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:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom