I would vote for that woman in a heartbeat. Ive only contributed and canvassed for Bernie Sanders, felt no excitement for any candidate since but damn would I jump to do it for her campaign.
I'd like to see her take Schmuck's Senate seat first, and maybe even take a spin in the Cabinet, before running for president. Can you imagine her as the Secty for Health & Human Services?
These are puff pieces, likely written by, or at the behest of a team of people working to get her on the ballot in '28.
She's running.
And I'll still vote for her!
She should run but I'd rather see her be a governor before president.
IMHO whats important in 2028 is we have a big field in the primaries so we can see where the base is then.
IMHO whats important in 2028 is we have a big field in the primaries so we can see where the base is then.
I agree in principle, but the Democrats had a historically big field in 2020 and ended up with Biden. Sanders could arguably have won if Warren had pulled out earlier (reducing the number of candidates).
The point is to elect a democrat the base can support, if that's a progressive that's great, if not that's also fine. The D candidate in '28 is going to need all the votes they can get.
The point is to elect a democrat the voting public as a whole can support, and that's not a status-quo liberal when half the reason Trump got in the first time was that people were so desperate for change they were willing to roll the dice on a conman.
Progressives or socialists are the right choice precisely because they appeal to people otherwise dissilusioned with the Democrats.
One of the things that cost Kamala the election was her reach out to the right. I think that in 2028 we need to only worry about keeping united behind the candidate. The Bulwark types are going to vote for any democrat for at least a couple more cycles. The non-bulwark types aren't reachable for a couple of cycles
I agree with the goal... but while I think a competitive primary leads to better outcomes, too many candidates leads to arbitrary outcomes that depend more on which factions have the lowest candidate-to-voter ratio instead of which have the most actual voters (at least the way it’s currently structured). Plus it increases the chances of a brokered convention, which leads to voters feeling disenfranchised no matter who wins.
It better be a progressive because if it's another neoliberal MAGA lives on.
Sanders would have lost the election though. I love Bernie and he might have been able to save our country but there would have been too many lukewarm left voters and the right would have turned out probably even stronger than they did.
My point isn’t whether or not the best candidate won, it’s that the outcome depended on how many candidates each faction split their votes between. A bigger field wasn’t a reflection of “where the base was” if more candidates supporting a position made it less likely to win.
I think senator would be the next logical step. Then governor would give her executive chops, if she doesn’t go the cabinet route.
She should try hosting a reality show, really round out her qualifications.
Governor would be a step down from senator especially when people have already been talking about her for president. I doubt she has any interest of being in Albany over DC. The very fact that as governor she would be the executive would be politically risky for her with all the capital she's accumulated.
Agree. And NY is a good fit for her. And if real progressive policies are ever to get enacted on a national level, proof of working at the state level of a large state is a good launching point. And also the importance of progressive primary challenges to the corporate Democrats. I liked the policies of Warren and Sanders over Newsom, but their inability to get elected... This would be much different conversation if national ranked choice elections were a thing.
Oh don't worry, we'll start getting drip fed talk about the unelectibility of whoever starts pulling ahead and the purity tests will start.
By running with Harris or newsom?
I would support her if she runs, but no representative has been elected president. Not saying it can't happen.
I'd love to see her as President, but Hillary and Kamala have made it clear America would rather vote for Hitler than a woman.
What if it was their bad politics that caused their losses rather than their gender?
Because Biden had the same bad politics and he won
Not to defend this too much (misogyny and racism are popular pastimes in the states and I do think Kamala being a black woman was a factor in her losing), but Biden would have lost her race too. People that say Kamala's bad stance on Isreal and dearth of big ticket items cost her the election might be pushing it a little, because it wasnt just one thing, but she was weak in those areas and it definitely cost her votes. Could a different strategy have flipped the states she needed? Who knows. It's just not a wise strategy to blame everything on prejudice because doing so completely erases your ability to ever get someone other than a white male elected.
Considering the results, their problem was that the US electorate wanted much worse politics than just bad.
Have you ever thought that it was just an unfavorable environment.
I still think there's already been a deal made to clear the field for AOC to take over Chuck's seat in exchange for her to help clear the field for Gavin (because he is the Next One Up....).
They just all have to pretend that the deal isnt a thing, because no deal is official until it happens, and everyone wants to keep their options open in case it falls apart.
Why would AOC need to cut a deal to win Schumer’s seat? What other potential Senate candidate could defeat her, but would stay out of the race for Newsom’s benefit?
Schumer himself hasn't said whether he will run for re-election in 2028, so the deal might be to get Chuck to finally retire already and then AOC can be the only candidate.....
And, AOC wouldnt run for President and Senate at the same time. I think NY allows that, but most candidates who try and pull that off are incumbent Senators or Congresspeople who are running for the same job while also running for President. It would be very unusual to run for a Senate job for the first time that you might have to give up 20 days into your term.
What would Schumer get from that? I can’t see him throwing away whatever’s left of his career just to help a Californian get the presidential nomination instead of another New Yorker.
He's fucking 75 years old. There shouldn't be anything left of his career!
It's all party politics, and favors going back and forth. Right now, for better or worse, there is no bigger symbol of the Democratic Establishment than Chuck Schumer. He may owe enough favors to other Establishment people that he has to back the Next One Up.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News