news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[khalyan]

37 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

Bernie isn't running in 2028.

 

If anyone thinks he is, please share with why you think he is and if you think that's a good idea.

 

I already laid out how ALL the white men (and youngish men of color/prior well known names) on our current bench are abysmal choices for 2028 several pages ago.

 

If anyone has suggestions BESIDES Ossoff, Cuban, Kelly, Torres, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Whitmer, Pritzker, Buttigieg, Fetterman, and Newsom, let's have them.

 

And if anyone here mentions AOC I'm going to lose my ****ing mind (And I say that as a progressive (although the goalposts keep moving as to whether I'm allowed to call myself that here)).

 

I also can't handle any arguments here claiming the right economic message will overpower any cultural shortcomings on them being a woman or person of color.

 

There have been dozens of books and sociology papers written on conservative Latino men's idealization of white men for machismo as a form of white assimilation I can pull the links to so please don't gaslight folks here.

 

The notion of Bernie's cultural blindspots being able to be papered over by the supposed sheer power of his simple repetition of economic messages belies the actual stats of no one but him being able to deliver them with effective responsiveness in the polling in the first place which is inherently the problem at this point.

 

No one needs to reminds me of Bernie's lopsided 2020 Nevada caucus numbers with Latinos where Chris Matthews apologized for comparing it to the Nazi invasion of France.

 

Bernie ain't running. The question becomes WHO. IS. 

Ossoff and Cuban are viable, maybe even Pritzker. I went back a few pages and couldn't find your reasoning against them. 

[khalyan]

3 hours ago, anti-bitch said:

Hey @khalyan could you tell the mods to not merge other political threads to this one? It confuses the convo here. Sometimes not sure what people are replying to. See the posts above, for example.

Tell your fellow members to not make new threads for topics that are supposed to stay in here and we wouldn't have to merge anything. I know I've tried telling them in the past. 

[Gesamtkunstwerk]

21 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

https://archive.ph/tWhTJ
 

^^ link to read for free

 

I love this man

[Bears01]

6 minutes ago, khalyan said:

I've said previously but Whitmer is absolutely devoid of any charisma. She'd flop horrendously if she ran for president. 

See, that's a good critique of her. I agree, but nobody on the Republican side is currently even remotely close to as charismatic as Trump (but I'm sure Vance is gonna get groomed to be). 
 

But she is attractive and some male voters would probably be drawn to her for that alone. Time will tell. She's the only potential candidate with any kind of working class policy accomplishments that can draw back working class voters to the democrats in my honest opinion though 

[19SLAYty9]

4 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

Oh, and before I forget, speaking of Michigan Democrats who could run for 2028 - **** Pete Buttigieg. He won't even make it to the first primary without dropping out in if voters and the party have any sense. "Medicare for all who want it" ugh bite me 

 

 

Pete is toast. He's going to try to run for Gov of MI in 2026 and be toasted by either Benson or McMorrow. 

[Virgos Groove]

30 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

https://archive.ph/tWhTJ
 

^^ link to read for free

 

Quote

[Trump's] explanation is grossly racist, cruel, and fallacious. But it is an explanation.

 

And what do the Democrats have to say about the crises facing working families? What is their full-throated explanation, pounded away day after day in the media, in the halls of Congress, and in town meetings throughout the country as to why tens of millions of workers, in the richest country on earth, are struggling to put food on the table or pay the rent? Where is the deeply felt outrage that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care for all as a human right while insurance and drug companies make huge profits?

How do they explain supporting billions of dollars in military aid to the right-wing extremist government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has created an unprecedented humanitarian disaster in Gaza that is causing massive malnutrition and starvation for thousands of children?

 

Dems ran on a platform of reality denial. The moment you tell people "the economy is great!" when they can't afford groceries, they won't listen to anything else you say. When you tell people your 300-yo Neolithic fossil who can't string a sentence longer than "Me suck Israel dick" is still fit for president, they won't listen to anything else you say. The moment you bring Liz ******* Cheney of all people, they won't listen to anything else you say.

Edited Sunday at 04:45 PM by Virgos Groove

[Vermillion]

2 minutes ago, khalyan said:

Ossoff and Cuban are viable, maybe even Pritzker. I went back a few pages and couldn't find your reasoning against them. 

Ossoff will lose in 2026 while Cuban and Pritzker have no personality and will decrease base turnout.

 

Whitmer will lose Latino men full stop. None of the above are viable.

[khalyan]

2 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

See, that's a good critique of her. I agree, but nobody on the Republican side is currently even remotely close to as charismatic as Trump (but I'm sure Vance is gonna get groomed to be). 
 

But she is attractive and some male voters would probably be drawn to her for that alone. Time will tell. She's the only potential candidate with any kind of working class policy accomplishments that can draw back working class voters to the democrats in my honest opinion though 

I also think you have to be careful with union-specific language in nationwide campaigns. Some states are not strong union states, such as my state Texas. If your only legislative victory is specifically about unions, you'll have a hard time translating what that legislative victory means to voters across the country. 

[wastedpotential]

10 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

 

I was about to post this. I'm not sure what the girls think about Chris Murphy (honestly, he hasn't stood out to me enough to form an opinion aside from slightly left of your average Senate Dem), but I think he drew the right conclusions from this election, more so than most in Washington can say. I don't think I fully agree with him (and someone please tell him to increase the granularity in his language because the whiplash I got reading 'the left' in place of Kamala and the centrist wing was a lot ddd), but this is the direction the Dems need to investigate further going forward. 

 

Is he a good speaker? I fear the back bench of Democratic candidates is atrocious and this alone seems… interesting re 2028 but I'll probably walk that back in an hour when someone unearths a skeleton, like I did for Shapiro in the VEEPstakes 

Edited Sunday at 04:42 PM by wastedpotential

[19SLAYty9]

Slotkin 2028. Who's ready for that journey 

[khalyan]

1 minute ago, Vermillion said:

Ossoff will lose in 2026 while Cuban and Pritzker have no personality and will decrease base turnout.

 

Whitmer will lose Latino men full stop. None of the above are viable.

Why do you feel like Ossoff will lose in 2026? If anything, historically we see the first midterm election after a big wave like this typically swing back, and Georgia had some of the best blue turnout this year. 

 

I also don't view Cuban as no personality. A quick watch of Shark Tank will tell you this. He's not my favorite candidate, but if the American public are craving "successful" businessmen who can talk plainly to the American people, he's the perfect fit. 

 

I don't know much about Pritzker, but everything I've read seems positive. I don't love how he's a billionaire, but Trump is too and nobody cares. 

 

 

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Vermillion said:

 

Sister, seeing you share this but be frustrated with those demanding we reconcile with why Bernie was popular has left me confused. 

 

Especially when this tweet kind of does exactly what we are demanding. 

 

 

I don't think voters think about capitalism. I don't think they're ideological. But for the people whose job it is reach voters in ways that they themselves don't knowingly think about, it feels we must have that conversation. 

 

And it feels like that conversation has been happening for years about whether we understand our problems as essentialism or constructed. 

 

As a gay man, I don't think most people have homophobic souls. I think homophobia is spread through scapegoating and economic messaging for most people, especially in a growing secular nation. 

 

So to see liberals fall on either side of the essentialist coin is frustrating. 

 

One set of moderate liberals are going "most people have transphobic souls so let's push trans people into the shadows to win votes" and the claimed progressive liberals are going "well those people have transphobic soul so there's no point in getting their vote".

 

But actual progressives want to stop people from being swept into transphobia by addressing the current capitalist system that has caused everyone to be atomized and alienated and thus sucked into isolated media ecosystems that then let's the far right tell young men their quality of life is poor because not only do Dems want to pay for transgender people to have healthcare but explicitly don't want them to have healthcare. 

[Bears01]

1 minute ago, khalyan said:

I also think you have to be careful with union-specific language in nationwide campaigns. Some states are not strong union states, such as my state Texas. If your only legislative victory is specifically about unions, you'll have a hard time translating what that legislative victory means to voters across the country. 

I agree, but in 2028, MI, PA, and WI is what wins the presidency. Repealing RTW in those states is a MAJOR green flag for voters out there. 
 

The MI legislature did a lot of good work the last 2 years that gave her good policy accomplishments, so I can look more into that. 
 

But just in my day to day conversations with the countless WWC Trump supporters out by me, them hearing someone repealed RTW is the only thing that would make them even consider voting for a Democrat again. And I know, anecdotal 

[teresaguidice]

no schizo blue maga election denialism on this site thank u

 

[khalyan]

1 minute ago, Bears01 said:

I agree, but in 2028, MI, PA, and WI is what wins the presidency. Repealing RTW in those states is a MAJOR green flag for voters out there. 
 

The MI legislature did a lot of good work the last 2 years that gave her good policy accomplishments, so I can look more into that. 
 

But just in my day to day conversations with the countless WWC Trump supporters out by me, them hearing someone repealed RTW is the only thing that would make them even consider voting for a Democrat again. And I know, anecdotal 

Demographics are shifting rapidly in the parties and across the US. I would be surprised if the three blue wall states were the determining factor in 2028. 

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Vermillion said:

Bernie isn't running in 2028.

He's not. But also you don't have anyone else with his policies and thus you have no winning candidates. 

 

No one on the Democratic backbench can or will win. 

Edited Sunday at 05:31 PM by Communion

[Virgos Groove]

Just now, teresaguidice said:

no schizo blue maga election denialism on this site thank u

 

Shut up, I want to see GhostBox storm the Capitol

 

[19SLAYty9]

Thank god tulsi will run as a Republican in 2028. Her attacks always last 

[khalyan]

One of my biggest gripes about the Kamala campaign was how specific it was to the seven battleground states. It obviously had some impact because statewide elections seem pretty successful for Democrats in most of those states, however you will start to lose voters in other parts of the US if your messaging is only directed to them. Why would a Latino voter in RGV Texas care about union laws in Michigan? You'd have to message these policies to all aspects of the American public better and Gretchen cannot do that (yet). 

[Redstreak]

 

[khalyan]

Just now, 19SLAYty9 said:

Thank god tulsi will run as a Republican in 2028. Her attacks always last 

One of my coworkers said his favorite politician currently is Tulsi because she went to war and she switched parties so to them, she can appeal to both sides  

[khalyan]

Just now, Redstreak said:

 

A side-note about this, but I think Kamala's CNN town hall she did by herself was probably the worst thing she could have done for her campaign at that point. She spent more time attacking Trump than advocating for her policies, and those policies she advocated for were very Republican such as her weird bragging about the border wall. 

[khalyan]

Lots of thoughts, but I'm reading about Michigan and the ready-to-work law issue and I have hardly any idea what it actually means. That would be a complicated issue to campaign on nationally IMO. 

[anti-bitch]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

Obama ran on hope and change lol 

 

This idea that Americans are stupid and thus Dems don't need progressive policies feels like a cope. 

 

Wanna know what short phrases and ideas Americans loved?

 

Let's take down the millionaires and billionaires. 

 

Let's make the rich pay their fair share. 

 

Let's stop giving tax breaks to [Bernie voice] billionaires and let everyone see a damn doctor. 

 

Compare how Bernie spoke of ideas as necessary and what we had to do vs running away from policy commitments like Harris when going "Once Congress signs into law a bill to give a $25,000 tax credit to first time homebuyers to help afford a down payment, I will sign that bill!".

 

Dems lie to themselves that they must under-promise while continuing to lose to a man who promises people the world.

 

if progressive policies are pie in the sky, it seems most Americans want a damn slice of pie. 

My point was that the messaging should be more concise. And there you showed examples of it. I never meant that the platform itself shouldn't be more progressive, it should.

 

But it's sad that Trump's messaging, blaming everything on certain groups of people, seems to work time after time. If Obama ran on hope and change, for Trump it's fear and going back.

 

Either way, once again, 100 million people did not vote. So if they wanna get more votes in the future, might wanna go reach out to them.

[Vermillion]

23 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

 

This is the right message but the wrong messenger.  

 

This man has nothing to worry about from a vulnerability standpoint.