At what point does everyone out there grasping for a “decent” candidate realize that the most decent of all these people is the one already in the White House?
At what point does everyone out there grasping for a “decent” candidate realize that the most decent of all these people is the one already in the White House?
Because people are not actually grasping for a decent candidate. They are grasping for a candidate that matches their identity that is seen to be electable. Decency has little to do with it in any direct sense other than "electability."
I think it’s strange to expect Democratic politicians to not have *any* left leaning views. The Democratic Party has historically held liberal policy positions just as the Republican Party had (before the Trump takeover) held traditionally conservative positions. And despite that takeover, it is still the “Democratic Party” - not “The Party That Must Be Completely Centrist On All Issues In Order to Save the Republican Party From Destroying Itself and the Country” (that would be too long to fit on a ballot anyway ;)
But I’m not too worried about the crackpot extreme left candidates. If Democrats were too scared by the threat of another Trump to nominate Biden instead of Bernie or Warren or Buttigieg - then, wacky Marianne Williams, Colonel West and RFK Jr. don’t stand a chance. Especially the last guy on the list who would probably do better in a Republican Party primary than a Democratic one.
I live in NJ but go to NY pretty often. Have you seen polls or other data to show that Jefferies is unpopular there? That doesn’t seem to be the impression that I get. But I might be wrong.
Right. I assume everyone here knows the history of “The Southern Strategy” and why and how the parties realigned when Republicans realized they were unlikely to win any black votes because of their opposition to Civil Rights. “Historically” might have been a poor choice of words. I probably should have said “I’m recent history” but I doubt anyone here is under the impression that Republicans prioritize rights for black people more than Democrats because “Lincoln was a Republican”.
They were economically liberal and socially conservative. Their economic liberalism was simply “whites only.” They were willing New Dealers on those terms.
M neighbor -- retired combat Infantry w 3 "sandbox tours" and a Purple Heart, your typical wokeist! radical!-- has taken to wearing a blue hat with a red-hat font beseeching "MAKE LYING WRONG AGAIN".
I like him well enough (really wish he didn't shoot himself in the foot, and his silly feud with DeSantis and Abbott is a needless distraction), but there is no way he's going to win a primary nationally
As a former California resident and current resident of deep blue Maryland, I have nothing but contempt for the runaway housing costs and homelessness experienced in California. Newsome has failed California, and this issue represents a significant weakness in his ability to lead 50 states. The tent cities scattered throughout the state is shameful - and I have homeless family members who have spent months/years navigating the state's system to apply for affordable housing. Newsome is the poster child of the stereotypical wine drinking, out-of-touch, snooty liberal elite, and will get crushed in most swing states.
All the more reason not to nominate a person with no solutions to the problem - None of the national homelessness comes close to comparison to the problems in California.
In all due respect, save the pom poms. Newsom hasn’t been a “major proponent”. Are you kidding me? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of homeless people - tell that to my homeless brother, sister, niece, and millions of California residents on the verge of becoming homeless. Accessory dwelling units (i.e secondary housing on other property) is a band-aide on bleeding open chest wound. Heavens no. California’s housing crisis is a humanitarian crisis, fully owned by the democratic leadership of the state. I’m not a partisan, and I’m not a MAGA. I have two eyeballs and common sense.
Totally true and fair to say that this has not improved much on Newsom’s watch. That said, this isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing. Every main street in just about every rural town is riddled with boarded up windows from shops that got eaten by WalMart decades ago, but Republicans conveniently don’t address that part either, they’d rather point at the issues in bigger cities. Of course, they can’t really do anything about it either, because they’d rather run on a political platform better suited to winning elections in Alabama rather than where they actually live, so they’re hard capped at about 35% of the vote.
The answer to all this is reinvestment. We need to build a few million more houses in an affordable price range, and try to rescue the local economies in our small towns. We have a lot of underserved communities in both the urban and rural areas of the state. Unfortunately, yes, the NIMBYs and other moneyed elites in the state are standing on the air hoses for all of it while they tell the impoverished people in those respective areas, “let’s you and them fight.”
This isn’t a simple problem, and it’s not going to have a simple solution, and the economic and political will for even the hard solutions doesn’t really exist right now.
Agree pretty much entirely on the NIMBYism, aside from the “AOC base” part, but I’m certain we’ve already had this conversation so I won’t go into it.
Basically the economic prospects in small towns are dead because the local businesses and shops that used to sustain them got wrecked by the big box stores (especially but not limited to WalMart). The fact that rail, road, and air travel all is pretty much designed to skip by them helps not even a little.
The Interstates were an awesome infrastructure achievement and a pernicious destroyer of underserved communities at the same time. They skipped all the rural areas and paved over most of the poorest neighborhoods (especially ones where large concentrations of people of color lived) in the cities, all at once.
I don’t think you know nearly enough far leftists to be able to say that. Pretty much no one who voted for Bernie in 2016 or 2020 is likely to support any of those.
At what point does everyone out there grasping for a “decent” candidate realize that the most decent of all these people is the one already in the White House?
Because people are not actually grasping for a decent candidate. They are grasping for a candidate that matches their identity that is seen to be electable. Decency has little to do with it in any direct sense other than "electability."
I think it’s strange to expect Democratic politicians to not have *any* left leaning views. The Democratic Party has historically held liberal policy positions just as the Republican Party had (before the Trump takeover) held traditionally conservative positions. And despite that takeover, it is still the “Democratic Party” - not “The Party That Must Be Completely Centrist On All Issues In Order to Save the Republican Party From Destroying Itself and the Country” (that would be too long to fit on a ballot anyway ;)
But I’m not too worried about the crackpot extreme left candidates. If Democrats were too scared by the threat of another Trump to nominate Biden instead of Bernie or Warren or Buttigieg - then, wacky Marianne Williams, Colonel West and RFK Jr. don’t stand a chance. Especially the last guy on the list who would probably do better in a Republican Party primary than a Democratic one.
I live in NJ but go to NY pretty often. Have you seen polls or other data to show that Jefferies is unpopular there? That doesn’t seem to be the impression that I get. But I might be wrong.
Right. I assume everyone here knows the history of “The Southern Strategy” and why and how the parties realigned when Republicans realized they were unlikely to win any black votes because of their opposition to Civil Rights. “Historically” might have been a poor choice of words. I probably should have said “I’m recent history” but I doubt anyone here is under the impression that Republicans prioritize rights for black people more than Democrats because “Lincoln was a Republican”.
They were economically liberal and socially conservative. Their economic liberalism was simply “whites only.” They were willing New Dealers on those terms.
The top 5 contenders for the Democratic nom in 2028 are probably:
Harris
Whitmer
Kelley
Warnock
Polis
None of those screams “Left” let alone “Far Left.”
None of those are running in 2024.
I mean, no one besides Biden is running in 2024. I’m responding to Charlie’s assertion of who might take up the mantle in 5 years.
I read Charlie's comment as pertaining to the 2024 election. Which is the next election.
I don’t know why it would be. Biden is running. And he isn’t the “Left” or the “Far Left.”
So are JFK junior, Marianne Williamson, Cornell West and possibly Joe Manchin.
Which is what the article was about.
No one but Manchin is a serious contender of any kind and Manchin isn’t running as a Democrats if he runs. Let’s be real about this.
What about Klobuchar?
Maybe Wes Moore, Maura Healey and Josh Shapiro too. I really believe the Democrats have a deep bench of normal people.
Yes, that’s the strength of this entire group of people. They are all normal people.
Make Normal Great Again!
I think you've just given me the slogan for my 2028 bumper sticker! My 2020 slogan was "Make Politics Boring Again, Biden 2020."
M neighbor -- retired combat Infantry w 3 "sandbox tours" and a Purple Heart, your typical wokeist! radical!-- has taken to wearing a blue hat with a red-hat font beseeching "MAKE LYING WRONG AGAIN".
My older son gave me one of those several months ago.
I imagine wearing that hat into the court-room where TFG is on trial for anything would not be allowed ... but it would certainly be worth the try!!
Newsom
He would never win the primary.
I like him well enough (really wish he didn't shoot himself in the foot, and his silly feud with DeSantis and Abbott is a needless distraction), but there is no way he's going to win a primary nationally
As a former California resident and current resident of deep blue Maryland, I have nothing but contempt for the runaway housing costs and homelessness experienced in California. Newsome has failed California, and this issue represents a significant weakness in his ability to lead 50 states. The tent cities scattered throughout the state is shameful - and I have homeless family members who have spent months/years navigating the state's system to apply for affordable housing. Newsome is the poster child of the stereotypical wine drinking, out-of-touch, snooty liberal elite, and will get crushed in most swing states.
Homelessness is a national problem ! Look harder, you’ll see.
All the more reason not to nominate a person with no solutions to the problem - None of the national homelessness comes close to comparison to the problems in California.
In all due respect, save the pom poms. Newsom hasn’t been a “major proponent”. Are you kidding me? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of homeless people - tell that to my homeless brother, sister, niece, and millions of California residents on the verge of becoming homeless. Accessory dwelling units (i.e secondary housing on other property) is a band-aide on bleeding open chest wound. Heavens no. California’s housing crisis is a humanitarian crisis, fully owned by the democratic leadership of the state. I’m not a partisan, and I’m not a MAGA. I have two eyeballs and common sense.
Totally true and fair to say that this has not improved much on Newsom’s watch. That said, this isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing. Every main street in just about every rural town is riddled with boarded up windows from shops that got eaten by WalMart decades ago, but Republicans conveniently don’t address that part either, they’d rather point at the issues in bigger cities. Of course, they can’t really do anything about it either, because they’d rather run on a political platform better suited to winning elections in Alabama rather than where they actually live, so they’re hard capped at about 35% of the vote.
The answer to all this is reinvestment. We need to build a few million more houses in an affordable price range, and try to rescue the local economies in our small towns. We have a lot of underserved communities in both the urban and rural areas of the state. Unfortunately, yes, the NIMBYs and other moneyed elites in the state are standing on the air hoses for all of it while they tell the impoverished people in those respective areas, “let’s you and them fight.”
This isn’t a simple problem, and it’s not going to have a simple solution, and the economic and political will for even the hard solutions doesn’t really exist right now.
Agree pretty much entirely on the NIMBYism, aside from the “AOC base” part, but I’m certain we’ve already had this conversation so I won’t go into it.
Basically the economic prospects in small towns are dead because the local businesses and shops that used to sustain them got wrecked by the big box stores (especially but not limited to WalMart). The fact that rail, road, and air travel all is pretty much designed to skip by them helps not even a little.
The Interstates were an awesome infrastructure achievement and a pernicious destroyer of underserved communities at the same time. They skipped all the rural areas and paved over most of the poorest neighborhoods (especially ones where large concentrations of people of color lived) in the cities, all at once.
Kamala is literally a prosecutor that the left derided for locking up parents with truant kids, but okay.
I don’t think you know nearly enough far leftists to be able to say that. Pretty much no one who voted for Bernie in 2016 or 2020 is likely to support any of those.
Please specify what positions each of them takes that makes them 'scream' left or far left.
I guess it depends upon your definition of left/far left.
Definitely. The whole scale has shifted to the right. What is being
defined as “far left” in the U.S is moderate in the countries everyone wants to live in, like Northern Europe.
How about if we get through 2024 before we start on 2028?