2028 ELECTION THREAD

When you say good politicians do you mean effective communicators or the politicians that you like?

As much as I dislike him, Shapiro is infinitely more competent than any of those ******s. But sure, run a bartender next election. That will be a nice way to deliver us JD Vance which I'm sure will be awesome.

Not sure why running a bartender is more of a deal-breaker (pardon the pun) than running a reality show host or a B-movie actor (Reagan).

AOC is of course very attractive and relatable. But she often stumbles on tough questions. Reminds me of Sarah Palin and to a lesser extent Dan Quayle in that respect.

You are incredibly good at dismissing women and I realize you would never vote for one but that doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do

Buttieg is an effective communicator

AOC can be. Shes good at the Trump style quip and the mic drop moment.

Comparing AOC to Palin is what we call in the industry "a tell"

I actually agree. he effectively communicates his lack of any sort of morals and his love for murder for profit in this clip. also his Supremacy.

I know it’s blasphemy to say this in a politics forum, but how each person handles their own choices and decisions in their own house is 100x more important than what the elites do in the White House. I’ve seen enough people wreck themselves over things that, in reality, would have had little, if any, meaningful impact on their lives.

AOC is someone that I like and think she is a much needed voice of sanity on the left, but I have been perplexed by some of her choices. All in all I think she strikes a good balance and think she will be a good senator one day.

Buttigieg I’m not impressed by. I think he’s smart, but I also find him to be a bit shallow when it comes to ideology. It’s what makes him useful as an attack dog but not that useful as a presidential candidate.

It’s all kind of academic because the issue with the party tends to be more structural, with decisionmakers and party bosses controlling the party apparatus far too strongly, causing people to view them as unrepresentative. I tend to favor a more competitive political environment that doesn’t rely on “who you know” which would make the moderate wing of the party feel more organic.

Running either a Democratic Socialist or a gay man would be an absolute gift to the Republicans in a Presidential election. I think almost the Democratic Presidential possibilities (other than Whitmer and Shapiro) would have a hard time winning in the Rust Belt states needed to win the electoral college.

This thread illustrates why we're here. The knocks on buttigieg and aoc not being an effective communicator or not enough ideology are really just lame excuses for not wanting a gay guy or woman. So, instead of acknowledging that either one would be a far far better president than a lying felonious conman, we get a lying felonious conman.

I don't agree that AOC is an ineffective communicator. I don't care how ideological Buttigieg is. Being ideological isn't some sort of intrinsic good in my book. I do care whether either person can get elected. Buttigieg has never gotten much traction with black voters, blue collar voters, etc. It's hard to imagine AOC winning swing states on issues like social policy, but maybe policy matters less than I imagine. I could see her having some appeal on a personal level to voters who feel left behind economically.

Please say more about this 'tell.'

THIS!!!

I think very few folks in this forum would disagree that AOC or Buttigieg or [Fill in the blank] would be a far better President than Trump.

That said, the task for the Dems should be to run a candidate with a reasonable likelihood of defeating Vance or DeSantis.

Sounds like the person needed to win an election is the same person I wouldn't want to win an election.

Back to my original thesis that "we" are horrible and stupid.

Neither of them ran against Trump in 2024 and they won't be running against him in 2028.

James Carville was talking about this on his podcast a while back. The problem with a candidate like AOC is they only win local elections in very specific districts. AOC, Bernie, etc haven't shown they can win a national election to date. They remind me of Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader. Strong appeal is a specific segment, not necessarily set up to appeal to a wide majority of Americans.

the dems actually know the blueprint. they’ve seen it work twice in recent history

clinton and obama were not just competent. they were aspirational centrists with a story. they wrote books, framed a vision, and made moderates feel comfortable. they expanded the coalition instead of just energizing the base

since then the party keeps defaulting to next in line. gore felt inevitable. kerry felt safe. hillary felt owed it. biden was the institutional guy they trusted, and he won mostly because he was running against a once in a generation buffoon and the country wanted out, kamala was more of the "who is in the on deck circle" more than "who do americans want to be president"

now look at the bench. aoc plays to the cheap seats. great at viral hits. the base loves it. moderates see nothing of substance. buttigieg is polished to the point of being bloodless. newsom feels like california twitter with a wine cave. none of that is clinton or obama energy

bernie at least had authenticity and a clear thesis, but he was too far left for the establishment. fine. maybe he is not the answer

the point is this. the party knows what wins. narrative, authenticity, centrist reassurance. and instead of elevating the next version of that, they default to who they trust or who excites the loudest faction

that is the failure. not lack of talent. misreading what actually works

Who is this directed towards?

Lets remember Kamala didn't want Pete because he was gay . I think this is more an issue with Latino and black voters

I said he is ideologically shallow. I never said being ideological is an intrinsic good. Just to clarify. What I mean by that is that it’s not really clear what he stands for other than some vagueries. It’s why he can stand in as an advocate for any position, because he himself isn’t advancing something that he believes has a greater purpose.

And of course, having a fleshed out ideology doesn’t mean your ideology is good. But I do think that not having something you believe in as a politician is suspicious. Why you entered into politics without having some theory of change and where you want to go makes you look like you just want power, which has caused people to dislike him.

Eh. I'm pretty sure that he stands for exactly what you imagine he stands for, which is centrist Democrat economic policy, reasonably active foreign policy, Obama-style social policy, all pursued via relatively cautious and calm incrementalism. I think that a Buttigieg presidency almost certainly would be uneventful and predictable in the eyes of the world in much the same way a HRC or Romney presidency would have been uneventful and predictable.

I wouldn’t compare Romney, Obama, and HRC to Buttigieg in terms of their commitments. Obama came up as a community organizer. HRC has always made education and healthcare huge priorities. Romney is a believer in capitalism and moderate social conservatism. What’s PB’s story? He joined the army and became mayor for vague Obama hope and changiness. If there is a further story, it hasn’t been communicated.

This is separate to whether he would be a predictable president. It’s not the end all be all of whether someone should run to be president.