2028 ELECTION THREAD
I think right now if I was going to bet at all, I'd put some money on Kelly.
Eh. in a race without an incumbent, there is always a real chance that a presumptive leader for one party's nomination (e.g., Newsom) will implode for whatever reason. If Newsom imploded, the Democratic race would be very open.
Eh. in a race without an incumbent, there is always a real chance that a presumptive leader for one party's nomination (e.g., Vance, VP or Rubio SoS) will implode for whatever reason. If Vance and Rubio imploded, the GOP race would be very open and the ONLY person besides Trump to receive 2024 GOP primary delegates was Haley. The chart has the dem side other people baked in reasonable well with no bargain prices.
You should post less and think more. You are one level below the truly dumbass posters in the subforum and you chasing the trolley down the track trying to jump on board.
Eh. in a race without an incumbent, there is always a real chance that a presumptive leader for one party's nomination (e.g., Vance, VP or Rubio SoS) will implode for whatever reason. If Vance and Rubio imploded, the GOP race would be very open and the ONLY person besides Trump to receive 2024 GOP primary delegates was Haley.You should post less and think more. You are one lev
Huh?
Even though rococo and I almost never align politically, I find him to be one of the most thoughtful posters in this forum.
Huh?
Even though rococo and I almost never align politically, I find him to be one of the most thoughtful posters in this forum.
You are going to have to put a time line on that statement. I will. The current version of Rococo is bordering on a mass posting, argue with anyone for the sake of typing words, caricature of his former self.
You are going to have to put a time line on that statement. I will. The current version of Rococo is bordering on a mass posting, argue with anyone for the sake of typing words, caricature of his former self.
I don't see that at all.
A couple of months ago Rococo made a very thoughtful post in this thread and your response was 'touch some grass rococo'. You didn't even bother to address his points (which was a response to a post of yours.)
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
You are going to have to put a time line on that statement. I will. The current version of Rococo is bordering on a mass posting, argue with anyone for the sake of typing words, caricature of his former self.
I honestly don't know why you believe i have changed so much. You are the only person who seems to believe that I have undergone some sort of transformation.
You clearly despise me. I don't know why. All I can say is that if you hate me now, you probably should have hated me a decade ago.
I thought Rococo started going downhill right around the time he argued that you were more likely to encounter a grizzly bear in NYC than a paid protester, and you really aren't.
Time catches up with all us unfortunately.
imagine crashing out over rococo's posting, of all goddamn ppl around here lmao
definitely a you problem, nutcases
I thought Rococo started going downhill right around the time he argued that you were more likely to encounter a grizzly bear in NYC than a paid protester, and you really aren't.
Time catches up with all us unfortunately.
I think you started going downhill when you said you'd kill a person if they purposely killed your dog.
I thought Rococo started going downhill right around the time he argued that you were more likely to encounter a grizzly bear in NYC than a paid protester, and you really aren't.
Time catches up with all us unfortunately.
I don't remember that post, but it seems more than possible that I was engaging in obvious hyperbole to make a point. But if I was serious, and if I went on and on about the prevalence of grizzly bears in NYC, then i would say I have improved over time!
What's the difference between Newsom and Harris ?
They're both elite bootlickers with no populist energy behind them.
There are pnly 8-10 states that determine the Presidency, and a candidate has to be able to appeal to voters in those states. I think Newsom will have the same issues Harris did in the Rust Belt states that are critical to the electoral college.
The reason the ads against Harris hammered her as a "California liberal" is because there is such a negative connotation with that label in the states that determine the election. Newsom would also be vulnerable on immigration and residents leaving the state he governs.
The Republicans really should not even be competitive in 2028, but the Dems running Gavin Newsom would be a gift, IMO.
Why bring politics into another spat thread?
There are pnly 8-10 states that determine the Presidency, and a candidate has to be able to appeal to voters in those states. I think Newsom will have the same issues Harris did in the Rust Belt states that are critical to the electoral college.The reason the ads against Harris hammered her as a "California liberal" is because there is such a negative connotation with that labe
I don't necessarily think Kamala lost because she was perceived as tied to California. For better or worse, after four years as Vice President, I think her connection to California had started to fade for a lot of people.
But I do agree with you that this may not be the right time in history to be running a candidate that is closely tied to a state like New York or California, and Newsom will be much more connected to California than Kamala was in 2024. Out of necessity, he will be begin a lot sentences on the campaign trail with "When I was governor of California . . . ."
I don't even know if the problem is mainly that California = liberal in the minds of voters in states like Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia, etc. That's part of the problem, but the bigger problem is that a lot of people in those swing states view politicans from states like California and New York as out of touch elitists, even in cases where the label is not at all warranted, and even though, as a matter of fact, there are armies of "regular" people in states like California.
It wasn't you I had in mind.
The Republicans really should not even be competitive in 2028, but the Dems running Gavin Newsom would be a gift, IMO.
Every election for almost 40 years has been "competitive" by historical standards. Republiucans were hitting all time lows in 2008 and 44% or whatever still found a way to support them for completely made up nonsense.... Obama is a Muslim who will destroy the poker economy etc. No candidate will stop that.
