heard of Natalie Wynn, but she has 1.81 million subscribers and 102.6 million views. Lindsay Ellis has 1.21 million subs and 143.3 views. That's a pretty influential place to start. Convince either of them to run, put the full support of the DNC behind them, I don't doubt they could crush Trump like a bug.

Yes, yes, I know: They're both white. #sorrynotsorry

ETA: I was gonna suggest David Hogg, but it turns out he's still a decade away from qualifying. Mark my words, though.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
ETA: I was gonna suggest David Hogg, but it turns out he's still a decade away from qualifying. Mark my words, though.
Click to expand...
Any school-shooting survivor that gets kicked by Marjorie Taylor Greene gets my vote.

ETA: Ooops, turns out she didn't kick Hogg, but merely harassed him. She kicked a different activist.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
This. Despite his and his fanboys' fantasies, Trump is not going to be running in 2028.


You'd like to have George Clooney or a woman or a younger person or a browner person. You do realize you have described most of the people on Earth?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Well, they'd have to have been born in the U.S. and be at least 35 years old. Charisma would be nice. But I think it would be a mistake to rely on it too much, which is why I said all that other stuff. Build a better brand, you know? Trump 2.0 is yielding quite a bit of insight into possible strategies.

You say Trump won't be running in 2028, but I say it's at least 50-50 that he would TRY. After all, he tried to get Mike Pence to pull a stunt to nullify the 2020 election and give him a second consecutive term. Pence could very well have gone along with it. The MAGA radicals think he's a traitor and Trump probably does too, but I'll always give Pence credit for saying no. Trump is not constrained by political norms.

(edit: spelling & punctuation)
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Why do people post things like this when anyone can see with their own eyes that's what you said.

How about they run Kamala again. She ticks three of four of your boxes, and look how well that went.

Maybe their are more important questions than the candidate's sex, age, and race.
Click to expand...
Nope. I said: "George Clooney works for me, his face would be a nice relief from Don's. But a woman, a younger person, a browner person is fine, maybe better. I don't want it to be AOC."

I *didn't* say, "All we need is an actor, a woman, or a minority." I can't even fathom how you got there.

Why lie where everybody can see you're ******** lying? Genuine question. Yes, at a bare minimum, a candidate of some sort IS required. They will be white, or not white, or older, or younger, or a man, or not a man. That's a far cry from saying "All we need is ..." - I *explicitly* said far more is needed.

Kamala came in at a statistical tie, so, meh. Elon probably had his thumb on the scale in big way. Plus Republicans were relentlessly hounding people to vote. I know because I AM ONE.

And I'm so sorry about your struggles with reading comprehension. I laid out several paragraphs proposing a course that I think could help the Democratic party. None of those proposals have anything to do with sex, age or race. Then I cited an older white guy, but also said I was fine with other demographics. Principles before personalities, is what I'm thinking.
 
Minoosh said:
Nope. I said: "George Clooney works for me, his face would be a nice relief from Don's. But a woman, a younger person, a browner person is fine, maybe better. I don't want it to be AOC."

I *didn't* say, "All we need is an actor, a woman, or a minority." I can't even fathom how you got there.

Why lie where everybody can see you're ******** lying? Genuine question. Yes, at a bare minimum, a candidate of some sort IS required. They will be white, or not white, or older, or younger, or a man, or not a man. That's a far cry from saying "All we need is ..." - I *explicitly* said far more is needed.
Kamala came in at a statistical tie, so, meh. Elon probably had his thumb on the scale in big way. Plus Republicans were relentlessly hounding people to vote. I know because I AM ONE .

And I'm so sorry about your struggles with reading comprehension. I laid out several paragraphs proposing a course that I think could help the Democratic party. None of those proposals have anything to do with sex, age or race. Then I cited an older white guy, but also said I was fine with other demographics. Principles before personalities, is what I'm thinking.
Click to expand...
I think the party of treason's strategy has been, for at least a few cycles, to deny certain peoples their right to vote. If the vote was free, fair and democratic in every state I can't see a way how Trampy could even come close in any of the three elections.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I think the party of treason's strategy has been, for at least a few cycles, to deny certain peoples their right to vote. If the vote was free, fair and democratic in every state I can't see a way how Trampy could even come close in any of the three elections.
Click to expand...
The two presidential elections with the highest percentage turnout in the last 100+ years were 2020 (66.6%) and 2024 (64.1%).
 
Donal said:
Define super-progressive. School lunch programs? Union protections? Environmental protections? Taxing billionaires? Less money for war? Civil rights protections? Expanding healthcare? Infrastructure spending?

Personally, I think Democrats running like they aren't ashamed to be Democrats would bring a lot of independents.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how we define AOC, the right-wing mediasphere will define her and hammer it home 24-7 for 18 months, enough to make it the reality for more than half the country, if not lots more.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
It doesn't matter how we define AOC, the right-wing mediasphere will define her and hammer it home 24-7 for 18 months, enough to make it the reality for more than half the country, if not lots more.
Click to expand...
The Dems would have to redefine her. The Republicans would only have to tell the truth.
 
Republicans tried that and she only got more popular. So, they went to their old standby. Racism and gross sexualization
 
Regnad Kcin said:
It doesn't matter how we define AOC, the right-wing mediasphere will define her and hammer it home 24-7 for 18 months, enough to make it the reality for more than half the country, if not lots more.
Click to expand...

so what? They have been running around declaring Joe Biden a socialist. Stop worrying about what they might do. Just find the lowest depth they can sink to and assume they will go lower. Stop trying these pathetic attempts to flip the fox news crowd. Lean into the fact that people want child care. They want to protected from injury at work. They want an affordable cost of living. They want to be able to get through a medical emergency without going bankrupt. they want to feed kids.

Whatever nonsense the right-wing nutjob running rants about, simply respond with, "my opponent is screaming about that to distract from my plan to improve your lives with (insert actual policy here). If you want someone screaming about a nonexistent threat, there's your candidate. If you want a serious adult trying to help working folks get by and get ahead, I'm your candidate"
 
Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut addressed Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security in his opening statement. He spoke with clarity and control.
 
Yeah Murphy sounds like he wants to throw his hat in the ring. Maybe Schiff too.

Whatever the case, it's going to be a very, very crowded primary mix when mid 2026 rolls around - if we get that far.
 
Granted my bias is s a fella that used to vote republican but can't imagine voting for the latest crop, I really do think the dems need a governor from a releaively well run state. Leaves me with Polis, Shapiro, or Whitmer. The Dems have two big problems right now. The out of touch elitist thing and that when given control of various states and cities, they have a pretty bad track record. Find someone that has actually run some place well.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Granted my bias is s a fella that used to vote republican but can't imagine voting for the latest crop, I really do think the dems need a governor from a releaively well run state. Leaves me with Polis, Shapiro, or Whitmer. The Dems have two big problems right now. The out of touch elitist thing and that when given control of various states and cities, they have a pretty bad track record. Find someone that has actually run some place well.
Click to expand...

Yes, because Americans are famous for refusing to vote for people who are bad at their jobs.
 
ahhell said:
Granted my bias is s a fella that used to vote republican but can't imagine voting for the latest crop,
Click to expand...
Again, Trump is not an anomaly. The Republicans have been on this path since the Iran-Contra guy
ahhell said:
I really do think the dems need a governor from a relatively well run state.
Click to expand...
Ya, that's generally where both parties look. that and the senate.
ahhell said:
Leaves me with Polis, Shapiro, or Whitmer.
Click to expand...
Three top four most likely candidates for 2028 isn't really a hot take.
ahhell said:
The Dems have two big problems right now.
Click to expand...
They have more but I bet you won't really get any of them.
ahhell said:
The out of touch elitist thing
Click to expand...
OK, half a one. That's more of (but not totally) an image problem
ahhell said:
and that when given control of various states and cities, they have a pretty bad track record. Find someone that has actually run some place well.
Click to expand...
Oh, do expand on that. Tell, me, what cities and states that are Democrat run are anything near as bad as Republican run city and states?

Keep in mind, most Democrat run cities and states are run by neoliberals who run pretty much the same policies as a Republican from before 2008.
 
Donal said:
Again, Trump is not an anomaly. The Republicans have been on this path since the Iran-Contra guy
Ya, that's generally where both parties look. that and the senate.

Three top four most likely candidates for 2028 isn't really a hot take.

They have more but I bet you won't really get any of them.

OK, half a one. That's more of (but not totally) an image problem

Oh, do expand on that. Tell, me, what cities and states that are Democrat run are anything near as bad as Republican run city and states?

Keep in mind, most Democrat run cities and states are run by neoliberals who run pretty much the same policies as a Republican from before 2008.
Click to expand...
Since Goldwater's alliance with the SBC and other far right christian groups, frankly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Confrontation scripted years ago
Replies
17
Views
1K
John Bryce
J
G
Hahaha! Ann Coutler on Kerry.
Replies
31
Views
2K
Tony
Tony
R
Another Senator gets stricken with the foot in mouth disease
Replies
10
Views
2K
davefoc
davefoc
J
The Kofi Annan Hypocrisy Agenda
2 3
Replies
85
Views
3K
NightG1
N
K
My father and our political views...
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
mgidm86
M

Back
Top Bottom