smart
He's... smart, a bit divisiveWhat the fuck
smart, a bit divisivethe fuck is this lol
His presidential ambition is public knowledge
Maybe, but he's got some baggage.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because the Dems don't have a plan B after Biden.The Dems have a pretty solid bench of candidates. Pay better attention lol
The Dems have a pretty solid bench of candidates. Pay better attention lol
Like?Whitmer
He can try but he like Tom cotton will never be president.Tom Cotton is a charisma void. He would do terribly in a national election.
smart
Whitmer
Newsom
Pritzker
Ossoff
Kelly
Beshear
Shapiro
Moore
I don't see how anyone there would be viable in 2028.Elaborate please
t seems like only Ossoff would have had foreign policy experienceHere's a political secret: voters don't usually give a fuck about foreign policy lol
Elaborate please
Here's a political secret: voters don't usually give a fuck about foreign policy lol
You know that no one is taking you seriously after your first post?
I don't see how anyone there would be viable in 2028. Even beyond 2028, it seems like only Ossoff would have had foreign policy experience. I can see Newsom winning the primary but I have doubts about him performing in the general.
Most of those governors you've mentioned are too far left in the perception of the public to be able to win some of the swing states.Ah yes, noted safe blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
Some of the older governors there don't have that much of a presense in national politics yetNo one knew who Barack Obama was in early 2004.
Ossoff is 36, Americans aren't going to try a 40 year old for president.The country that fans itself over young/handsome politicians like JFK, Clinton, and Obama would certainly vote for a 40 year old incumbent senator.
As for foreign policy, if the next presidential candidate doesn't understand the dynamics of the developing nations in the Indo-Pacific, Biden's IRA will have been for nothing. Ossoff was the junior senator who went around the Pacific trying to lay ground for the IRA and the CHIPS act.Okay and that's nice but voters aren't going to care about Indo-Pacific geopolitical dynamics. That's just not a thing most people base their vote on.
Overall, sure, the people you've listed might be good from the perspective of the party, but in the general it's a different question.You didn't really answer the question. You just restated your original point and said vagaries like "too left"
Why do you think they would do good in the general, if that's what you're asserting?Each of the candidates I listed has either demonstrated the capability of winning elections in swing states or regions where Democrats need to win. In the case of Newsom and Pritzker, even though they're from pretty solidly blue states, they've demonstrated the ability to utilize their respective majorities extremely effectively and communicate their policies to a national audience.
...but you are worried about Hawley...TC is concern trolling. That's all this is.
I like how TC is pushing the future chances of a generic Republican, conveniently ignoring that once Trump is gone, the GOP will go into an orgy of backstabbing as they all try to become the next Trump.
In the case of Newsom and Pritzker, even though they're from pretty solidly blue states, they've demonstrated the ability to utilize their respective majorities extremely effectively and communicate their policies to a national audience.
Ah yes, noted safe blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
No one knew who Barack Obama was in early 2004.
The country that fans itself over young/handsome politicians like JFK, Clinton, and Obama would certainly vote for a 40 year old incumbent senator.
Okay and that's nice but voters aren't going to care about Indo-Pacific geopolitical dynamics. That's just not a thing most people base their vote on.
You didn't really answer the question. You just restated your original point and said vagaries like "too left"
Each of the candidates I listed has either demonstrated the capability of winning elections in swing states or regions where Democrats need to win. In the case of Newsom and Pritzker, even though they're from pretty solidly blue states, they've demonstrated the ability to utilize their respective majorities extremely effectively and communicate their policies to a national audience.
He probably will, but I laughed pretty hard at the claim that the dumb fuck is smart."a bit divisive" is also a bad fucking joke.
Well, my criteria for a capable Dem president is someone who can win Pennsylvania and the Carolinas handedly. Michigan and California don't translate too well to the east coast.Democrats haven't won SC since Carter and have only won NC once since then.
If Newsom is so effective with his majority why does he keep having to veto their proposals? >_>Because he's clearly trying to run in 2028. So in whatever debates he has going forward, he can trash the left while trying to appeal to the white moderate who likely won't vote for him anyway.
Democrats haven't won SC since Carter and have only won NC once since then.
They don't need the Carolinas to win.
Because he's clearly trying to run in 2028. So in whatever debates he has going forward, he can trash the left while trying to appeal to the white moderate who likely won't vote for him anyway.
Well yeah I thought like that too until Hillary dropped it in 2016.Biden won last year without winning either NC or SC
Exactly. It comes off as poor political instincts. By virtue of being the governor of California he's already gonna have a leftist stigma with those people, but by vetoing every other bill Cali Democrats send to his desk he makes himself look willing to sink party initiatives for the sake of personal ambitions. So both sides end up having an issue with him.Not really poor instincts. It's smart, it's what politicians have done for decades, prior to politics being so polarized.
Biden won last year without winning either NC or SC
Obama won in 2012 without winning either of them too
SC is something they shouldn't bother with. NC is like how Georgia was in 2020. It's a nice buffer if you run your numbers up, but it's not necessary for a path to victory.
If Dems hold their safe states and win WI, MI, and PA then that's 270. That's the path every nominee needs to go through and I'm confident that the ones I listed can pull that off.
Yeah I mean that's the glass half full view lolwtf are you talking about
smartFirst off, lol.
I feel like if he stays in the right lines in his party after McConnell retires, he might have a chance.
wtf are you talking about
Not really poor instincts. It's smart, it's what politicians have done for decades, prior to politics being so polarized.
That's just my take.It's a bad one.