3d ago

Nate Silver Predicts Who Will Be The 2028 Democratic Presidential Nominee

www.huffpost.com

You're viewing a single thread.

30 comments

I think you need a Tim Waltz. You need to peel back some MAGA and a white man would do just that.
We'll see, though, I would love to see AOC at the house.
- You need to peel back some MAGA and a white man would do just that.
  Yeah, like the last Dem who flipped red states all over and helped out with down ballot races...
  You know, Barack Obama.
  People want progressive policy and couldnt give a fuck who the candidate was.
  AOC would smash trump or anyone else, because she has good policy and isn't ashamed of it.
  
  "People want progressive policy and couldnt give a fuck who the candidate was."
  I don't think this squares with reality. Democrats ran women against Donald Trump twice, and a boring old white man once.
  I think ignorance runs too deep, and there's a larger swath of "well-meaning" centrist voters who "daggum just know a woman cain't do the job!" than we want to admit.
  And it fucking sucks.
  
  Democrats ran conservative campaigns against a nazi candidate. Unsurprisingly, going for the 'rich people who aren't nazis' demographic failed to swing yet another election.
  
  Democrats ran women
  So?
  They weren't progressive for the year they were running in.
  
  Yeah you are just wildly fucking wrong. Barely the time in life to have to keep swatting down this idiotic take.
  Harris didn't lose because she was black or a woman: She lost because she ran a Republican/ corporate race in a Democratic lane.
  If Democrats keep trying to be Republicans, they'll keep losing, and your take steers them in that direction.
  Democrats aren't ever running against the Republican in the race. That's not how elections in the US have worked since 1992.
  Democrats are only running against the couch, and when your campaign principal message is "Nothing would fundamentally change", when the incumbent was polling at 33%?
  
  I appreciate the response, but I think you're incorrect. This might be the sentiment in your peer group, but it doesn't square with what we always end up seeing play out nationally.
  Rather than celebrating "swatting down" my "idiotic take" I suggest you engage in a bit of self reflection.
  If you think Democrats are losing nationally simply because they're not progressive enough, it's because you do not have a clear understanding of national politics. That's fair though, because it helps to drive home my point, because the bloc of voters who swing elections do not have a firm grasp on national politics, either.
  
  Yours is a daft take and if the Democrats proceed with this mental framing, they'll continue to lose elections. You think you're right, but same same people who think like you do were the ones making decisions for the Harris/ Biden campaign. This kind of take is presented as wisdom, and yet, when proceeding with it, Democrats consistently lose in its application.
  Lets start it off right: firstly and most importantly, bloc's of voters don't move elections, and haven't for almost 30 years. Going after "swing voter" has been a losers approach, and when the Republicans gave up on this strategy in 2000, they began defining the modern political hegemony we find ourselves in, and have found great success. Modern elections aren't between two parties. They are between each of the two parties, and their likely voters respective couches.
  The two most successful political movements in the previous 40 years have been a) the MAGA movement, and b) the progressive movement. Both found their footing in identifying and acknowledging the real pain people experience in their lives, and giving them something to do about it it: vote, march, dial, campaign, etc.
  The Harris/ Biden campaign ran in almost direct opposition to all of the movement the base had in developing the progressive platform. It focused almost entirely on the basically fictitious "centrists" and moved entirely away from the base. They refused to be honest with voters about both Biden, his adequacy as candidate, and his competency in office. They elevated Republican voices while simultaneously pushing away their own core constituencies.
  If you continue to both think and campaign using the political hegemony which died almost 10 years ago, you will not win elections.
  
  Maybe try to explain, then, your "clear understanding of national politics"? And square that understanding with the fact that the most successful Democrats in recent years have been Bernie and Obama.
  
  Thanks for taking the time to politely remind these lemmy users they are in an echo chamber.
  I agree that running a female candidate will lose votes. It wont lose my vote, but it will lose enough votes to potentially lose the election.
- I'd rather her be Speaker of the House or go Senate and be party leader. Progressive needs to be more that a minority that's afraid to push too hard or get shut down by their own party. Plus both of those are more long-term positions of power, and in some ways more powerful than a President (well, legally). She can run for President later to finish off her political career.
  
  This would be a great path for her.
  
  Yup. Aoc is perfect for a party leader.

30 comments