2028 ELECTION THREAD
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
I was comparing HRC, Romney, and Buttigieg in terms of how predictable they would be and whether they would have been outliers in comparison to past U.S. presidents. They obviously would not be the same on policy, but they would be recognizable as a U.S. president in a way that Trump is not.
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.
I wasn't arguing that predictability was intrinsically good or bad.
Shapiro couldnt even properly cover up a murder by one of his best friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_E...anyway, they will all be fine. Vance Shapiro Buttiegieg AOC Newsome Kamala. they will all be perfecectly willing to slaughter children all over the world and esp in the Middle East. if they are really competent then we will get like 5 more Epstein
You left out, ...for fun and profit!!![/b] at the end.
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.
I don't think it is an accident that Buttigieg doesn't mention his time working for McKinsey and Company. How does someone run as a Democrat with a background of working for a consulting firm that frequently recommends eliminating people's jobs? One of Buttigieg's clients at McKinsey was Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan. Buttigieg had pretty much zero support from lower economic voters in 2024. I think his background would become much more of an issue in 2028 if he were to develop any kind of momentum.
How could Buttigieg ever make a case that he is for working people when he came from McKinsey and was advising big insurance?
I didn't read Harris' book, but that snippet was one of the noteworthy excerpts from her book that was reported all over.
I didn't read Harris' book, but that snippet was one of the noteworthy excerpts from her book that was reported all over.
Wow, don't know how I missed that. Thanks for sharing.
I don't think it is an accident that Buttigieg doesn't mention his time working for McKinsey and Company. How does someone run as a Democrat with a background of working for a consulting firm that frequently recommends eliminating people's jobs? One of Buttigieg's clients at McKinsey was Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan. Buttigieg had pretty much zero support from lower econo
I don't think Buttigieg will be the nominee, but I can't imagine that his work as an entry level employee at McKinsey will be the reason. He obviously wasn't a decisionmaker at McKinsey, and as a consulting firm, McKinsey doesn't really own the decisions of its clients in any event.
Lets remember Kamala didn't want Pete because he was gay . I think this is more an issue with Latino and black voters
This is silly framing and makes it sound as if she had a personal problem with Buttigieg being gay. There was plenty of public and private handwringing about whether the country was too bigoted to accept a gay man on the ticket. It is more than a little hypocritical for those handwringers to criticize Kamala for having the same concern.
That said, I feel the same way about Kamala that I feel about most losing presidential candidates. I wish she would gracefully fade away from public life rather than cling to the limelight.
I don't think Buttigieg will be the nominee, but I can't imagine that his work as an entry level employee at McKinsey will be the reason. He obviously wasn't a decisionmaker at McKinsey, and as a consulting firm, McKinsey doesn't really own the decisions of its clients in any event.
I don't think the background helps when he had near zero support from the lower income/educated voters in the party. There are too many other options who don't have that in their background.
If Trump somehow runs again, then Obama runs again. Obama wins. Easy game.
It would be a hollow victory because the mere fact that they were the candidates would mean the country had completely abandoned the rule of law.
I disagree. It would show some sign that if one side does something, then the other side will counter. Tit-for-tat (or the threat of tit-for-tat) is a highly effective strategy.
I disagree. It would show some sign that if one side does something, then the other side will counter. Tit-for-tat (or the threat of tit-for-tat) is a highly effective strategy.
You are missing my point. If Trump is allowed to run for a third term, then it means that the rule of law and American democracy have been entirely incinerated. Sure, the best option in that circumstance might be if Obama ran again. But if we are in that position, no one (including Obama) would have any prayer of getting the **** back in the horse.
If Trump is allowed to run for a third term, then it means that the rule of law and American democracy have been entirely incinerated.
FDR was elected to 4 terms. this seems like an overreaction. USA will remain more or less the same as it has for the last 200+ years.
You are missing my point. If Trump is allowed to run for a third term, then it means that the rule of law and American democracy have been entirely incinerated. Sure, the best option in that circumstance might be if Obama ran again. But if we are in that position, no one (including Obama) would have any prayer of getting the **** back in the horse.
Nope, you missed my point. And your knee jerk reaction of what it would take to completely destroy the USA is laughable.
FDR was elected to 4 terms. this seems like an overreaction. USA will remain more or less the same as it has for the last 200+ years.
Presidents were not limited by the Constitution to two terms in FDR's era. There is no universe in which two thirds of the states would ratify an amendment to allow for three terms, so the only way Trump could be the nominee would be if the courts affirmatively lit fire to the Constitution.
I don't think it is at all likely that Trump will continue as president past 2028. Less than a 5% chance imo. And if he does, it won't be because he ran for a third term and won. It will be because Republicans kept both houses of Congresss and Trump somehow managed to conjure up some emergency basis for postponing elections. For a variety of practical reasons, I don't think postponement is at all likely either, but it is quite a bit more likely imo than the the federal courts ruling that the Constitution allows for three term presidents.
Age is probably what will finally rid us of Trump as a public figure. Many years ago, I had hoped for a reckoning that would cause Trump to spend the remainder of his life as an outcast from public life. If he had lost to the Democratic nominee by a stunning margin in 2024, especially after the way Biden cocked things up by trying to run again, then I suspect that Trump would have been deeply unpopular with most Republicans for the rest of his life. But that didn't happen of course. So now we have to rely on Father Time.
Nope, you missed my point. And your knee jerk reaction of what it would take to completely destroy the USA is laughable.
How did I miss your point? You were arguing that tit-for-tat would be the best strategy if Trump somehow ran for a third term. I didn't disagree. I just noted what would have to happen for Trump to run for a third term and what that would signify about the United States.
Can you explain to me how your scenario could come to pass without the complete abandonment of the rule of the law? It's entirely possible that I view your scenario as more of a harbinger of doom than you apparently do, but that's a different issue.
Also, I didn't say your scenario would mark the end of the United States as an economic and military power. I said that it mark the end of rule of law and democracy in the United States.
Rococo, go touch some grass.
If you imagine that I spend my days racked with anxiety, don't worry. I'm fine. I sleep soundly.
You obviously don't like me much. I don't recall ever having attacked you, and we don't seem to disagree fundamentally about politics. But like everyone else, you are free to dislike whoever you want. It's a little confusing from my perspective, but whatever. Have a good night.
Clearly Trump would be allowed to run for a third term but Obama would be banned from doing so for reasons.
An OG Obama is probably the only thing stronger than a functioning Biden for the dems but we arent talking realistically here obv - but even he may not run on what he did then and still **** it up.
Trump is the worst imaginable gop candidate in this country and he got the V mostly because the country and parts of the world have generally shifted right since 2014 and the democrats lost all sense of the things that the majority of their people care about.
Literally any gop with a pulse is going to send dems deeper in their hole at this point.
...Also, this isnt 2008 with a 10% unemployment and a housing collapse. Folks are fighting each other to buy homes at crazy high prices and unemployment is as 4.
People who think the economy is down bad frankly lack historical perspective. We arent booming but employment is still high (even if you discount gig work) and for the first time in a while we are seeing more real wage growth in lower income earners. This is why incumbents want to say.
But here is the problem for incumbents: the median voter is not in lower income.
In fact, the Median “Voter” is older, whiter, more educated, more likely to own property, and higher income than the median American. This is especially true in key swing states. This is why incumbents should be in trouble.
But the democrats can’t capitalize on this because they keep refusing to acknowledge electoral realities and keep letting the likes of DSA members speak for the democrats with proposals that the median voter has zero interest in.
Part of the problem is the primaries have distorted incentives such that personal electoral prospects have become out of sync with national party prospects, for both parties.
Yeah, employment is so high that they stopped publishing jobs numbers entirely.
