I would vote for that woman in a heartbeat. Ive only contributed and canvassed for Bernie Sanders, felt no excitement for any candidate since but damn would I jump to do it for her campaign.
She should run but I’d rather see her be a governor before president.
IMHO whats important in 2028 is we have a big field in the primaries so we can see where the base is then.
IMHO whats important in 2028 is we have a big field in the primaries so we can see where the base is then.
I agree in principle, but the Democrats had a historically big field in 2020 and ended up with Biden. Sanders could arguably have won if Warren had pulled out earlier (reducing the number of candidates).
The point is to elect a democrat the base can support, if that’s a progressive that’s great, if not that’s also fine. The D candidate in '28 is going to need all the votes they can get.
The point is to elect a democrat the voting public as a whole can support, and that’s not a status-quo liberal when half the reason Trump got in the first time was that people were so desperate for change they were willing to roll the dice on a conman.
Progressives or socialists are the right choice precisely because they appeal to people otherwise dissilusioned with the Democrats.
One of the things that cost Kamala the election was her reach out to the right. I think that in 2028 we need to only worry about keeping united behind the candidate. The Bulwark types are going to vote for any democrat for at least a couple more cycles. The non-bulwark types aren’t reachable for a couple of cycles
I agree with the goal… but while I think a competitive primary leads to better outcomes, too many candidates leads to arbitrary outcomes that depend more on which factions have the lowest candidate-to-voter ratio instead of which have the most actual voters (at least the way it’s currently structured). Plus it increases the chances of a brokered convention, which leads to voters feeling disenfranchised no matter who wins.
Sanders would have lost the election though. I love Bernie and he might have been able to save our country but there would have been too many lukewarm left voters and the right would have turned out probably even stronger than they did.
My point isn’t whether or not the best candidate won, it’s that the outcome depended on how many candidates each faction split their votes between. A bigger field wasn’t a reflection of “where the base was” if more candidates supporting a position made it less likely to win.
I still think there’s already been a deal made to clear the field for AOC to take over Chuck’s seat in exchange for her to help clear the field for Gavin (because he is the Next One Up…).
They just all have to pretend that the deal isnt a thing, because no deal is official until it happens, and everyone wants to keep their options open in case it falls apart.
Why would AOC need to cut a deal to win Schumer’s seat? What other potential Senate candidate could defeat her, but would stay out of the race for Newsom’s benefit?
Schumer himself hasn’t said whether he will run for re-election in 2028, so the deal might be to get Chuck to finally retire already and then AOC can be the only candidate…
And, AOC wouldnt run for President and Senate at the same time. I think NY allows that, but most candidates who try and pull that off are incumbent Senators or Congresspeople who are running for the same job while also running for President. It would be very unusual to run for a Senate job for the first time that you might have to give up 20 days into your term.
What would Schumer get from that? I can’t see him throwing away whatever’s left of his career just to help a Californian get the presidential nomination instead of another New Yorker.
He’s fucking 75 years old. There shouldn’t be anything left of his career!
It’s all party politics, and favors going back and forth. Right now, for better or worse, there is no bigger symbol of the Democratic Establishment than Chuck Schumer. He may owe enough favors to other Establishment people that he has to back the Next One Up.
AOC not electable. Appeals only to west & east coast.
What farmer would trust her to look after Montana?
Harris was disbelieved when she claimed to own a Glock. Who would believe a similar statement from AOC?
Truly the most important metric for president.
Really grade A political take. I would definitely trust you near children.
The attitude that anyone who doesn’t agree 100% is a Nazi or a child molester hardly is an attitude that engenders using consensus & compromise to achieve a workable coalition.
There are plenty of ways to be dangerous around children without raping them. But please, tell me more about yourself.
Handguns in reality are not a very useful tool. Short range, low power, inaccurate.
There are very few use cases where a rifle wouldn’t be better. The only advantage of a handgun is portability.
This when there was a push to ban handguns, gunowners were willing to compromise.
When a decision was made to attack semiautomatic rifles by using made-up terms, the room to compromise no longer was possible. Next would be “sniper” rifles.
Apparently fediversers can’t handle the truth.
Nope. There needs to be a candidate that can actually win.
Newsome?
Nope. Kelly looks best to me out of current mainstream candidates. Seems like a human being. He’s a guy so he has a chance of winning (sorry, at least until the boomers are gone a woman will never win for either side). Hopefully Newsom keeps trolling Trump relentlessly but I don’t want another establishment centrist democrat.