The Way Too Early 2028 Election

[Ratt Mhule]

The stink on the Biden Administration by left wing advocacy groups is pretty apparent, isn't it?

He staffed his administration with officials loyal to Elisabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. It's why AOC was a ride-or-die Biden supporter from the start. 

He: implemented a poorly thought out Student Loan Forgiveness Program that was doomed from the start; he sided with Pennsylvania Steel Workers and blocked the acquisition of U.S Steel by Nippon, his immigration policies were a lot more friendly to Asylum seekers than previous administrations, he took dozens of steps (both big and small) to win over the progressive wing of the Party. Most of which were pretty bad ideas.

His biggest accomplishments are going to be the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act, moderate bills that are beneficial to America for a lot of reasons. Both of which are going to be gutted by the Trump Administration both because Trump is a moron and because they just so happened to be passed during Biden's Presidency. 

This is not accurate in the slightest. Which officials did he appoint that were loyal to Warren and Sanders? Specific names and how they are loyal to these people please. AOC supported Biden because he was the nominee at the time, she would have supported whoever the nominee is and this shows how she has been playing the game different than the other progressive members of congress in the click or whatever people call them. And this is why her political future is brighter than theirs. 
 

So your argument that he was a left wing lackey is because he sided with American workers over a Japanese company? Isnt that what most people wanted? Wasnt the deal a national security risk? I will admit I dont know much about this deal, but siding with American workers seems like the logical position to take. Student loan forgiveness failed. People can seek asylum, its the law, and it was a law before Biden. He still deported more people than Trump has at any point so far, plus he was ready to sign the bipartisan border deal to start to fix our immigration issue. Trump stopped that bill from making it through congress. I will admit, he didnt take it as seriously in his first two years because he was busy trying to end the pandemic and fix the economy, which he did. He also sided with Israel his entire presidency under immense pressure from the far left, so Im not sure where you get that he took steps to side with that side of the party. 
 

The problem with this country is that we only have two major parties while other countries have many more to fit all the different political views. I would consider myself progressive. Im for healthcare reform, education reform, fixing the housing crisis, etc. But I disagree with a lot of the far left, Jill Stein, socialist views and some of the culture war issues. I would say most people would agree with me that those things need reform or fixing in some way. How we get there is a different conversation, but if most people agree that it needs fixing, isnt that a moderate position?

Besides the two bills you mentioned and Im glad you said they were moderate bills because anything that improves our country, brings in high paying jobs, not relying on foreign countries and improving the lives of the American people should be the moderate position. Along with those bills he also did an infrastructure bill, which Trump is now taking credit for, and lowered prescription drug pricing for seniors on medicare. And I agree that Trump gutting them is dumb on his part. The difference between ‘16 Trump and ‘24 Trump, and why I think he has lost his political instincts, in ‘16 he would be doing the same thing hes doing with the infrastructure deal and take credit for everything. Seniors will 100% notice that their drug prices increased under Trump and that will hurt him moving through his term. If he would have just golfed everyday, not done a damn thing and took credit for Bidens economy and the bills he passed, his approval would be well over 50% right now. Instead hes the most unpopular president at this point in 70 years besides his first term. 

 

[Lorewarn]

Data suggests moderates outperform in elections compared to other candidates

What do you make of this? I’ve resigned myself to the fact that the median US voter is more conservative than myself on a lot of topics. 
 

There’s endless critiquing that can be done of why Harris/Walz lost - I’ll leave that to others because I have no desire to do so. But I don’t think they lost because they tacked to the center.

Also, at least as a matter of sheer power, I would rather Dems find a way to build an enduring advantage in Congress rather than pinning all their hopes on winning presidential elections. Doing so will definitely require a big tent including progressives where it makes sense but a lot of moderates in swing districts.

The main thing I think is that we as Americans need to start working on a better comprehension of a two axis political spectrum instead of just left-right. Authoritarian and Libertarian concepts aren't left or right but an entire different thing. Actually, at this point we might even want to consider a third axis of corporatism.

Harris/Walz lost because (assuming and acknowledging the baseline effects of misogyny/racism/etc.) Kamala was a politician that people didn't like, and every chance she had to be strong she instead was condescending with the spin. Because people felt her sentimental speeches rang hollow and reeked of being a politician when she's spending billions on Beyoncé and campaigning with Liz Cheney and was the 'chosen one' of the scrambling DNC who people have memory of repealing Glass-Steagal, bailing out the banks, kicking Bernie to the curb, and so often glorifying racial and multicultural identities in word while doing little to actually reform the systems that make those folks lives harder. To be clear, I'm not saying all of this is true, but it feels true to enough of the electorate. Conservatives (and most independents, because, people are stupid), don't take Trump literally, but they do take him seriously, whereas Liberals take him literally and not seriously, and get confused when their language doesn't resonate with the electorate.

To his credit, Biden actually by and large ended with a pretty decent resumé of actual foundational renovation/reform instead of just never-ending patch work, and maybe Kamala would've continued that work well (I think she would have been fine and whelming). I'm not really concerned with progressive/centrist, i'm more concerned with actual coherent initiatives towards fixing source causes instead of occasionally treating symptoms mollify us just enough that we'll keep voting blue.

The Party needs a top-to-bottom flushing. They need to pivot to the center on the vast majority of issues, stop mentioning anything that has to do with an acronym, and launch the progressive wing of the party into the Sun. If they manage to do that, they'll have long term electoral success. 

Other than the electoral success (succeeding in gaining power), what will that look like in terms of success for Americans?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

We're going to need better definitions of the words "radicalized" and "populist." 

It seems clear that a groundswell of Democrats want to radicalize the Democratic Party, replacing current leadership and promoting much more vigilant activism. That may or may not include more progressive policies, but it's certainly not a Leftist or Progressive move. Radical change is a lot less radical when the status quo it totally broken. 

Populism is on a wild ride. By definition this is where the great middle should come together, and in many cases they do. When Americans are asked their position on open-ended issues like health care, minimum wage, taxes, education, equity, and abortion rights, a majority of people spanning both parties take what many label as Progessive positions. But those numbers change when the questions are framed with partisan language, e.g. "socialized medicine" as opposed to "single-payer healthcare" suggesting populism hangs on the messages and messengers rather than the issues themselves. It might explain the 2016 phenomenon of voters who were considering both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, seeing them both as populist outliers rather that far ends of the political spectrum.

When FDR first ran for President, the U.S. had pretty active Socialist and even Communist Parties. So in that context FDR might be considered moderate. By today's standards, he was a big government social engineer of the highest order, despised by the ruling class (of which he was a member) and beloved by the commoner for lifting the country out of the depression, through World War II, and leaving the legacy that would virtually create the American middle class, physical infrastructure, and brainpower advantage once celebrated as Exceptionalism.

It's FDR's legacy that Trump is dismantling. Not Biden's or Obama's. If the Dems have lost their way, it might be wise to revisit the radical populist agenda of FDR and ask voters which part of Americas greatness are they willing to sacrifice or save.  

 

[Ratt Mhule]

We're going to need better definitions of the words "radicalized" and "populist." 

It seems clear that a groundswell of Democrats want to radicalize the Democratic Party, replacing current leadership and promoting much more vigilant activism. That may or may not include more progressive policies, but it's certainly not a Leftist or Progressive move. Radical change is a lot less radical when the status quo it totally broken. 

Populism is on a wild ride. By definition this is where the great middle should come together, and in many cases they do. When Americans are asked their position on open-ended issues like health care, minimum wage, taxes, education, equity, and abortion rights, a majority of people spanning both parties take what many label as Progessive positions. But those numbers change when the questions are framed with partisan language, e.g. "socialized medicine" as opposed to "single-payer healthcare" suggesting populism hangs on the messages and messengers rather than the issues themselves. It might explain the 2016 phenomenon of voters who were considering both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, seeing them both as populist outliers rather that far ends of the political spectrum.

When FDR first ran for President, the U.S. had pretty active Socialist and even Communist Parties. So in that context FDR might be considered moderate. By today's standards, he was a big government social engineer of the highest order, despised by the ruling class (of which he was a member) and beloved by the commoner for lifting the country out of the depression, through World War II, and leaving the legacy that would virtually create the American middle class, physical infrastructure, and brainpower advantage once celebrated as Exceptionalism.

It's FDR's legacy that Trump is dismantling. Not Biden's or Obama's. If the Dems have lost their way, it might be wise to revisit the radical populist agenda of FDR and ask voters which part of Americas greatness are they willing to sacrifice or save.  

This. 100% this. 

 

[Ratt Mhule]

https://bsky.app/profile/politicalpolls.bsky.social/post/3lkoiofhpic22

Im thinking a lot of these folks might be voting moving forward. 

 

[TGHusker]

Weirdly enough, I think they'd have a harder time undermining Buttegieg than most candidates. They'll want to exploit the homophobia, but it could easily backfire. Pete is more meritocracy than DEI at this point, and can disarm anyone they put in front of him.

I agree. Pete is very capable of standing on his own 2 feet and defending himself and his positions on issues.  Very smart without being condescending.    

 

[TGHusker]

Can the Dems do better than Pritzker?   Or do they fight big money with big money - billionaire vs billionaire - assuming the GOP candidate will be Trump's hand picket successor.  

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/americas-second-richest-elected-official-is-acting-like-he-wants-to-be-president-8b30efa0

If JB Pritzker runs for the Democratic presidential nomination, he will be betting his party’s best prospect is a political punch-throwing heavyset billionaire who inherited massive wealth. While that sounds like President Trump, the two-term Illinois governor would be wagering on himself.

Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, has become one of the most-outspoken critics of Trump at a time Democrats are struggling to counter him. Wealth has long opened doors for Pritzker and there are signs he wants the next one to be into the Oval Office.

The 60-year-old is visiting New Hampshire, traditional home of the nation’s first presidential primary, to speak April 27 at a party fundraiser about what he sees as Trump’s authoritarianism and to call Democrats to action. The trip is likely to boost speculation that Pritzker, among those vetted by Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign as a possible running mate, is interested in the 2028 nomination.

“There is no doubt that he is going to run,” said Chicagoan Bill Daley, who served as President Bill Clinton’s commerce secretary and President Barack Obama’s chief of staff. “The real question is whether he runs for re-election first or just runs for president.”

The governor, who declined an interview, has yet to say whether he will seek a third term. An announcement is expected in the next few months, with the March 2026 primary less than 11 months away.

Daley said he would recommend against another gubernatorial bid because a crisis or scandal can pop up at an inconvenient time. Pritzker, he said, has the financial wherewithal to do something most candidates couldn’t: announce a presidential bid in 2026 and lock down the best available campaign staff talent.

Pritzker has never shied from confronting Trump. “Take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only one thing: stupidity,” he said in his Democratic National Convention speech in August.

 

[TGHusker]

The ambitions and contradictions of JD Vance explained.    A few quotes below.

https://archive.is/fyhWg

It was inevitable that memes about JD Vance would surface the moment Pope Francis passed away. “It’s good to see you in better health,” the US vice-president told the pope on Sunday. The pontiff died on Monday.
As Donald Trump’s chief attack dog — though not yet his heir apparent — Vance is a prime target of ridicule on liberal social media. But he is also a master troller himself. Vance knows that the surest path to Maga hearts and Trump’s approval is to enrage liberals. The question is whether he means anything by it.
The answer is unclear. Vance has gone from being a never-Trumper who saw Trump as “America’s Hitler” to an arch-Trumper who sees his boss as part of God’s plan. That is as dramatic a political conversion as can happen. Rather than search for an intellectual key, Vance’s shift can be put down to ambition. The better question is whether there are any limits to his ambition. Judging by his performance so far, the answer is not really.

Whether it is deriding the continent’s defence capacity — a point with merit — or visiting Greenland uninvited and mocking Denmark, Vance has found his foreign foil of choice. Europeans play the same role in Maga’s worldview as virtue-signalling globalists do at home. What most enrages people is that Vance is quite good at it. He cannot be dismissed as stupid, like Pete Hegseth, Trump’s cartoonishly incompetent secretary of defence. Nor, like Scott Bessent, the US Treasury secretary, can he be viewed as a prisoner of decisions he does not like. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Vance was the most articulate explainer of Trumpism — tariffs and all.
Unlike Elon Musk, who allows neo-Nazis to surface regularly on his X platform, Vance observes some rules of hygiene. His weakness with the Republican base is that he cannot escape the trappings of being an intellectual — the self-confessed frequenter of “a lot of weird rightwing subcultures”. His justification for xenophobia is to cite the Catholic ordo amoris (order of loves). It holds that you should first love God, then yourself, your family and neighbours. People from far away, especially immigrants, come last. An ailing Pope Francis felt strongly enough to implicitly rebuke Vance by citing the parable of the Good Samaritan, who helped a stranger in need.

It is also misleading to compare him to d!(k Cheney, as many are doing. Cheney was de facto co-president during George W Bush’s first term. He set the agenda. Trump, on the other hand, makes policy alone and on the fly. Vance then rationalises it. Yet he clearly relishes playing his worst self. The moment European dislike turned into loathing was when Vance tore into Volodymyr Zelenskyy in their Oval Office encounter in late February. “Have you said thank you once?” Vance asked Ukraine’s leader. There was a zeal to Vance’s manner that triggered a lot of people. As trolling, Vance’s tactics work. In terms of governing, they are pure vandalism