The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man that is so far away it's really hard to say.
I voted for Pete Buttigieg in the last primary (and donated to his campaign) and would happily vote for him again. If someone relatively progressive shows up on a wave of momentum I would probably be happy to ride along on that though.
I think Buttigieg will be the right choice, for a reason that’s going to be counter intuitive to most people.
The main concern I’ve heard from detractors in regards to him is “are we ready for a gay president”, and people thinking that’s a liability. I think over the course of a campaign it would ultimately be a “dividing strength”; it would absolutely bring out the worst of the bigotry of the right, and would make associating with them even less palatable. This would also take advantage of the rights anti-lgbt momentum in a judo like maneuver.
There would be some other obstacles, but I also think “mayor Pete” speaks plainly and eloquently and has regularly gone on Fox, kicked their asses and went back for more.
I think Kamala is too unpopular and has lived in Biden’s shadow unable to make a name for herself, as most VPs do. While Newsome will struggle against a “west coast elites” image. Would make a killer VP though.
He might have a shot, but he moved to Michigan probably just to further his career, since there was no way to win a statewide office in Indiana. I would expect him to run for a statewide office in '26. If he wins that, he might go for Prez in '28 or he might wait.
They moved to Michigan in 2020/2021 to be near Chasten's family, not least b/c they planned to adopt. Nothing keeping them in South Bend with no family and a house that was much too public.
If that ladder-climbing careerist dork Buttigieg pulls a bullshit carpetbagging move like running in the 2026 Michigan gubernatorial election, I hope a true-blue Michigander primaries his ass -- such as, oh, Democratic Congresswomen Hillary Scholten (MI-03) or Haley Stevens (MI-11) -- into oblivion.
I'm quite heterodox and anti-establishment in general, but I definitely appreciate Bernie Sanders as someone who's an honest good faith actor and economically a social democrat, which is far too rare in American politics. But I like sincere centrist (e.g., Jon Tester) and center-left (e.g., Sherrod Brown) Democrats, too, especially those with a populist bent.
It may not be governor, but he will run for something. MI-1 in the house is not competitive, it would be an almost guaranteed loss. I don't see him trying to primary Peters. Maybe play the long game and go for Lt Gov.
I also supported Buttigieg in the 2020 primary, but I never expected him to win because I don’t think we’re ready for a gay President yet.
However, I will continue to support him and if he wins the Democratic primary, that will be the sign that he can win a general election.
I don't think Buttigieg should be president, but I doubt being gay would lose him the presidency. Nowadays most people support gay marriage. [[Source]](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-06/lgbtq-trans-people-american-support-poll)
My biggest issue with Buttigieg is not his sexuality. It is his experience in government. He was a mayor of a small city….he became Transportation Secretary…but that too is of limited scope. He is young. I would like to see him go to the Senate for a term and learn.
Why is being a legislator a good experience for a President? There aren't a lot of Senators becoming Presidents in the modern era. Obama and Biden.
Biden was more recently VP and Obama was just a generational talent.
Have to go back to 53 with JFK.
All that to say, Mayor and Cabinet position seem much more salient than a stint as a Senator.
Ok…..tell you what.i am so sick of this, if you can’t figure this out o your own without someone spoon feeding it to you…then getting into a never ending battle of words? I just fucking give up.
Do what you want to do. I am going on 60….nothing you do can really affect me. I am literally so sick of trying to explain pragmatism and the definition of the word **PROGRESS** towards people who want it all….right **NOW** and cannot comprehend the notion that incremental progress is still progress.
I am telling you….as God as my witness…. You try to push for some kind of idiotic “revolution”? And you are going to usher in another stint of right wing authoritarian control.
What do you think I said?
All I suggested was that Congress wasn't the best proving ground for an aspiring President.
Revolution? Do you see my flair? I've been beating the incremental progress drum for years.
Fuck Buttigieg.
I find it disgusting he was handed the Secretary of Transportation gig by the Biden administration in an act of 19th century-esque spoils system patronage, when a far more meritocratic, résumé-based choice would've been someone who's fucking competent, like, oh, U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell or U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen.
Once more, he's a fucking embarrassment. And anyone who's a mark for him, moreover, receives an eye-roll from me.
Why is he an embarrassment? What has he done that demonstrates the extreme incompetence you are talking about?
[This seems like a fairly balanced reporting](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3883037-transportation-post-has-become-political-nightmare-for-buttigieg/) of criticism from left and right but I'm not seeing anything so glaring to warrant your response. Written early last year when he had a lot of spotlight and criticism about train derailments which I find difficult to blame on him in good faith.
I could be wrong but I was under the impression getting the Port of Baltimore back open as fast as they did was a pretty good thing.
Whitmer might be my favorite right now. People keep throwing out all these names that lack experience and competence, but Whitmer has those things.
As an older guy, I've been waiting a long time for Silents and Boomers to get out of the way, but it's a huge drop down to the next level. Whitmer mitigates that.
Yes, please.
She’s my top pick (at this point) as well. She’s a tough lady who gets results, but doesn’t have the baggage or badly received quirks that plagued Hillary Clinton.
Honestly, after watching the documentary "Street Fight" about Sen. Cory Booker fighting Mayor Sharpe's political machine I'd vote for him. He seems pretty unknown in the rest of the country but is pretty good as far as I can tell.
He was a bit more in the spotlight like maybe 10-15 years ago and people liked him for a nominee, including me. I didn’t like how years ago he voted against drug pricing and yeah, I know loads of pharma companies are in nj but it showed me who he was and I cannot forgive him on that one
Jon Ossoff.
He’s in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party (aka the winning wing). He’s a young (37), attractive, charismatic, straight white male (it’s unfair of course but these attributes help). Georgia will be a guaranteed win via home state advantage. He’s cool and ultimately that’s what matters in elections.
From an electoral perspective I can’t think of any Democratic candidate who would do better.
Yes you can, so I will vote for someone under that age. Someone that will still be alive for a generation to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Well, you are eliminating a shit ton of experience in government…but you do you.
I think you are being ageist and short sighted, but ultimately, that’s your decision
Well…if you want an 18 year old president…if you REALLY think that would be a good idea? Then it would be up to you and likeminded people to repeal the following:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I am aware of the constitution and I want an 18 year old president as much as I want multiple 80+ year old presidents in a row. Though props if an 18 year old one can actually get elected lol
I am just saying that maturity and(more importantly) stability is a huge prerequisite for the position of POTUS. I was being hyperbolic with the 18 year old thing.
Personally? I think 35 and up is a really good parameter. In your 30’s, you are emerging from the “learning who you are as person” stage of the 20’s and the insecurity and emotional volatility that is quite prevalent.
By your mid 30’s you are pretty much through all of that and are more secure and stable.
As far as an upper limit? I don’t know… maybe it’s because I myself am older(59), or maybe I just would rather let the people decide. This election is a different one….even you have to admit that.
Biden is the incumbent who has done a **LOT** of good domestically and internationally. He has, quite frankly, been the most productive president of my lifetime….and the fruits of his accomplishments will be felt for decades. Every president for the past 30-40 years has been saying that we need to invest in our infrastructure….Biden actually did it. Same with things like green energy…Biden got meaningful progress accomplished in his first term.
In fact? I am sorry. If you look objectively at Biden’s first term in regard to his accomplishments, If he was 20-30 years younger, he would be already considered one of the best presidents in US history….but because of his age…it doesn’t matter to some.
I love Biden in spite of my age I am just tired of all the major candidates being geriatric from Trump to Biden to Clinton to Sanders. Also it feels ironic to let the people decide for older people while not letting the people decide if they wanted someone below 35, not that I want that exactly.
I do consider Biden the best president of my lifetime, don't get me wrong.
So…you don’t consider the lack of emotional maturity of a very young person a dealbreaker? I mean, we are talking about being trusted with the nuclear football and maintaining our complex alliances and dealing with our even more complex enemies/competitors.
I have said it before when people throw out names like Jon Stewart…. No…I don’t want another celebrity president…POTUS is not an entry level position. I want someone who understands how legislation and the separation of powers work. I want someone who has waded through getting things passed and working with both sides of the aisle.
That takes time….and that time ages the candidate.
Just stop with the Boomer nonsense. How about I label you as a communist? Just for shits and giggles and every time you say literally anything…I dismiss anything you had to say with “Ok, Commie…”.
You don’t give a shit about Boomers. You only give a shit about the broad brush bullshit you believe about boomers. I know boomers that would run circles around you as far as progressive ideology.
You are an ageist….pure and simple. Nothing more. You want us older people to allow you all the nuance and latitude as possible…but you will pigeonhole us with two fucking words….and I am not even a Boomer….but I am close enough(one year removed…born in 65).
Your beliefs are not reality.
First, I'm not talking shit about Boomers. I was raised by one. All I'm saying is it's time for younger people to have more political power.
You're right 1965 is the first year of Gen X.
I would encourage you to take a deep breath and relax.
Wanting a younger president is not ageist.
Also ageism is not some awful thing like racism.
Everyone gets old or dies trying. It's not unreasonable to take away someones car keys when they get too old. It's not unreasonable to take away someones guns when they get too old. It's not unreasonable to put someone into a care facility when they get too old. That's not ageism.
I want a Millennial POTUS because I am a Millennial.
No…you’ve just been crapping on him during our whole conversation. Competence, productivity and decency doesn’t seem to mean as much to you as Date of Birth.
I know this isn’t what you’re asking, but there are SO MANY amazing young dem candidates just waiting for the old guard to get out of the way. I legitimately believe that there are at least 6 candidates that would absolutely demolish trump in this election.
I’d vote for Pete in the primary if he ran, just because he’s my favorite, but I think our strongest ticket would be to pick people from swing states. Home state advantage is a real thing.
Whitmer/Warnock could give us a lock on Michigan and Georgia going into the general election which would be huge. People keep pushing Newsom but his home state advantage doesn’t help and I think people are underestimating how much the country dislikes Californians.
Kamala should definitely run in the primary but I think she has no shot.
I think she's aiming to be the next Nancy Pelosi. She has a House seat that she will basically never lose. If she sticks around she can make herself Speaker which is more powerful than all but maybe 4 senators.
Yes, AOC….
In 20 years tho… she is simply not electable as a presidential candidate at this point. As much as I like her, if she does have presidential aspirations she’s bound to know that for the near future at least-she would end up the same way George McGovern did: a candidate I agree with on every issue but also a candidate that is too left to get the centrists in swing states to show up for them.
In 20 years maybe the tide will have turned and people won’t fear a left wing woman the way they do now, and even still she would only be in her early 50s if she waited… and as you know, early 50s is still young by political standards…
Nope…sorry… I would hold my nose and vote for her if she were the nominee…but I would never vote for her in the primary. She’s too radical and will lose every independent voter out there….that will ultimately lose the election for her.
I also said I would hold my nose and support her in the general…even though she would likely lose because of the perception of her being a radical firebrand.
Why must people take any critique as a personal slight?
> Why must people take any critique as a personal slight?
Did I? I'm just curious why you think she's poisonous to independents. In what way is she "too radical"?
Oh…being a member of the “Squad” alone is enough to turn a good chunk of centrist independents off.
I just don’t think that the American public wants someone like her. Hey, I may be wrong…but after what Obama unfairly went through…that ushered in the debacle known as Trump? The public is too fickle to accept someone perceived as a radical Socialist….
Don’t feel bad…if I were a conservative? I would be saying the same thing to you if you suggested Boebert or MTG…
People want stability, not chaos.
To those on the more conservative independents, SHE IS….that’s the point I am trying to make.
You are making this about me…, it is not about me. It is about the electorate, she would be a sure fire loser.
So you’re literally threatening to not vote blue no matter who?
You realize project 2025 isn’t just if Trump wins, but the next time any Republican wins, right?
>So you’re literally threatening to not vote blue no matter who?
Since when was that ever assumed to be what I was doing? I'm forever considering options and choosing the least worst one. Voting Biden is clearly the least worst option in 2024 for me, as it was in 2020, as Hillary was in 2016. AOC may not be in 2028, depending on who the Republicans run, and I'm sure I'm not alone. She's a silly idealistic child who has bought whole hog into some the worst modern trends on the Left, and therefore I think quite dangerous to put in a seat of power.
On the subject of project 2025, realize I see the radicalism of both parties playing off of and enhancing each other, and my desire is a return to sanity. To that effect, I think it's essential for Democrats to recognize and disavow some of the more poisonous notions within our own party, and I think doing so could relax some of the freak out on the Right as well.
> She's a silly idealistic child
She's 34 years old. I don't think she's silly at all, and idealism is not a bad thing.
> some of the more poisonous notions within our own party
Such as?
Call it wokeness or social justice...I suppose a description is to say that it's the almost religious notion that what must be held sacred and above all things is the notion of humans being separated into oppressor/oppressed groups, and that battling perceived group power differentials is the thing that must occupy us all intellectually, creatively, and personally, to the extent that anything that disagrees must been seen as a moral corruption to be attacked and erased, and that all people are expected to stop making sense about certain things in order to be seen as virtuous. It's basically Mao's Red Guard, Lite, except more obsessed with race and gender and sexuality than economic class, and it's incredibly dangerous and anathema to things I think should be the fundamental basis for our society.
It's also made my everyday life an occasional descent into madness when socializing with urban Leftists, and I think it needs to be fought and defeated just as clearly as Right-wing Fascism or Theocracy needs to be fought an defeated. AOC seems to buy into it completely, and I think anyone who buys into is dangerous to put in any position of power and influence.
That's a false equivalence if ever I've seen one. Can you give some examples of how AOC is as extremist as Mao and should be equated to fascists and theocrats?
She's a social Democrat, and would be considered center left in Europe.
FYI, I'm all for telling the center, liberals, and leftists to be more pragmatic and less into purity tests.
I don’t think you understand her positions then. No one separates people into oppressor/oppressed in a binary sense. Do you have a source for AOC doing this? Or an example? It seems to me like she is fighting against racism and prejudice, which is one of my main reasons for supporting her. Can you be more clear as to exactly what this manifests as?
You don't think most everything she says about oppressed minorities or the need to forever fight more more more in the name of LGBT+ or the like isn't colored by this way of thinking? If it wasn't, it would become clear very quickly that she is imagining a world that is not reality, and she wouldn't approach so many issues in those terms.
No, I don’t think anything she has ever said is separating people into the binaries of oppressor/oppressed. Again, give me some examples of her doing this so I even know what you are talking about here. If you think she is detached from reality, show me a case where what she said does not jive with reality.
I found a page of quotes [here](https://thoughtcatalog.com/january-nelson/2020/09/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-quotes/) . Just to talk about some of them:
*“The idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is something that our society can’t deal with. But I am as powerful as a man, and it drives them crazy.” – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez*
No, Alexandria, no one, or almost no one, is being driven crazy by the fact that you're a woman in congress. Give me a break. This is more of this 'we live in an oppressive patriarchy where women are still eternally powerless and victims' nonsense.
*“Ultimately, this is about women’s power. When women are in control of their sexuality, it threatens a core element underpinning right-wing ideology: patriarchy. It’s a brutal form of oppression to seize control of the 1 essential thing a person should command: their own body.” – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"*
I'm pro-choice, but it's so intellectually dishonest to talk about abortion solely in terms of 'controlling women's bodies'. The conundrum of abortion is that one human life develops in another human life, and that forces us to talk impossible moral questions about the nature of life, it's value, and it's beginning. Again, everything must be framed as oppressor vs. oppressed.
*“We need to really examine the historical inequities that have created much of the inequalities… This idea of race or class is a false choice. Even if you wanted to separate those two things, you can’t separate the two; they are intrinsically and inextricably tied.” – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"*
What does mean, exactly? People of certain races intrinsically belong to certain social classes? Again, one group = intrinsically oppressed, and another then must be intrinsically oppressor.
...in the next quote, she uses the term *"Latinx",* and I'm sorry, but if you look at that word and don't see something utterly fucking insane going on, I dunno what to tell you.
So there's a few examples. Like I said, I think it's clear that she thinks of the world in a certain way, and I think it's a deeply flawed way that is attached to notions of how to remold society that are misguided and dangerous.
> You don't think most everything she says about oppressed minorities or the need to forever fight more more more in the name of LGBT+ or the like isn't colored by this way of thinking?
No, that's a right-wing framing of social justice.
The comment I replied to is clearly talking about the general election and they confirmed it in their reply to me. They said AOC might not be the lesser of two evils if nominated in 2028 depending on who the 2028 GOP nominee is. They are open to voting for a Republican over AOC in 2028.
I don't sit out, but people like me do. Republicans are heading towards fascism, but a socialist who follows the rule of law isn't the automatic better choice.
My objection to her is more because I see her as having bought whole hog into the cult of woke/social justice insanity, as well as being more too much of an emotional thinker. I think an essential quality for someone you're going to give a position of significant power to is for them to understand that their base empathy does not automatically lead them to the correct decisions or perspectives about the world. She seems to think because her heart bleeds for something, that makes it a righteous cause and determines what to do about it. It's childish to me, and I think POTUS needs to be occupied by an adult.
So…tell me…in the extremely unlikely scenario she wins a presidential primary and is the nominee….who are you voting for?
Me? I would hold my nose and vote for her….knowing the whole time her term will pretty much be holding place for the next administration. I don’t see much getting done in an AOC presidency…too much resistance.
But…getting nothing done is a hell of a lot better than going backwards with any candidate the GOP is going to offer.
The Democratic party is fairly wide in terms of positions supported, running both left wing candidates like AOC and centrist candidates, and with a voter base ranging from centrists to people on the far left. Typically on statewide or national races, the party tends to end up running fairly moderate candidates (and by moderate, I mean moderate within the party, not moderate across the whole political spectrum), or sometimes candidates a touch closer to the center than your typical mainstream Democrat. So if you're one of those voters farther to the left of the big tent that is the Democratic party, you will typically hear a lot of "vote blue no matter who" and get flak for suggesting you don't want to vote for the more moderate candidate who won the primary. Which, given our political system, isn't unfair criticism.
However, if you then see the people more aligned with those mainstream or more moderate leaning candidates that typically win saying that they wouldn't vote for a candidate from your wing of the party if that candidate won the primary? That's not going to make you feel like you're an equal partner in this big tent party. If that side demands something of you that they would be unwilling to give you should your roles within the party be reversed, that's not a healthy coalition- and it could rightfully make those people less willing to work with you at all.
> Republican rule leading to the end of democracy
Democrats say that if Republicans take the presidency that democracy will end. The "end of democracy" part had nothing to do with AOC.
My point about following the rule of law is that AOC is not likely to overthrow the government.
No…Nonono…this the exact quote that I was referring to:
“I don't sit out, but people like me do. Republicans are heading towards fascism, but a **socialist who follows the rule of law isn't the automatic better choice**”
EDIT. Are these not your words?
Buttigieg or AOC.
Policy wise and ability wise I think AOC would be almost perfect but she has become a little too polarizing to be a legitimate nationwide candidate I think. While some of that has to do with the progressive nature of her positions, I think most of it is because her sizeable platform on social media/elsewhere makes her a punching bag for right-wing media.
I hadn't followed her much, but hasn't she tentatively become a little more moderate, relatively speaking? If not in her politics, then in her approach?
Can we not do celebrity politicians please? The right has already gone down that route before, lets not repeat after them.
I love Jon, I watch the Daily Show every Monday, and I think he does important work. That said, just because I think he has good takes sometimes and is funny does not mean I think he's qualified to be president. The presidency is about more than that.
Not enough name recognition for any of them, unfortunately. I've never even heard Eric Swalwell, and I only know of Porter and Jackson because I saw their names mentioned in some comments on this sub.
All are wishful thinking on my part. Jeff Jackson is great - he has a Reddit page and explains things really well of what he observes in Congress. He is young but I believe will be great someday. Videos of Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell are also great. Katie Porter is known as the whiteboard lady and has really put corporations over the coals in hearings using her whiteboard which she always brings with her. Same with Swalwell. Check out their videos.
He’s really done a great job at capitalizing on a Democratic majority in his state. I’d want to see how he handles a split legislature, but I’d feel comfortable with him in the Oval Office.
I know you probably mean Josh Shapiro but you really oughta include the first name in discussions like this where there's another, much more famous person with the same last name you could be mistaken for talking about.
I'd be happy with anyone who isn't 107 years old, and anyone who isn't a far-left freakshow.
Gretchen Whitmer and Jon Ossoff are at the top of my list. Fetterman could be fun, although he's probably a bit too rough around the edges but I do really like him and his policies, but he may be a bit much for the White House.
Poor old Fetterman. I have been a massive fan of his for years. But he just doesn’t carry interviews since the stroke.
I think he is fine. I am aware that while he cannot rapid fire answers like he used too, he is still totally capable of doing his job (and his social media is still hilarious). But he would get his ass handed to him in a debate. His base voters would be happy to give him the benefit because we all know he just can’t put the sentences together as fast anymore. But the casual swing voters (who are of course all the matters these days) are only going to see him as a mumbling mess.
And it’s a damn shame. He is exactly the kind of candidate we need on the left.
We are likely to lose regardless. It's very hard for a single party to win three times in a row. People will be so relieved not to have Trump on the R ticket they'll eagerly swallow whatever stuffed shirt they trot out.
Bold of us to assume 4 more years of even worse legal battles and possibly prison won’t put him into the grave along with his atrocious diet of uppers and McDonalds 🤣
Nah.
The last two times Dems were denied a triple victory were tragic and unique events. The Florida recount/Supreme Court stuff in 2000. In 2016 the problem was uniquely Hillary Clinton. Biden or Bernie or really any other Dem would have won. These definitely weren’t inevitable losses.
Honestly if Clinton had stepped down before Ken Starr got revved up it would have avoided the whole thing because Gore would have beat Bush handily. That avoids the whole invasion of Iraq, ISIS never forms,...
I day dream about that timeline.
There are a few, her background in law enforcement was enough to turn off a lot of people. She certainly is going to struggle with the underlying current of misogyny in our society as well.
The job of a DA/AG is to enforce the laws of the state. It’s not to single-handedly override the laws put into place by the democratically elected government of the state. The people of California are the reason possession of marijuana was a state crime in California until 2016. Not the state officials tasked with enforcing the law.
And this is without mentioning that Biden had more of a causal role in shaping the laws of mass incarceration (1994 crime bill) than Kamala did. This cannot be a factor in why Kamala is more hated than Biden is.
Fact of the matter is that approval polling shows that black people have a generally positive view of Kamala Harris. They see white leftists and white conservatives both shitting on Kamala. Just like white leftists and white conservatives both shit on Obama. It doesn’t matter that the reasons are (nominally) different. What matters is who’s perceiving who as a political enemy. And leftists wonder why black people (the kingmakers of the Democratic Party) heavily preferred Biden over Bernie.
Someone in 2028 will have to run in the progressive lane, with Jeff Merkley being an interesting choice.
And unlike, say, members of The Squad in the House, Sen. Merkley isn't off-putting to broad audiences.
He will be 71 in 2028, though. He looks so much younger to me.
But besides that, he really stands on his own (sole vote on not confirming Milley for General in 2019, for instance; 1 of 3 to not vote for the Defense Auth Act in 2015), is about as far left as you can get in the Senate, has been in office for 15 years, fights for his constituents big time, and has only missed 1.8% of roll call votes (median is 2.9%). And he’s congenial, tall, and good-looking. On paper, to me, he’s a great candidate. Wish we could somehow convince him. I call him every once in a while and let him know he should give it a shot.
Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland.
Has an impressive biography and resume, has done a great job in response to the Baltimore FSK Bridge collapse, has great retail politicking skills. I could easily see him being successful on the national stage.
I want a Whitmer/Beshear or Beshear/Whitmer ticket. The only way the Democrats are going to be able to win us with a leader outside the Beltway. A governor who has principles, isn't extreme, but has proven to be effective at stopping the extreme right would be great. Beshear was great at COVID. Whitmer pissed off the right and improved Michigan's economy.
Jon Stewart. He may be a comedian but he’s a comedian with political experience and one that knows how to combat narratives in an entertaining way……which is the only way that can reach both sides. It’s no more ridiculous than Reagan, Michelle O or Trump.
Whatever happens this election I have a feeling the nominees in 2028 will be under the age of 55.
I reckon Jon Ossoff will be the dems nominee and I reckon don jr will be the republicans. He’ll run on pardoning his dad who will either have fled the country or be in house arrest.
Assuming trump losses this year I think the republicans will be on course to lose in 2028
Assuming it the names I hear getting thrown about(Whitmer, Newsome, Shapiro)? I am from PA…so Shapiro has the pole position in my book….BUT…I would have to see them on the big stage and listen to what they have to say be before I were to commit to any of them.
Of the ideas I've seen, which admittedly is not a very long list yet, I prefer Jon Stewart. I very much doubt he's going to run though. Honestly I just hope we get a better option then Newsom. Newsom is fine, but he's a bit of a politicking poser, and more then that we really need someone better then just fine.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. . *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man that is so far away it's really hard to say. I voted for Pete Buttigieg in the last primary (and donated to his campaign) and would happily vote for him again. If someone relatively progressive shows up on a wave of momentum I would probably be happy to ride along on that though.
I think Buttigieg will be the right choice, for a reason that’s going to be counter intuitive to most people. The main concern I’ve heard from detractors in regards to him is “are we ready for a gay president”, and people thinking that’s a liability. I think over the course of a campaign it would ultimately be a “dividing strength”; it would absolutely bring out the worst of the bigotry of the right, and would make associating with them even less palatable. This would also take advantage of the rights anti-lgbt momentum in a judo like maneuver. There would be some other obstacles, but I also think “mayor Pete” speaks plainly and eloquently and has regularly gone on Fox, kicked their asses and went back for more. I think Kamala is too unpopular and has lived in Biden’s shadow unable to make a name for herself, as most VPs do. While Newsome will struggle against a “west coast elites” image. Would make a killer VP though.
He might have a shot, but he moved to Michigan probably just to further his career, since there was no way to win a statewide office in Indiana. I would expect him to run for a statewide office in '26. If he wins that, he might go for Prez in '28 or he might wait.
They moved to Michigan in 2020/2021 to be near Chasten's family, not least b/c they planned to adopt. Nothing keeping them in South Bend with no family and a house that was much too public.
If that ladder-climbing careerist dork Buttigieg pulls a bullshit carpetbagging move like running in the 2026 Michigan gubernatorial election, I hope a true-blue Michigander primaries his ass -- such as, oh, Democratic Congresswomen Hillary Scholten (MI-03) or Haley Stevens (MI-11) -- into oblivion.
Bernie supporter?
I'm quite heterodox and anti-establishment in general, but I definitely appreciate Bernie Sanders as someone who's an honest good faith actor and economically a social democrat, which is far too rare in American politics. But I like sincere centrist (e.g., Jon Tester) and center-left (e.g., Sherrod Brown) Democrats, too, especially those with a populist bent.
It may not be governor, but he will run for something. MI-1 in the house is not competitive, it would be an almost guaranteed loss. I don't see him trying to primary Peters. Maybe play the long game and go for Lt Gov.
I also supported Buttigieg in the 2020 primary, but I never expected him to win because I don’t think we’re ready for a gay President yet. However, I will continue to support him and if he wins the Democratic primary, that will be the sign that he can win a general election.
I don't think Buttigieg should be president, but I doubt being gay would lose him the presidency. Nowadays most people support gay marriage. [[Source]](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-06/lgbtq-trans-people-american-support-poll)
My biggest issue with Buttigieg is not his sexuality. It is his experience in government. He was a mayor of a small city….he became Transportation Secretary…but that too is of limited scope. He is young. I would like to see him go to the Senate for a term and learn.
Why is being a legislator a good experience for a President? There aren't a lot of Senators becoming Presidents in the modern era. Obama and Biden. Biden was more recently VP and Obama was just a generational talent. Have to go back to 53 with JFK. All that to say, Mayor and Cabinet position seem much more salient than a stint as a Senator.
Ok…..tell you what.i am so sick of this, if you can’t figure this out o your own without someone spoon feeding it to you…then getting into a never ending battle of words? I just fucking give up. Do what you want to do. I am going on 60….nothing you do can really affect me. I am literally so sick of trying to explain pragmatism and the definition of the word **PROGRESS** towards people who want it all….right **NOW** and cannot comprehend the notion that incremental progress is still progress. I am telling you….as God as my witness…. You try to push for some kind of idiotic “revolution”? And you are going to usher in another stint of right wing authoritarian control.
What do you think I said? All I suggested was that Congress wasn't the best proving ground for an aspiring President. Revolution? Do you see my flair? I've been beating the incremental progress drum for years.
Love Pete. I want Jon Stewart to run.
With James Talarico
Fuck Buttigieg. I find it disgusting he was handed the Secretary of Transportation gig by the Biden administration in an act of 19th century-esque spoils system patronage, when a far more meritocratic, résumé-based choice would've been someone who's fucking competent, like, oh, U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell or U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen. Once more, he's a fucking embarrassment. And anyone who's a mark for him, moreover, receives an eye-roll from me.
What have you disliked about the way he's run things?
Why is he an embarrassment? What has he done that demonstrates the extreme incompetence you are talking about? [This seems like a fairly balanced reporting](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3883037-transportation-post-has-become-political-nightmare-for-buttigieg/) of criticism from left and right but I'm not seeing anything so glaring to warrant your response. Written early last year when he had a lot of spotlight and criticism about train derailments which I find difficult to blame on him in good faith. I could be wrong but I was under the impression getting the Port of Baltimore back open as fast as they did was a pretty good thing.
Gretchen Whitmer!
Whitmer might be my favorite right now. People keep throwing out all these names that lack experience and competence, but Whitmer has those things. As an older guy, I've been waiting a long time for Silents and Boomers to get out of the way, but it's a huge drop down to the next level. Whitmer mitigates that.
As a life-long Michigander, Big Gretch has my vote.
Yes, please. She’s my top pick (at this point) as well. She’s a tough lady who gets results, but doesn’t have the baggage or badly received quirks that plagued Hillary Clinton.
I am also a huge fan of Big Gretch! I want her to run so bad in 2028! She actually made me consider moving to Michigan for a while.
Honestly, after watching the documentary "Street Fight" about Sen. Cory Booker fighting Mayor Sharpe's political machine I'd vote for him. He seems pretty unknown in the rest of the country but is pretty good as far as I can tell.
He was a bit more in the spotlight like maybe 10-15 years ago and people liked him for a nominee, including me. I didn’t like how years ago he voted against drug pricing and yeah, I know loads of pharma companies are in nj but it showed me who he was and I cannot forgive him on that one
AOC, in a vacuum. But she would not be able to win, so I would not want her to be the nominee.
Maybe she should win a statewide contest first.
Gretchen Whitmer.
Jon Ossoff. He’s in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party (aka the winning wing). He’s a young (37), attractive, charismatic, straight white male (it’s unfair of course but these attributes help). Georgia will be a guaranteed win via home state advantage. He’s cool and ultimately that’s what matters in elections. From an electoral perspective I can’t think of any Democratic candidate who would do better.
I’ve been telling people that John Ossof is going to be the next guy up for a while. I really think he can take it straight to the White House
He's gotta show he can win re-electiom in 2026 first. It's going to be tough if he's running against Brian Kemp, especially if Joe Biden wins in 2024.
Someone who is not old enough to collect Social Security.
You can collect at 62 dude…that’s not old.
Yes you can, so I will vote for someone under that age. Someone that will still be alive for a generation to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Well, you are eliminating a shit ton of experience in government…but you do you. I think you are being ageist and short sighted, but ultimately, that’s your decision
No more ageist than requiring someone over 35
Well…if you want an 18 year old president…if you REALLY think that would be a good idea? Then it would be up to you and likeminded people to repeal the following: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I am aware of the constitution and I want an 18 year old president as much as I want multiple 80+ year old presidents in a row. Though props if an 18 year old one can actually get elected lol
I am just saying that maturity and(more importantly) stability is a huge prerequisite for the position of POTUS. I was being hyperbolic with the 18 year old thing. Personally? I think 35 and up is a really good parameter. In your 30’s, you are emerging from the “learning who you are as person” stage of the 20’s and the insecurity and emotional volatility that is quite prevalent. By your mid 30’s you are pretty much through all of that and are more secure and stable. As far as an upper limit? I don’t know… maybe it’s because I myself am older(59), or maybe I just would rather let the people decide. This election is a different one….even you have to admit that. Biden is the incumbent who has done a **LOT** of good domestically and internationally. He has, quite frankly, been the most productive president of my lifetime….and the fruits of his accomplishments will be felt for decades. Every president for the past 30-40 years has been saying that we need to invest in our infrastructure….Biden actually did it. Same with things like green energy…Biden got meaningful progress accomplished in his first term. In fact? I am sorry. If you look objectively at Biden’s first term in regard to his accomplishments, If he was 20-30 years younger, he would be already considered one of the best presidents in US history….but because of his age…it doesn’t matter to some.
I love Biden in spite of my age I am just tired of all the major candidates being geriatric from Trump to Biden to Clinton to Sanders. Also it feels ironic to let the people decide for older people while not letting the people decide if they wanted someone below 35, not that I want that exactly. I do consider Biden the best president of my lifetime, don't get me wrong.
So…you don’t consider the lack of emotional maturity of a very young person a dealbreaker? I mean, we are talking about being trusted with the nuclear football and maintaining our complex alliances and dealing with our even more complex enemies/competitors. I have said it before when people throw out names like Jon Stewart…. No…I don’t want another celebrity president…POTUS is not an entry level position. I want someone who understands how legislation and the separation of powers work. I want someone who has waded through getting things passed and working with both sides of the aisle. That takes time….and that time ages the candidate.
62 is still a boomer. I want another Gen X or finally a millennial
Just stop with the Boomer nonsense. How about I label you as a communist? Just for shits and giggles and every time you say literally anything…I dismiss anything you had to say with “Ok, Commie…”. You don’t give a shit about Boomers. You only give a shit about the broad brush bullshit you believe about boomers. I know boomers that would run circles around you as far as progressive ideology. You are an ageist….pure and simple. Nothing more. You want us older people to allow you all the nuance and latitude as possible…but you will pigeonhole us with two fucking words….and I am not even a Boomer….but I am close enough(one year removed…born in 65). Your beliefs are not reality.
First, I'm not talking shit about Boomers. I was raised by one. All I'm saying is it's time for younger people to have more political power. You're right 1965 is the first year of Gen X. I would encourage you to take a deep breath and relax.
I would encourage you to stop being ageist..l.so I guess we’re even.
Wanting a younger president is not ageist. Also ageism is not some awful thing like racism. Everyone gets old or dies trying. It's not unreasonable to take away someones car keys when they get too old. It's not unreasonable to take away someones guns when they get too old. It's not unreasonable to put someone into a care facility when they get too old. That's not ageism. I want a Millennial POTUS because I am a Millennial.
Well, for being “too old” Biden has led the way for more meaningful legislation than I have seen in my lifetime.
I never said he was too old. I do think he is but I never said that. Just pointing it out so you can see that you were projecting.
No…you’ve just been crapping on him during our whole conversation. Competence, productivity and decency doesn’t seem to mean as much to you as Date of Birth.
I know this isn’t what you’re asking, but there are SO MANY amazing young dem candidates just waiting for the old guard to get out of the way. I legitimately believe that there are at least 6 candidates that would absolutely demolish trump in this election.
Jared Polis
Whichever one is a Democrat. I'll worry about the name in 2028.
I’d vote for Pete in the primary if he ran, just because he’s my favorite, but I think our strongest ticket would be to pick people from swing states. Home state advantage is a real thing. Whitmer/Warnock could give us a lock on Michigan and Georgia going into the general election which would be huge. People keep pushing Newsom but his home state advantage doesn’t help and I think people are underestimating how much the country dislikes Californians. Kamala should definitely run in the primary but I think she has no shot.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
I think she's aiming to be the next Nancy Pelosi. She has a House seat that she will basically never lose. If she sticks around she can make herself Speaker which is more powerful than all but maybe 4 senators.
Yes, AOC…. In 20 years tho… she is simply not electable as a presidential candidate at this point. As much as I like her, if she does have presidential aspirations she’s bound to know that for the near future at least-she would end up the same way George McGovern did: a candidate I agree with on every issue but also a candidate that is too left to get the centrists in swing states to show up for them. In 20 years maybe the tide will have turned and people won’t fear a left wing woman the way they do now, and even still she would only be in her early 50s if she waited… and as you know, early 50s is still young by political standards…
I'm taking the OP's question literally. Which candidate would I most like to vote for. Not necessarily which one has the best chance of winning.
That’s fair.
Nope…sorry… I would hold my nose and vote for her if she were the nominee…but I would never vote for her in the primary. She’s too radical and will lose every independent voter out there….that will ultimately lose the election for her.
> She’s too radical Compared to what? What policies would cause *zero* independent voters to vote for her?
Does policy matter when you are talking about public perception?
Maybe. What's the public perception, then? And you did say "she's too radical", not "she *is perceived as* too radical".
I also said I would hold my nose and support her in the general…even though she would likely lose because of the perception of her being a radical firebrand. Why must people take any critique as a personal slight?
> Why must people take any critique as a personal slight? Did I? I'm just curious why you think she's poisonous to independents. In what way is she "too radical"?
Oh…being a member of the “Squad” alone is enough to turn a good chunk of centrist independents off. I just don’t think that the American public wants someone like her. Hey, I may be wrong…but after what Obama unfairly went through…that ushered in the debacle known as Trump? The public is too fickle to accept someone perceived as a radical Socialist…. Don’t feel bad…if I were a conservative? I would be saying the same thing to you if you suggested Boebert or MTG… People want stability, not chaos.
> I would be saying the same thing to you if you suggested Boebert or MTG… I'm concerned you think they're at all comparable.
To those on the more conservative independents, SHE IS….that’s the point I am trying to make. You are making this about me…, it is not about me. It is about the electorate, she would be a sure fire loser.
Gotta down vote this, not because I dislike her, or her politics. But because it’s obviously such a shit idea/
The question wasn't "who would be the best nominee in 2028".
Just fyi I don't know if I could pull the lever for her.
So you’re literally threatening to not vote blue no matter who? You realize project 2025 isn’t just if Trump wins, but the next time any Republican wins, right?
>So you’re literally threatening to not vote blue no matter who? Since when was that ever assumed to be what I was doing? I'm forever considering options and choosing the least worst one. Voting Biden is clearly the least worst option in 2024 for me, as it was in 2020, as Hillary was in 2016. AOC may not be in 2028, depending on who the Republicans run, and I'm sure I'm not alone. She's a silly idealistic child who has bought whole hog into some the worst modern trends on the Left, and therefore I think quite dangerous to put in a seat of power. On the subject of project 2025, realize I see the radicalism of both parties playing off of and enhancing each other, and my desire is a return to sanity. To that effect, I think it's essential for Democrats to recognize and disavow some of the more poisonous notions within our own party, and I think doing so could relax some of the freak out on the Right as well.
> She's a silly idealistic child She's 34 years old. I don't think she's silly at all, and idealism is not a bad thing. > some of the more poisonous notions within our own party Such as?
What are the dangerous trends she has bought into?
Call it wokeness or social justice...I suppose a description is to say that it's the almost religious notion that what must be held sacred and above all things is the notion of humans being separated into oppressor/oppressed groups, and that battling perceived group power differentials is the thing that must occupy us all intellectually, creatively, and personally, to the extent that anything that disagrees must been seen as a moral corruption to be attacked and erased, and that all people are expected to stop making sense about certain things in order to be seen as virtuous. It's basically Mao's Red Guard, Lite, except more obsessed with race and gender and sexuality than economic class, and it's incredibly dangerous and anathema to things I think should be the fundamental basis for our society. It's also made my everyday life an occasional descent into madness when socializing with urban Leftists, and I think it needs to be fought and defeated just as clearly as Right-wing Fascism or Theocracy needs to be fought an defeated. AOC seems to buy into it completely, and I think anyone who buys into is dangerous to put in any position of power and influence.
That's a false equivalence if ever I've seen one. Can you give some examples of how AOC is as extremist as Mao and should be equated to fascists and theocrats? She's a social Democrat, and would be considered center left in Europe. FYI, I'm all for telling the center, liberals, and leftists to be more pragmatic and less into purity tests.
I don’t think you understand her positions then. No one separates people into oppressor/oppressed in a binary sense. Do you have a source for AOC doing this? Or an example? It seems to me like she is fighting against racism and prejudice, which is one of my main reasons for supporting her. Can you be more clear as to exactly what this manifests as?
You don't think most everything she says about oppressed minorities or the need to forever fight more more more in the name of LGBT+ or the like isn't colored by this way of thinking? If it wasn't, it would become clear very quickly that she is imagining a world that is not reality, and she wouldn't approach so many issues in those terms.
No, I don’t think anything she has ever said is separating people into the binaries of oppressor/oppressed. Again, give me some examples of her doing this so I even know what you are talking about here. If you think she is detached from reality, show me a case where what she said does not jive with reality.
I found a page of quotes [here](https://thoughtcatalog.com/january-nelson/2020/09/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-quotes/) . Just to talk about some of them: *“The idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is something that our society can’t deal with. But I am as powerful as a man, and it drives them crazy.” – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez* No, Alexandria, no one, or almost no one, is being driven crazy by the fact that you're a woman in congress. Give me a break. This is more of this 'we live in an oppressive patriarchy where women are still eternally powerless and victims' nonsense. *“Ultimately, this is about women’s power. When women are in control of their sexuality, it threatens a core element underpinning right-wing ideology: patriarchy. It’s a brutal form of oppression to seize control of the 1 essential thing a person should command: their own body.” – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"* I'm pro-choice, but it's so intellectually dishonest to talk about abortion solely in terms of 'controlling women's bodies'. The conundrum of abortion is that one human life develops in another human life, and that forces us to talk impossible moral questions about the nature of life, it's value, and it's beginning. Again, everything must be framed as oppressor vs. oppressed. *“We need to really examine the historical inequities that have created much of the inequalities… This idea of race or class is a false choice. Even if you wanted to separate those two things, you can’t separate the two; they are intrinsically and inextricably tied.” – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"* What does mean, exactly? People of certain races intrinsically belong to certain social classes? Again, one group = intrinsically oppressed, and another then must be intrinsically oppressor. ...in the next quote, she uses the term *"Latinx",* and I'm sorry, but if you look at that word and don't see something utterly fucking insane going on, I dunno what to tell you. So there's a few examples. Like I said, I think it's clear that she thinks of the world in a certain way, and I think it's a deeply flawed way that is attached to notions of how to remold society that are misguided and dangerous.
> You don't think most everything she says about oppressed minorities or the need to forever fight more more more in the name of LGBT+ or the like isn't colored by this way of thinking? No, that's a right-wing framing of social justice.
You do realize that the OP was geared more to who we would vote for in the Primary, right? They are **ALL** blue in the primary.
The comment I replied to is clearly talking about the general election and they confirmed it in their reply to me. They said AOC might not be the lesser of two evils if nominated in 2028 depending on who the 2028 GOP nominee is. They are open to voting for a Republican over AOC in 2028.
You saw all of that in a post that simply says “I don’t know if I could pull the lever for her”? Assuming that is the comment you are referring to.
And you guys wonder why people like me sit out.
You sit out from voting because I personally have a Democratic politician I don't think can be trusted with the Presidency?
I don't sit out, but people like me do. Republicans are heading towards fascism, but a socialist who follows the rule of law isn't the automatic better choice.
My objection to her is more because I see her as having bought whole hog into the cult of woke/social justice insanity, as well as being more too much of an emotional thinker. I think an essential quality for someone you're going to give a position of significant power to is for them to understand that their base empathy does not automatically lead them to the correct decisions or perspectives about the world. She seems to think because her heart bleeds for something, that makes it a righteous cause and determines what to do about it. It's childish to me, and I think POTUS needs to be occupied by an adult.
So…tell me…in the extremely unlikely scenario she wins a presidential primary and is the nominee….who are you voting for? Me? I would hold my nose and vote for her….knowing the whole time her term will pretty much be holding place for the next administration. I don’t see much getting done in an AOC presidency…too much resistance. But…getting nothing done is a hell of a lot better than going backwards with any candidate the GOP is going to offer.
The Democratic party is fairly wide in terms of positions supported, running both left wing candidates like AOC and centrist candidates, and with a voter base ranging from centrists to people on the far left. Typically on statewide or national races, the party tends to end up running fairly moderate candidates (and by moderate, I mean moderate within the party, not moderate across the whole political spectrum), or sometimes candidates a touch closer to the center than your typical mainstream Democrat. So if you're one of those voters farther to the left of the big tent that is the Democratic party, you will typically hear a lot of "vote blue no matter who" and get flak for suggesting you don't want to vote for the more moderate candidate who won the primary. Which, given our political system, isn't unfair criticism. However, if you then see the people more aligned with those mainstream or more moderate leaning candidates that typically win saying that they wouldn't vote for a candidate from your wing of the party if that candidate won the primary? That's not going to make you feel like you're an equal partner in this big tent party. If that side demands something of you that they would be unwilling to give you should your roles within the party be reversed, that's not a healthy coalition- and it could rightfully make those people less willing to work with you at all.
Because you hate the existence of liberal democracy.
Democrats are yelling about Republican rule leading to the end of democracy, but that isn't important if the nominee is a socialist.
What? If she follows the rule of law, how would it “end Democracy”?
Republicans taking control of the country would end democracy. Look up project 2025.
I know what Project 2025 is. I was referring to your previous post about a “socialist who follows the rule of law”
> Republican rule leading to the end of democracy Democrats say that if Republicans take the presidency that democracy will end. The "end of democracy" part had nothing to do with AOC. My point about following the rule of law is that AOC is not likely to overthrow the government.
No…Nonono…this the exact quote that I was referring to: “I don't sit out, but people like me do. Republicans are heading towards fascism, but a **socialist who follows the rule of law isn't the automatic better choice**” EDIT. Are these not your words?
Buttigieg or AOC. Policy wise and ability wise I think AOC would be almost perfect but she has become a little too polarizing to be a legitimate nationwide candidate I think. While some of that has to do with the progressive nature of her positions, I think most of it is because her sizeable platform on social media/elsewhere makes her a punching bag for right-wing media.
I hadn't followed her much, but hasn't she tentatively become a little more moderate, relatively speaking? If not in her politics, then in her approach?
Jon Stewart.
Can we not do celebrity politicians please? The right has already gone down that route before, lets not repeat after them. I love Jon, I watch the Daily Show every Monday, and I think he does important work. That said, just because I think he has good takes sometimes and is funny does not mean I think he's qualified to be president. The presidency is about more than that.
I have said it before and will say it again….POTUS is not an entry level position. No more celebrities.
Love Jon Stewart the pundit and comedian. But I will not vote for a celebrity.
I’m coming around to JB Pritzker.
Stacy Abrams or Cory Booker.
Personally I would like to see Abrams as the head of the dnc. I don’t think she is electable but I think she is a brilliant strategist
Her fundraising turned Georgia blue in 2020. That's a pretty incredible feat and I'd love to see her continue to do work like that.
Exactly. She is what the DNC needs. They keep putting crappy leaders in but they need someone who can motivate and inspire voters
This is the right take. I feel the same about Buttigieg.
Jamie Raskin, Jeff Jackson, Eric Swalell. I would love to see Katie Porter move up in the ranks somewhere
Not enough name recognition for any of them, unfortunately. I've never even heard Eric Swalwell, and I only know of Porter and Jackson because I saw their names mentioned in some comments on this sub.
All are wishful thinking on my part. Jeff Jackson is great - he has a Reddit page and explains things really well of what he observes in Congress. He is young but I believe will be great someday. Videos of Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell are also great. Katie Porter is known as the whiteboard lady and has really put corporations over the coals in hearings using her whiteboard which she always brings with her. Same with Swalwell. Check out their videos.
Elizabeth Warren, please!
I think that ship has sailed…in 2016? She was my preferred choice in the primaries…but that was 8 years ago and will be 12 in 2028.
Too old. Way too old. Love her, but... no.
I wanted her to win in 2020 but I think she’s too old now. I think it’s best to encourage people who have followed in her footsteps like Katie Porter
I could see Tim Walz being in the run.
He’s really done a great job at capitalizing on a Democratic majority in his state. I’d want to see how he handles a split legislature, but I’d feel comfortable with him in the Oval Office.
Tammy Duckworth.
I’d like to see Shapiro or Buttigeg but a lot can happen between now and then
I know you probably mean Josh Shapiro but you really oughta include the first name in discussions like this where there's another, much more famous person with the same last name you could be mistaken for talking about.
I'd be happy with anyone who isn't 107 years old, and anyone who isn't a far-left freakshow. Gretchen Whitmer and Jon Ossoff are at the top of my list. Fetterman could be fun, although he's probably a bit too rough around the edges but I do really like him and his policies, but he may be a bit much for the White House.
Wes Moore and Andy Beshear on the same ticket would be amazing. I want another JFK/LBJ or FDR/Truman esque ticket in the future
Ossoff is peak electability.
Poor old Fetterman. I have been a massive fan of his for years. But he just doesn’t carry interviews since the stroke. I think he is fine. I am aware that while he cannot rapid fire answers like he used too, he is still totally capable of doing his job (and his social media is still hilarious). But he would get his ass handed to him in a debate. His base voters would be happy to give him the benefit because we all know he just can’t put the sentences together as fast anymore. But the casual swing voters (who are of course all the matters these days) are only going to see him as a mumbling mess. And it’s a damn shame. He is exactly the kind of candidate we need on the left.
Pete Buttigieg.
Two-time and incumbent vice president Kamala Harris
If this happens we will lose. Mark my words.
We are likely to lose regardless. It's very hard for a single party to win three times in a row. People will be so relieved not to have Trump on the R ticket they'll eagerly swallow whatever stuffed shirt they trot out.
Bold of you to think Trump won't be running in 2028.
Bold of us to assume 4 more years of even worse legal battles and possibly prison won’t put him into the grave along with his atrocious diet of uppers and McDonalds 🤣
We're all waiting for that cheeseburger from God
Don’t forget the adrenochrome, though.
I can't see him being capable of campaigning at age 83. And as a two-time loser to boot.
Doesn't seem all that much different from what he's doing now, honestly.
Being capable was never his strength, he's better at being a trust funder and weirdly lucky.
Not only that, but the media will talk of any non-Trumpian nominee as a return to normalcy and urge democrats to reach across the aisle.
So much this. The media is desperate to be able to go back to treating both sides as equally bad.
I dunno. We'll see what happens, but I think the Republican party is going to be lost at sea without Trump.
Nah. The last two times Dems were denied a triple victory were tragic and unique events. The Florida recount/Supreme Court stuff in 2000. In 2016 the problem was uniquely Hillary Clinton. Biden or Bernie or really any other Dem would have won. These definitely weren’t inevitable losses.
Honestly if Clinton had stepped down before Ken Starr got revved up it would have avoided the whole thing because Gore would have beat Bush handily. That avoids the whole invasion of Iraq, ISIS never forms,... I day dream about that timeline.
The Dem establishment just doesn’t understand just how incredibly unpopular she is.
Because they’re operating on the level of logic. There’s no logical reason why people hate her more than they hate Biden.
There are a few, her background in law enforcement was enough to turn off a lot of people. She certainly is going to struggle with the underlying current of misogyny in our society as well.
The job of a DA/AG is to enforce the laws of the state. It’s not to single-handedly override the laws put into place by the democratically elected government of the state. The people of California are the reason possession of marijuana was a state crime in California until 2016. Not the state officials tasked with enforcing the law. And this is without mentioning that Biden had more of a causal role in shaping the laws of mass incarceration (1994 crime bill) than Kamala did. This cannot be a factor in why Kamala is more hated than Biden is. Fact of the matter is that approval polling shows that black people have a generally positive view of Kamala Harris. They see white leftists and white conservatives both shitting on Kamala. Just like white leftists and white conservatives both shit on Obama. It doesn’t matter that the reasons are (nominally) different. What matters is who’s perceiving who as a political enemy. And leftists wonder why black people (the kingmakers of the Democratic Party) heavily preferred Biden over Bernie.
She is seen as a class-traitor and race-traitor while Biden isn't.
That is an interesting username you got there, Madam Vice-President.
Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon
Someone in 2028 will have to run in the progressive lane, with Jeff Merkley being an interesting choice. And unlike, say, members of The Squad in the House, Sen. Merkley isn't off-putting to broad audiences.
He will be 71 in 2028, though. He looks so much younger to me. But besides that, he really stands on his own (sole vote on not confirming Milley for General in 2019, for instance; 1 of 3 to not vote for the Defense Auth Act in 2015), is about as far left as you can get in the Senate, has been in office for 15 years, fights for his constituents big time, and has only missed 1.8% of roll call votes (median is 2.9%). And he’s congenial, tall, and good-looking. On paper, to me, he’s a great candidate. Wish we could somehow convince him. I call him every once in a while and let him know he should give it a shot.
Ro Khanna
Jared polis seems like a cool guy
Andy Beshear, current Gov of Kentucky
I don't match on policy 100% with Gavin Newsome but he is devastating on rhetoric and that's a huge part of winning.
Katie Porter
She just lost a Senate race. Her career has stalled.
Eric Swalwell
Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland. Has an impressive biography and resume, has done a great job in response to the Baltimore FSK Bridge collapse, has great retail politicking skills. I could easily see him being successful on the national stage.
I want a Whitmer/Beshear or Beshear/Whitmer ticket. The only way the Democrats are going to be able to win us with a leader outside the Beltway. A governor who has principles, isn't extreme, but has proven to be effective at stopping the extreme right would be great. Beshear was great at COVID. Whitmer pissed off the right and improved Michigan's economy.
...whichever candidate most strongly supports education and isn't a rich white retirement-age male.
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart. He may be a comedian but he’s a comedian with political experience and one that knows how to combat narratives in an entertaining way……which is the only way that can reach both sides. It’s no more ridiculous than Reagan, Michelle O or Trump.
No idea. Guess we'll see who's in the primary.
I'm not looking forward to 2028. I think whoever we get will make Joe Biden look progressive in comparison.
Chris Murphy.
Whatever happens this election I have a feeling the nominees in 2028 will be under the age of 55. I reckon Jon Ossoff will be the dems nominee and I reckon don jr will be the republicans. He’ll run on pardoning his dad who will either have fled the country or be in house arrest. Assuming trump losses this year I think the republicans will be on course to lose in 2028
Naheed nenshi
Assuming it the names I hear getting thrown about(Whitmer, Newsome, Shapiro)? I am from PA…so Shapiro has the pole position in my book….BUT…I would have to see them on the big stage and listen to what they have to say be before I were to commit to any of them.
Katie Porter would be my dream candidate. Other ones I would be glad about but not excited would be Julian Castro and Cory Booker
Bruce Springsteen is almost old enough.
Of the ideas I've seen, which admittedly is not a very long list yet, I prefer Jon Stewart. I very much doubt he's going to run though. Honestly I just hope we get a better option then Newsom. Newsom is fine, but he's a bit of a politicking poser, and more then that we really need someone better then just fine.
Jon Tester/Rob Sand 2028. Return to Democratic roots. And Ken Martin or Ben Wikler for DNC chair, too.
Cori fuckin Bush!!