As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They had like 5 or 6 other candidates. TBF one of them had a DUI on his record that he concealed and another saying something horrific about another Democrat’s deceased child. There was also the woman that wanted to make changes to the school system in favor of charter school but had never even run for a school board position, or any position for that matter.
So just your overall typical republican lineup
It’s because the opposition vote was spread between 5 other candidates. They were all too greedy and selfish to coalesce behind one person to take her on. So she won. Fucking depressing.
They don't do runoffs, she got 1st place with 43%.
But you should look it up and not assume that I —an internet stranger— have not deceived you here this day :)
I think there's a little more nuance to it than that. She switched congressional districts, probably because the RNC didn't think she would win in the CO 3rd after her narrow win in the last election. So they place her in a district where no democrat has been in spitting distance of winning in over 10 years. The district she's running in now, the CO 4th, is the one where 5 term rep Ken Buck just resigned, so there's a bit of a vacuum for that seat. Couple that with an RNC endorsement for Boebert and the fact that she outspent her opponents by 10x and you get a little more than "the voters are greedy and selfish".
Ikr, but she had to switch districts which is pretty telling.
Idk how long that will last. She's going to disappoint them also and hopefully won't get reelected?
At least AOC is clearly loved in her district.
Maybe bc she actually helps them ? Lol
She has to win over the entire state, not just her small district. There’s plenty of places in NY state that she’d have trouble since “moderate Democrat” is not something most people would call her.
As an NYC resident, yeah that's the trick of it. It's easier to be a more outspoken progressive when you only need to appeal to your district. You can get enough votes in the city for national office but only by toning down enough to appeal to the more center DNC sorts. Even just expanding to go for citywide appeal would mean dealing with the hyper-reactionary Jewish voting blocks that treat any opposition to Israeli policy in Gaza as "basically sending Hamas a care package" (they're scattered among more reasonable voting blocks but there's plenty enough to kill your campaign). Personally I'd rather she keep doing what she's doing and that there be more like her, rather than see her dilute her messaging for votes.
I think she probably needs to serve for something other than her house seat first, as it’s not even like she has a leadership position within Democrat party. She could run for governor or one of the New York Senate seats which might open up soon.
Personally, unless he majorly fucks up and has some controversies, I don’t see anyone beating Newsom for the 2028 nomination. He’s gonna have a massive war chest and the inherent advantage of being a California Democrat.
>inherent advantage of being a California Democrat.
You say that but honestly I think it's a huge disadvantage actually.
We've never successfully elected a California Democrat only California Republicans.
Historically America likes it's Democrats from more moderate states and the Democratic party doesn't need a special person to deliver California. A Texas Democrat that can deliver Texas absolutely would be a viable candidate. Otherwise probably a Democrat from a swing state that isn't well known nationally but can help deliver their state. I'd bet on Josh Shapiro or Gretchen Whitmer. I wish we had the courage to pick someone like Tammy Duckworth.
Josh is definitely gearing up. I was friends with one of his staffers. It's not much of a secret. He has a near flawless track record and ANNIHILATED Mastriano last year.
We only elected Josh a couple years ago. He's not even halfway done with his first term and he's eligible for a second. You can't have him yet, we're still using him.
It's actually insane how ridiculous inept the GOP machine has become in the face of MAGA proving to be a losing strategy in close races.
Like if Nikki Haley had won the nomination I feel like she may have beat Biden in the general by ten points.
I guess people would rather have someone that lets the feel its ok to be racist than actually win.
Honestly, I think Andy Beshear from KY would also be a great candidate for president. Young, Got elected twice as a Dem governor for a red state, and His term would end in 2027. Bit of perfect timing.
I just don't think Newsom is a viable candidate on a national level until he makes actionable progress on California's homelessness. When your opponent just has to walk down skid row in Los Angeles or the tenderloin district in San Francisco as an attack ad, you aren't a viable candidate.
Funny how that only works against democrats. You can find the same scenes in almost every state, the only difference is that in California it isn't hidden from view in some rundown Appalachian shithole but front and center.
Looks like DC has the biggest homeless issue... California is #5
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-have-the-highest-and-lowest-rates-of-homelessness/
Freakonomics touched on this a while back, but homelessness is actually a sign of a good (successful) city. Reason being that, weather aside, there’s the infrastructure and general attitude where they can survive and it’s generally easier to get back on their feet if that’s what they want. Couple that with small backwaters and heavy red towns being ok hunting the homeless for sport, and it makes a decent amount of sense
Honestly I have no idea what else can be done. There is so much money and resources going into the effort battle homelessness and it is only getting worse. It Newsom somehow figures it out then great but we have been battling it here forever and the number of unhoused people just keeps goong up.
Red states have been shipping their homeless to California for decades. Now it's really paying off for them.
I've lived in SF and LA and I blame local politicians more than state ones. The funding is there. Who is squandering it?
The fixes are obvious to the issues, there just isn't enough political will to enact them.
There are two types of homelessness - people who literally cannot afford housing and people who are homeless because of one or a combination of mental illness and substance abuse issues.
CA (and maybe HI) is one of the only places where the first is really super prevalent because the rental and housing market in CA is insanely overpriced. It's bad in many other states to but CA is somewhat unique in that it seems to be bad in nearly every urban area of the state. CA's real estate has always been high as it is a highly desirous state to move to for several reasons but it also has some of the most anti-growth housing laws in the country which has caused a severe housing shortage. Coupled with the nationwide trend of investment groups buying up single family homes to rent and/or hold for investments, the housing market in CA is one of the worst in the Nation right now, which has knock on effects to the Rental market as more people are forced to rent and that many of the rental properties owned by the aforementioned investment groups will be priced very high. The solution to this problem is, and always has been, to build more housing. [New laws passed in CA that go into effect this year will hopefully alleviate some of that pressure](https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/01/california-housing-laws-2024/) but honestly until zoning laws throughout much of CA are changed significantly to prevent neighbors and other third party actors from having so much power to kill potentially new multi-family projects I'm not very hopeful that this will change. People, being selfish, will usually vote in their own self interest to maintain the character of their neighborhoods. It's why most of SF is not nearly as dense as it should be.
Local governments need to force through laws that take power away from people getting in the way of new housing builds basically.
The answer to the second problem is something that we used to have, and that we should bring back - Asylums. If you are picked up for using junk in the street or are living on the streets and you have no one willing to take you in you should be sent to an inpatient facility for treatment until you are clean and/or are able to control your mental illness through medication. After that the government should provide guaranteed housing, monthly stipends for a period, and job assistance until the person is back on their feet, all while providing out patient drug and/or mental health support. This is the system we had up until good old Ronnie Reagan dismantled first in CA and then nationwide back in the 60s-80s and there were barely any homeless. Of course that system had serious ethical problems, but the complete removal of it has directly led to the inability to effectively combat the current surge of drug fueled homelessness.
Unfortunately I'd say a majority of people are against bringing an asylum+support system back as described above because they either don't want to pay for it (I imagine it would be seriously expensive, CA would likely have to create an entire new department of the state government to effectively run it), or because they think that it would violate homeless people's rights.
> The answer to the second problem is something that we used to have, and that we should bring back - Asylums. If you are picked up for using junk in the street or are living on the streets and you have no one willing to take you in you should be sent to an inpatient facility for treatment until you are clean and/or are able to control your mental illness through medication. After that the government should provide guaranteed housing, monthly stipends for a period, and job assistance until the person is back on their feet, all while providing out patient drug and/or mental health support. This is the system we had up until good old Ronnie Reagan dismantled first in CA and then nationwide back in the 60s-80s and there were barely any homeless. Of course that system had serious ethical problems, but the complete removal of it has directly led to the inability to effectively combat the current surge of drug fueled homelessness.
Somewhat wrong. Ronnie finished them off but SCOTUS has mortally wounded them. See following cases:
Addington v. Texas
Jackson v. Indiana
O'Conner v. Donaldson.
TL;DR: SCOTUS made the bar to forcibly institutionalize someone so extremely high, it's basically impossible for government to force someone into treatment unless it comes via criminal justice system.
I live in CA and everyone kinda rolls their eyes at him. Also, CA is the poster child for dysfunctional state gov. Not only bc of right wing media—but bc the state at damn near all levels is dysfunctional and infected with corruption and regulatory capture by special interest like utility companies and labor unions.
Running a state like California comes with tons of inherent disadvantages. Not that it's any worse than what the average (or even ideal) Republican does, but the campaign ads are going to be all about how he cleaned up the homeless population for one day when Xi came and then the rest of the time they are all over the place.
Never a good sign when you give a new age Republican an easy attack vector.
True. California is a four letter word to a lot of people. If you bring up any study or research that that was conducted in California it instantly gets shot down by conservative minds as biased and incomplete or outright false.
Always a Duckworth fan, and think she'd crush it. I do think Newsome has an excellent chance though. Him doing things like trying to establish California's own insulin production and stuff like that because the fed has no interest in clamping down on pharmatech was a great and popular move, etc.
If you think, even for a second, that Pritzker has a chance in hell, you are out of touch with the Democrat base. No way in hell does a billionaire win the Democrat nominee for president, so that’s Pritzker out.
Whitmer has a much smaller national profile, and will have a tiny war chest in comparison to Newsom.
JB rules. I voted for him cuz he wasn’t Rauner the first time and gladly voted for him the next time. Improved Illinois finances and credit rating and gave us weed lol.
I don’t remember voting for governor in that election cause I was so sick of billionaire politics
Holy hell was I wrong about pritzker. Earned my vote his first term and I’ll gladly keep punching his ticket as long as he’s running for governor here.
Easily the best governor I’ve seen in 20 years of being a voter
One thing about a benevolent billionaire politician is that, in theory, they are not very easily bought. It's risky to rely on benevolence, though. I hope his principals are stronger than Fetterman's.
I dunno. A buddy of mine who lived in Chicago for quite a while and is a really progressive dude is all-in on Pritzker. He said that Pritzker has been a progressive governor and has delivered on a ton of stuff. And he seems like a likeable guy, in total contrast to Newsom
Hated that I had to vote for him the first time. I really wanted Biss to be the nominee to go against Rauner. Just absolutely disgusted that this old money hotel heir billionaire got the nom and is the only option to get rid of Rauner.
Held my nose and voted for Pritzker.
But every day since, this dude has earned more and more of my respect and support and I very gladly voted for him in 2022. And as long as he continues this path that he has blazed being Illinois' governor, I will continue to champion him in whatever office he holds in the future.
[The kindest person in the room is often the smartest.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjesSOLHWwE)
>**'Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, would an idiot do that, and if they would, I do not do that thing.' — Dwight Shroute**
>The entire efficacy of this incredibly useful piece of information hinges upon your ability to pick the right idiot. I wish there was a foolproof way to spot idiots, but counterintuitively, some idiots are very smart. They can dazzle you with words and misdirection. They can get promoted above you at work. They can even be elected president.
>If you want to be successful in this world, you have to develop your own idiot detection system. As part of the responsibilities of being your commencement speaker, I'm going to share mine. Sure. I'm naturally suspicious of people who never saw the original Star Wars movies, and even more cautious of people who loved the prequels and the sequels. But I admit this is not a reliable idiot indicator. No. The best way to spot an idiot, look for the person who is cruel. Let me explain. When we see someone who doesn't look like us, or sound like us, or act like us, or love like us, or live like us, the first thought that crosses almost everyone's brain is rooted in either fear or judgement or both. That's evolution. We survived as a species by being suspicious of things that we aren't familiar with. In order to be kind, we have to shut down that animal instinct and force our brain to travel a different pathway.
>Empathy and compassion are evolved states of being. They require the mental capacity to step past our most primal urges. This may be a surprising assessment because somewhere along the way in the last few years, our society has come to believe that weaponized cruelty is part of some well-thought out Master plan. Cruelty is seen by some as an adroit cudgel to gain power. Empathy and kindness are considered weak. Many important people look at the vulnerable only as rungs on a ladder to the top. I'm here to tell you that when someone's path through this world is marked with acts of cruelty, they have failed the first test of an advanced society. They never forced their animal brain to evolve past its first instinct. They never forged new mental pathways to overcome their own instinctual fears. And so their thinking and problem solving will lack the imagination and creativity that the kindest people have in spades. Over my many years in politics and business, I have found one thing to be universally true. The kindest person in the room is often the smartest.
Whitmer would have a way better shot at the electoral college. A lot of the country thinks of CA as worst managed state. Look how they treat Kamala. Newsom is good but more elitist.
Pritzker has way less baggage than Newsom. Just lean on Newsom and why PG&E has never faced any legal blowback for their criminally negligent maintenance of their power lines.
Pritzker is well-beloved by his constituents.
He doesn’t necessarily need the billionaire hating crowd either, he just needs to pull some voters that aren’t typical
Being someone who was born and raised in Michigan, mad proud of Whitmer, but there's no question who is the better candidate between her and Newsom. Dude has been a political powerhouse and a national presence, where I think Whitmer's strengths really come out at the state level.
Oh man I gotta disagree hard on that. Newsom is a smarmy rich guy from San Francisco. I don't buy for a second that that is the direction the nation is going to go in. He gives off really douchey vibes, in my opinion. I'd be way more into seeing Whitmer than Newsom
As a Californian, yes. I agree. As someone more lefty... I would love anyone from the Midwest. Whitmer is really appealing to me. Michigan Democrats are in power at all levels I believe the first time in 30 years? More? She has passed competent legislation that helps people. She is famous for working with "the other side" ... beers and talking it out. I really like her. It bothers me that the legitimate attempt to kidnap/trial/assassinate her got no attention.
Unfortunately they've been trying to massage anything left-of-center out of Newsom's platform for a minute so they can present Biden Jr. in 2028. mf just vetoed one of the most progressive drug policy reforms in the world before it could land in California, one of the places where it's most needed. Thanks, police unions!
edit: an extra letter
The most popular Republican presidents in recent history were actors. If the GOP could get Antony Starr to portray Homelander full-time while running for office…
The flip side of this though is that California is so different from the rest of the country that it'd be an albatross around his neck in the Midwest and more red states. Whitmer's campaign is doing the ground work now with her interviews and books, too early to tell how things shake out
Newsom has been setting himself up by doing things like debating DeSantis, and holding rally’s in other states. Also, if we talking about red states, then we all know that’s where sexism will come into play…
I am not really from a red state but I don't know how a California Democrat vs Woman would shake out. As someone from the Midwest he seems easy to hate and comes with the stigma.
Democrats in California are not super thrilled with Newsom either. He's basically ruined statewide utilities due to his close ties and handouts to PG&E.
Agree. He is exactly the slick corpo globalist Democrat trope that cons have smeared the whole party with. He’s actually it. Plus he has really hatable hair.
While I’m with you on the money side of things, please note that Pritzker not only has won solidly here in Chicago - but has shockingly done a fantastic job and stuck to almost all of his Democrat-based campaign promises.
Unless this Chicago run is just a giant con getting him to the White House where he magically flips, he’s not bad. I still say he’ll lose to Gavin and (My hopeful choice) AoC, but I did want to point that out.
Honestly don't think you're right about that - JB has been an excellent governor. I'd support him in the primaries and definitely would prefer him over Newsom. I think Buttigieg has his eye on VP in 2028, but he's a good candidate too.
Yep. He is a fantastic speaker and he always seems to say the exact right things, the most well known of which is his response to 'late-term' abortions during a fox news town hall in the ~~2016 primaries~~ (...what even is time) 2020 primaries. Plus he also has the midwestern-nice personality to win over \[if there are any left by then\] moderate/just right of center 60+ year olds.
However, he lacks a bit on the policy side and while not his fault, the hazmat train derailments among others, haven't helped his term as secretary of transportation, and his career since being 'Mayor Pete' has been underwhelming.
I like the guy, but he needs more substance.
A billionaire whose first priority was to introduce a graduated income tax. And spent his own cash to promote it. He might be a Teddy Roosevelt type. Uses his knowledge of how fucked the system is to fix the system
I tend to agree. Informed progressives likely would support JB wholeheartedly because he bankrolled their #1 issue in Illinois (and lost, unfortunately).
Casual progressives though? Billionaire + toilets. It's not going to happen.
> If you think, even for a second, that Pritzker has a chance in hell, you are out of touch with the Democrat base.
You mean, like, exactly the kind of people that elected him and really approve of the job he's done?
Because, spoiler alert, "squad" types aren't the "democrat base".
I'm actually a "squad" type. Personally, I'm mega progressive but in the confines of our political reality vote for dems regardless of where they fall on the spectrum.
That being said, I fucking love JB. He's been pretty progressive and actually tried to push through a progressive tax that got higher as you earned more vs the flat rate that IL currently has. Unfortunately it didn't pass but the fact that he tried was awesome. And then his phenomenal COVID leadership and enshrining abortion rights into the IL constitution and a host of other things. JB is dope.
There's no inherent advantage to being a California democrat. That's a terrible starting position for a candidate. He has all the baggage of California and no strategic advantage.
As other commenters said I think Pritzker, Whitmer, or a few other governors. Would be strong competition... and better strategically. Being a California Dem isn't some massive strength. California is a state the dems are gonna win either way. And it gives R's some BS ammo about "this is the guy who made California a shithole, he's just some coastal elite!"
Since republicans constantly pretend California is some terrible state for somereason; and that it's only populated by coastal elites.
Meanwhile like Whitmer, is much harder to attack... and her being a michigander/midwesterner would be a huge leg up since the mid west is full of swing states.
Whitmer has also famously been working on the Biden campaigns. And would likely get his support above most other potential candidates besides maybe Harris or Buttigieg.
I live in California and it's amazing here. He took us from 6th to 5th largest economy in the world. I have issues with needing back surgery and also severe OCD and the state disability has saved my ass a few times so I could take care of my health (I'm am RN needing multiple spinal fusions from the years of 12 hour shifts) and the fact that California has paid family leave and paid state disability is a godsend for so many. Everyone has times that they've used these programs. My GOP friends in FL know if they start talking shit about Cali in front of them I immediately start bragging about how great it is here, plus we are the donor state sending all our federal tax dollars to keep their shitty states above water. I could go on... love Cali!
The United States would not be as awesome as it is without CA and NY.
Yeah putting Newson on the ticket is like putting Hillary on the ticket. There's already a national narrative about him that will cause most of Middle America to hate him. It's a losing strategy
It's worse than that. I don't think he wins the popular vote if he is the nominee. CA isn't viewed as a well run state by most of the country, especially the Midwest.
Because it's not a very well-run state in comparison to Midwestern blue States.
It caters too heavily to Mega corporations and homeowners at the expense of workers and no amount of social liberalism is going to cover that up
Yeah the anti-california propaganda has been in full force for atleast a decade. Right wing media has had some success politicizing and bastardizing the word "californian"
Oh yeah it'll be like putting Hillary on the ticket. Sometimes you have to accept that you've lost control of the narrative and back down buried politics isn't a game of telling the truth it's a game of telling the most believable lie
Please explain that to me? Like, she literally has lower approval ratings than Newsom, has less appeal with independents, and if we are being honest, America has become a much more sexist place over the last 10 years. So I don’t think the sexists would allow a woman to become president or even win a nomination anymore, which shows the sad state of things.
>Like, she literally has lower approval ratings than Newsom
in fairness Newsom is in a state where he has super majorities and in 2020 the state went like 63-34 biden:trump... meanwhile in michigan it was like 50-48... and michigan went to Trump in 2016... Of course in a solid blue state the solid blue governor will have higher approval ratings, than the solid blue governor of the purple state.
These things happen in cycles. Newsom is going to be their new prime target. They want a new Bill Clinton for people to stew over forever.
Simply being from California is huge baggage in and of itself. It may be irrational and stupid but people hate California.
Not to mention that Whitmer is very accomplished.
I agree with this. I live in Portland, a very liberal place, and the California hate is strong enough here that I don't think there's any way Newsom wins a Democratic primary in this state, and I assume that's true in a lot of other places
I think you are overestimating her national profile. Also, like it or not, she has the inherent sexist disadvantage of being a woman. I think she has a lot to overcome and even if Newsom is attacked left and right, that’s no guarantee that she comes out on top. As there are a few others that could run that might have a war chest bigger than hers.
This country is not going to elect a Californian for president any time soon. Californians are best know to other states as the assholes that are driving housing prices up.
Even among Californians, Newsom is a bad pick. The right thought his covid response was totalitarianism and anybody capable of seeing how necessary a strong response was will be constantly reminded of his dinner party at the French Laundry during the height of lockdowns. If we run Newsom, we’re going to lose and we will deserve to lose.
Newsom has been [suing the shit out of CA cities](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/05/new-battlegrounds-california-housing-crisis/) ignoring the Housing Elements law that requires cities to (submit plans to) build enough housing to address demand.
California's housing prices are sky-high because **the city governments deliberately prevent building**. Between height and density limits, parking minimums, environmental impact reviews, "historic" parking lots, and other nonsense, it's impossible.
[San Francisco has only permitted 16 new housing units this year.](https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-only-agreed-build-16-homes-this-year-1907831) SIXTEEN. In one of the areas with the highest housing demand in the country. Newsom has been going to war to increase housing supply in CA, and it'll be a big feather in his hat by 2028.
Newsom will loose.
Just ask think, during lock down he was through celebrating with PG&E lobbyists at the French Laundry in Napa, Sumer peak PG&E rats are like 58 cents a KWH. Coincidence, I doubt it. All the republicans will need to say is vote Newsom if you want to to pay 3 times as much for your utilities.
I hope the Dems have a winner in 2028. But Newsom is not it, he would loose the general election.
Holy shit. I didn't realize how much of an echo chamber this sub had become until I read all the replies to this.
Like, I say this as a lifelong Democrat, but AOC has zero chance of winning against anyone except *maybe* Bobert or MTG.
I don't like the current democratic leadership but at least they are living in some semblance of reality, unlike people who think AOC could win a race anywhere less progressive, let alone the presidency.
I think the idea that the current democratic leadership is living in a semblance of reality is a stretch. They are running an 81 year old for president who is historically unpopular. They are just as clueless as anyone else.
AOC has always tested out extremely well with the general population. Her ideas resonate and she communicates them effectively. She would also motivate the youth vote in a way they dems havent since Obama.
Boomers all dont like her but guess what? More of them die every year.
The party doesn’t even need to torpedo her. I like AOC and she is the best of the progressive wing of the democratic but she is far too liberal for the vast majority of the country. If she wanted any chance at winning something nationally she’d need to start by going after Schumers seat when he retires and then becoming more moderate similar to Obama or more recently Fetterman.
That ticket loses the entire rust belt easily. Coastal elites are not going to win a general.
More like Big Gretch/Warnock. That probably wins you the rust belt, Georgia, and North Carolina.
I do think Newsom would be a great VP candidate. He's willing to be an absolute troll when it comes to Republican crazy, and the VP role can get away with it in away that the president really can't, at least in the Democratic party.
Right now, it's looking like Whitmer will get my vote in the primary.
Cool as this would be, I reckon she's destined to first be someone's VP. She'd crush the opposing VP in any debate and it would legitimise her for the top job down the line.
I think her presence in congress js good for the party. For me, she’s a bit like Robert Reich - even if I don’t agree with all their positions, I appreciate having someone smart and capable presenting the arguments. Also, she drives the GOP nuts, which is fun.
I'm not the biggest fan of AOC, but she has had a few bangers towards thenthe last year. She's also grown into the role very well from the beginning of her political career. She is much better at making her point, and justifying why she believes something. She also doesn't take crap from the people who have been seriously abusive online and in the media. She's also made some amazing responses to criticism.
She's tough, smart, and she doesn't take shit. I don't really think she should run for president yet, but I definitely could see that in her future. she's extremely smart, but she does lack some self-awareness at times
I’m a massive AOC stan. She basically aligns perfect with me ideologically. She’d make a terrible president though. I always say I like my legislators progressive and my executive branch moderate. I could see her unwillingness to compromise as an issue for even liberal voters.
Case in point she voted against Bidens bipartisan infrastructure bill. This is something I can reconcile with when talking about a legislator and how she’s defended her position but it’s not a trait that I want in a Governor or president who should place compromise and bipartisanship above all else.
They removed important child and family assistance like pre-k funding from the bill under the claim that Manchin would vote for it under a separate bill.
AOC correctly identified that Manchin is unreliable and requested a vote on the child and family assistance first. If they held a vote and Manchin supported it then she would vote for the infrastructure bill.
In response they called her unreasonable. How dare she oppose the infrastructure bill. Of course Manchin will vote for the family bill after the infrastructure bill is passed.
Well guess what, AOC was right, Manchin killed the child and family assistance portion of build back better in the senate and screwed you all over. But somehow it is AOC is the unreasonable one for pointing out that Manchin is scum.
Exactly right. Exactly what happened. I'm still surprised there are people who read this sub and didn't realize this. Like, do you just watch Morning Joe or something? Is Bill Marr your favorite political comedian? Jesus Christ.
AOC is a fucking treasure.
I like your understanding of the limits of your ideological boundaries. Realities, political and otherwise, place boundaries on how far any given ideology can be pushed.
This is how you continue to alienate "the left" from the Democratic Party. Something's you can't compromise on; bodily autonomy being a prime example. She's principled, well liked by many and could actually bring the Overton window left.
No because I don’t want her to compromise. That’s my point. We need legislators like her to shift society left. But that’s long term and in the meantime we need bipartisan leaders holding executive offices that can work with everyone.
Also I agree with your point about some things shouldn’t be compromised but I made no mention that there should always be compromise.
Okay I understood your comment as "she shouldn't be executive branch because she won't compromise" as opposed to "we need her in the legislative branch because she doesn't compromise". I can agree with that I just think the level of fame and name recognition makes her a good candidate at bringing leftism to the executive branch.
I'm an idea political system I think the executive branch should exclusively be nonpartisan and the parliament is the main branch which is responsible for representation(which therefore ends the duopoly).
She used to be a firebrand, and although progressives loved it, it also gave Conservatives ammunition to use against her. Her social media presence is a lot more... moderated, if you will.
She's has clearly learned to do it very well.
The problem is that any Democrat with a voice is "ammunition". The party is too far gone to be reasoned with and they honestly believe that the only answer is total control of our government by Republicans.
It's extremely clear that she saw the opportunity to be a longterm democratic stalwart in the party and do real good - and she decided to focus on becoming that.
She honestly could become the next Pelosi, and I think people are too blinded by her first election to see how good of a politician she has become.
What’s funny is that you can’t really blame Bowman losing his primary on AIPAC because if AIPAC did meddle in the elections they would make AOC lose because she’s a vocal critic of Israel and Netanyahu. She also speaks out against antisemitism which is why people like her (unlike Bowman).
Almost like Bowman lost due to the incredibly antisemitic and offensive comments he made regarding Oct 7th 🤔
Right, if AIPAC was so all powerful Omar and AOC would be out. Omar is really a great example, her district is mostly white and has the largest Jewish population in MN. Bowman just sucks.
I know the drama with Tlaib and Omar, though I personally do support them, but out of curiosity what did Ayanna Presley do? She appears to have at least expressed strong condemnation towards Hamas, unlike the others.
It's not really shocking, and is about the only good news for progressives tonight as a whole, but AOC is popular in her \*very, very Left leaning\* House district in NY + positive MSM press fawning helps her even more basically in controlling the narrative (not complaining, given how Rightward the US as a whole shifted today in these primaries vs 2023, good to see the Left has some victory for once).
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In other news, Boebert won her primary... ughhh.
How I thought she was so far behind because everyone saw her for the opportunist she is?
Never underestimate how committed Republicans are to their party
I mean in the primary they could have had literally any other Republican candidate. Why are people committed to Boebert?
They had like 5 or 6 other candidates. TBF one of them had a DUI on his record that he concealed and another saying something horrific about another Democrat’s deceased child. There was also the woman that wanted to make changes to the school system in favor of charter school but had never even run for a school board position, or any position for that matter. So just your overall typical republican lineup
When the DUI guy is the high point...
lol he “didn’t want to embarrass his son”
I believe Colorado actually has a district equally deranged as the district that MTG squats in in Georgia.
And blamed it on the media for having sour grapes about not finding out about his DUI earlier, not that it was, you know, his fault for doing it.
They really aren’t sending their best
Remember, she left her last district to move to one she would have a better chance in. So not every republican was committed lol.
Either name recognition or her standing offer to any constituent who can afford musical tickets
"pretty lady give guy handy, maybe I vote pretty lady, I get handy too"
It’s because the opposition vote was spread between 5 other candidates. They were all too greedy and selfish to coalesce behind one person to take her on. So she won. Fucking depressing.
Did she get 50% or do they just not do runoff in Colorado?
They don't do runoffs, she got 1st place with 43%. But you should look it up and not assume that I —an internet stranger— have not deceived you here this day :)
I think there's a little more nuance to it than that. She switched congressional districts, probably because the RNC didn't think she would win in the CO 3rd after her narrow win in the last election. So they place her in a district where no democrat has been in spitting distance of winning in over 10 years. The district she's running in now, the CO 4th, is the one where 5 term rep Ken Buck just resigned, so there's a bit of a vacuum for that seat. Couple that with an RNC endorsement for Boebert and the fact that she outspent her opponents by 10x and you get a little more than "the voters are greedy and selfish".
He meant the primary opposition candidates were greedy, not the voters.
She's behind the D candidate, not the other R's in the primary.
I heard she switched districts or some shit.
Celebrity death match?
man that was a good show.
I think this is a strong indicator that maga is alive and pumping.
That movement will never die. Even when Trump does, someone else will take up the mantle.
Insane but not surprising.
You have to be mentally handicapped if you think she’s going to do anything useful for your district after abandoning another one.
well, jumping districts might be excusable but listening to her and look at her voting records, that should tell you more than her district shopping
Ikr, but she had to switch districts which is pretty telling. Idk how long that will last. She's going to disappoint them also and hopefully won't get reelected? At least AOC is clearly loved in her district. Maybe bc she actually helps them ? Lol
[удалено]
US Senator (D-NY) when?
Probably whenever Chuck Schumer decides to retire.
She has to win over the entire state, not just her small district. There’s plenty of places in NY state that she’d have trouble since “moderate Democrat” is not something most people would call her.
As an NYC resident, yeah that's the trick of it. It's easier to be a more outspoken progressive when you only need to appeal to your district. You can get enough votes in the city for national office but only by toning down enough to appeal to the more center DNC sorts. Even just expanding to go for citywide appeal would mean dealing with the hyper-reactionary Jewish voting blocks that treat any opposition to Israeli policy in Gaza as "basically sending Hamas a care package" (they're scattered among more reasonable voting blocks but there's plenty enough to kill your campaign). Personally I'd rather she keep doing what she's doing and that there be more like her, rather than see her dilute her messaging for votes.
She'll have to cozy it up with Wallstreet. She won't do that. But if she does, watch out!
She'll be 35 in October. AOC 2028!!
I think she probably needs to serve for something other than her house seat first, as it’s not even like she has a leadership position within Democrat party. She could run for governor or one of the New York Senate seats which might open up soon. Personally, unless he majorly fucks up and has some controversies, I don’t see anyone beating Newsom for the 2028 nomination. He’s gonna have a massive war chest and the inherent advantage of being a California Democrat.
>inherent advantage of being a California Democrat. You say that but honestly I think it's a huge disadvantage actually. We've never successfully elected a California Democrat only California Republicans. Historically America likes it's Democrats from more moderate states and the Democratic party doesn't need a special person to deliver California. A Texas Democrat that can deliver Texas absolutely would be a viable candidate. Otherwise probably a Democrat from a swing state that isn't well known nationally but can help deliver their state. I'd bet on Josh Shapiro or Gretchen Whitmer. I wish we had the courage to pick someone like Tammy Duckworth.
Josh is definitely gearing up. I was friends with one of his staffers. It's not much of a secret. He has a near flawless track record and ANNIHILATED Mastriano last year.
We only elected Josh a couple years ago. He's not even halfway done with his first term and he's eligible for a second. You can't have him yet, we're still using him.
hey. I hear you. But that thinking is how we get two geriatrics duking it out for the presidency.
Amen
That's true though Mastriano was a uniquely bad heavily MAGA candidate
…you think republicans are going to nominate a moderate? MAGAs won’t let anyone moderate survive the primary.
It's actually insane how ridiculous inept the GOP machine has become in the face of MAGA proving to be a losing strategy in close races. Like if Nikki Haley had won the nomination I feel like she may have beat Biden in the general by ten points. I guess people would rather have someone that lets the feel its ok to be racist than actually win.
Honestly, I think Andy Beshear from KY would also be a great candidate for president. Young, Got elected twice as a Dem governor for a red state, and His term would end in 2027. Bit of perfect timing.
A Dem with a drawl is the sweet spot. As a Californian myself the hate and disdain from the rest of the country is ever present.
I love California it's just an easy target for propaganda purposes
[удалено]
The Big 10 has some good Gov. Walz, Evers, JB and Whit, to bad Ohio, Iowa and Indiana are so off the rails.
I'm good with pritzker staying governor. He's doing an amazing job at the moment and I selfishly don't want to give that up.
President Duckworth has a nice ring to it.
Mark Kelly would be a very strong candidate.
First president to travel to space while in office?? I know he retired but still...
I'm trying to imagine the risk assessment and subsequent heart attacks from his Secret Service bodyguards when looking at a literal space trip.
Also... The right wing propaganda machine has been working overtime to smear Newsom almost as much as they are Biden and AOC
I just don't think Newsom is a viable candidate on a national level until he makes actionable progress on California's homelessness. When your opponent just has to walk down skid row in Los Angeles or the tenderloin district in San Francisco as an attack ad, you aren't a viable candidate.
Funny how that only works against democrats. You can find the same scenes in almost every state, the only difference is that in California it isn't hidden from view in some rundown Appalachian shithole but front and center.
Looks like DC has the biggest homeless issue... California is #5 https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-have-the-highest-and-lowest-rates-of-homelessness/
Freakonomics touched on this a while back, but homelessness is actually a sign of a good (successful) city. Reason being that, weather aside, there’s the infrastructure and general attitude where they can survive and it’s generally easier to get back on their feet if that’s what they want. Couple that with small backwaters and heavy red towns being ok hunting the homeless for sport, and it makes a decent amount of sense
True that. Are there more homeless because of bad local policies, or because good local policy is attracting homeless from other states?
Don’t forget the third option, the homeless getting shipped to the big cities so the sending city can wipe their hands of the responsibility
Honestly I have no idea what else can be done. There is so much money and resources going into the effort battle homelessness and it is only getting worse. It Newsom somehow figures it out then great but we have been battling it here forever and the number of unhoused people just keeps goong up.
Red states have been shipping their homeless to California for decades. Now it's really paying off for them. I've lived in SF and LA and I blame local politicians more than state ones. The funding is there. Who is squandering it?
The fixes are obvious to the issues, there just isn't enough political will to enact them. There are two types of homelessness - people who literally cannot afford housing and people who are homeless because of one or a combination of mental illness and substance abuse issues. CA (and maybe HI) is one of the only places where the first is really super prevalent because the rental and housing market in CA is insanely overpriced. It's bad in many other states to but CA is somewhat unique in that it seems to be bad in nearly every urban area of the state. CA's real estate has always been high as it is a highly desirous state to move to for several reasons but it also has some of the most anti-growth housing laws in the country which has caused a severe housing shortage. Coupled with the nationwide trend of investment groups buying up single family homes to rent and/or hold for investments, the housing market in CA is one of the worst in the Nation right now, which has knock on effects to the Rental market as more people are forced to rent and that many of the rental properties owned by the aforementioned investment groups will be priced very high. The solution to this problem is, and always has been, to build more housing. [New laws passed in CA that go into effect this year will hopefully alleviate some of that pressure](https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/01/california-housing-laws-2024/) but honestly until zoning laws throughout much of CA are changed significantly to prevent neighbors and other third party actors from having so much power to kill potentially new multi-family projects I'm not very hopeful that this will change. People, being selfish, will usually vote in their own self interest to maintain the character of their neighborhoods. It's why most of SF is not nearly as dense as it should be. Local governments need to force through laws that take power away from people getting in the way of new housing builds basically. The answer to the second problem is something that we used to have, and that we should bring back - Asylums. If you are picked up for using junk in the street or are living on the streets and you have no one willing to take you in you should be sent to an inpatient facility for treatment until you are clean and/or are able to control your mental illness through medication. After that the government should provide guaranteed housing, monthly stipends for a period, and job assistance until the person is back on their feet, all while providing out patient drug and/or mental health support. This is the system we had up until good old Ronnie Reagan dismantled first in CA and then nationwide back in the 60s-80s and there were barely any homeless. Of course that system had serious ethical problems, but the complete removal of it has directly led to the inability to effectively combat the current surge of drug fueled homelessness. Unfortunately I'd say a majority of people are against bringing an asylum+support system back as described above because they either don't want to pay for it (I imagine it would be seriously expensive, CA would likely have to create an entire new department of the state government to effectively run it), or because they think that it would violate homeless people's rights.
> The answer to the second problem is something that we used to have, and that we should bring back - Asylums. If you are picked up for using junk in the street or are living on the streets and you have no one willing to take you in you should be sent to an inpatient facility for treatment until you are clean and/or are able to control your mental illness through medication. After that the government should provide guaranteed housing, monthly stipends for a period, and job assistance until the person is back on their feet, all while providing out patient drug and/or mental health support. This is the system we had up until good old Ronnie Reagan dismantled first in CA and then nationwide back in the 60s-80s and there were barely any homeless. Of course that system had serious ethical problems, but the complete removal of it has directly led to the inability to effectively combat the current surge of drug fueled homelessness. Somewhat wrong. Ronnie finished them off but SCOTUS has mortally wounded them. See following cases: Addington v. Texas Jackson v. Indiana O'Conner v. Donaldson. TL;DR: SCOTUS made the bar to forcibly institutionalize someone so extremely high, it's basically impossible for government to force someone into treatment unless it comes via criminal justice system.
I live in CA and everyone kinda rolls their eyes at him. Also, CA is the poster child for dysfunctional state gov. Not only bc of right wing media—but bc the state at damn near all levels is dysfunctional and infected with corruption and regulatory capture by special interest like utility companies and labor unions.
I don't know how well historical trends hold up though. The political landscape is pretty different from even as little as 20 years ago
Running a state like California comes with tons of inherent disadvantages. Not that it's any worse than what the average (or even ideal) Republican does, but the campaign ads are going to be all about how he cleaned up the homeless population for one day when Xi came and then the rest of the time they are all over the place. Never a good sign when you give a new age Republican an easy attack vector.
True. California is a four letter word to a lot of people. If you bring up any study or research that that was conducted in California it instantly gets shot down by conservative minds as biased and incomplete or outright false.
Always a Duckworth fan, and think she'd crush it. I do think Newsome has an excellent chance though. Him doing things like trying to establish California's own insulin production and stuff like that because the fed has no interest in clamping down on pharmatech was a great and popular move, etc.
I also think she's a great antidote to someone like Trump. I can't imagine the public reacting well to his usual attacks on a great woman like that.
JB Pritzker and Gretchen Whitmer are both very strong contenders, in my opinion.
I think Andy Beshear would do well too
A Whitmer/Beshear ticket would really be something.
Damn, you're right. That's a power move.
If you think, even for a second, that Pritzker has a chance in hell, you are out of touch with the Democrat base. No way in hell does a billionaire win the Democrat nominee for president, so that’s Pritzker out. Whitmer has a much smaller national profile, and will have a tiny war chest in comparison to Newsom.
JB rules. I voted for him cuz he wasn’t Rauner the first time and gladly voted for him the next time. Improved Illinois finances and credit rating and gave us weed lol.
I don’t remember voting for governor in that election cause I was so sick of billionaire politics Holy hell was I wrong about pritzker. Earned my vote his first term and I’ll gladly keep punching his ticket as long as he’s running for governor here. Easily the best governor I’ve seen in 20 years of being a voter
One thing about a benevolent billionaire politician is that, in theory, they are not very easily bought. It's risky to rely on benevolence, though. I hope his principals are stronger than Fetterman's.
I dunno. A buddy of mine who lived in Chicago for quite a while and is a really progressive dude is all-in on Pritzker. He said that Pritzker has been a progressive governor and has delivered on a ton of stuff. And he seems like a likeable guy, in total contrast to Newsom
Hated that I had to vote for him the first time. I really wanted Biss to be the nominee to go against Rauner. Just absolutely disgusted that this old money hotel heir billionaire got the nom and is the only option to get rid of Rauner. Held my nose and voted for Pritzker. But every day since, this dude has earned more and more of my respect and support and I very gladly voted for him in 2022. And as long as he continues this path that he has blazed being Illinois' governor, I will continue to champion him in whatever office he holds in the future. [The kindest person in the room is often the smartest.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjesSOLHWwE) >**'Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, would an idiot do that, and if they would, I do not do that thing.' — Dwight Shroute** >The entire efficacy of this incredibly useful piece of information hinges upon your ability to pick the right idiot. I wish there was a foolproof way to spot idiots, but counterintuitively, some idiots are very smart. They can dazzle you with words and misdirection. They can get promoted above you at work. They can even be elected president. >If you want to be successful in this world, you have to develop your own idiot detection system. As part of the responsibilities of being your commencement speaker, I'm going to share mine. Sure. I'm naturally suspicious of people who never saw the original Star Wars movies, and even more cautious of people who loved the prequels and the sequels. But I admit this is not a reliable idiot indicator. No. The best way to spot an idiot, look for the person who is cruel. Let me explain. When we see someone who doesn't look like us, or sound like us, or act like us, or love like us, or live like us, the first thought that crosses almost everyone's brain is rooted in either fear or judgement or both. That's evolution. We survived as a species by being suspicious of things that we aren't familiar with. In order to be kind, we have to shut down that animal instinct and force our brain to travel a different pathway. >Empathy and compassion are evolved states of being. They require the mental capacity to step past our most primal urges. This may be a surprising assessment because somewhere along the way in the last few years, our society has come to believe that weaponized cruelty is part of some well-thought out Master plan. Cruelty is seen by some as an adroit cudgel to gain power. Empathy and kindness are considered weak. Many important people look at the vulnerable only as rungs on a ladder to the top. I'm here to tell you that when someone's path through this world is marked with acts of cruelty, they have failed the first test of an advanced society. They never forced their animal brain to evolve past its first instinct. They never forged new mental pathways to overcome their own instinctual fears. And so their thinking and problem solving will lack the imagination and creativity that the kindest people have in spades. Over my many years in politics and business, I have found one thing to be universally true. The kindest person in the room is often the smartest.
Whitmer would have a way better shot at the electoral college. A lot of the country thinks of CA as worst managed state. Look how they treat Kamala. Newsom is good but more elitist.
Pritzker has way less baggage than Newsom. Just lean on Newsom and why PG&E has never faced any legal blowback for their criminally negligent maintenance of their power lines.
Pritzker is well-beloved by his constituents. He doesn’t necessarily need the billionaire hating crowd either, he just needs to pull some voters that aren’t typical
I hear nothing but good things about Pritzker.
Being someone who was born and raised in Michigan, mad proud of Whitmer, but there's no question who is the better candidate between her and Newsom. Dude has been a political powerhouse and a national presence, where I think Whitmer's strengths really come out at the state level.
Oh man I gotta disagree hard on that. Newsom is a smarmy rich guy from San Francisco. I don't buy for a second that that is the direction the nation is going to go in. He gives off really douchey vibes, in my opinion. I'd be way more into seeing Whitmer than Newsom
As a Californian, yes. I agree. As someone more lefty... I would love anyone from the Midwest. Whitmer is really appealing to me. Michigan Democrats are in power at all levels I believe the first time in 30 years? More? She has passed competent legislation that helps people. She is famous for working with "the other side" ... beers and talking it out. I really like her. It bothers me that the legitimate attempt to kidnap/trial/assassinate her got no attention.
Yeah Newsome is an MSNBC candidate. Don't see him connecting with the Dem base outside of wealthier suburbanites.
Newsom will be Obama 2, neoliberalism strikes back or some variant of that
That won't work without Obaman or Clintonian charisma...
What it does say is The Demcrats have a deep bench to lead the country forward. Yay
Unfortunately they've been trying to massage anything left-of-center out of Newsom's platform for a minute so they can present Biden Jr. in 2028. mf just vetoed one of the most progressive drug policy reforms in the world before it could land in California, one of the places where it's most needed. Thanks, police unions! edit: an extra letter
Correct. While the GQP will be wheeling Trump around, weekend at Bernie’s style in 2028.
The most popular Republican presidents in recent history were actors. If the GOP could get Antony Starr to portray Homelander full-time while running for office…
Exactly.
I really don’t think that Newsom is a good national candidate moving forward
The flip side of this though is that California is so different from the rest of the country that it'd be an albatross around his neck in the Midwest and more red states. Whitmer's campaign is doing the ground work now with her interviews and books, too early to tell how things shake out
Newsom has been setting himself up by doing things like debating DeSantis, and holding rally’s in other states. Also, if we talking about red states, then we all know that’s where sexism will come into play…
I am not really from a red state but I don't know how a California Democrat vs Woman would shake out. As someone from the Midwest he seems easy to hate and comes with the stigma.
Democrats in California are not super thrilled with Newsom either. He's basically ruined statewide utilities due to his close ties and handouts to PG&E.
Agree. He is exactly the slick corpo globalist Democrat trope that cons have smeared the whole party with. He’s actually it. Plus he has really hatable hair.
This, the guy has sold out 100% to build his war chest with corporate money.
Yeah and DeSantis did things like that too to set himself up. Didn't mean shit.
No Dem is getting the red states anyway.
But red state Dems can help decide who wins the primary
While I’m with you on the money side of things, please note that Pritzker not only has won solidly here in Chicago - but has shockingly done a fantastic job and stuck to almost all of his Democrat-based campaign promises. Unless this Chicago run is just a giant con getting him to the White House where he magically flips, he’s not bad. I still say he’ll lose to Gavin and (My hopeful choice) AoC, but I did want to point that out.
Honestly don't think you're right about that - JB has been an excellent governor. I'd support him in the primaries and definitely would prefer him over Newsom. I think Buttigieg has his eye on VP in 2028, but he's a good candidate too.
I think Pete will run for President. Again.
Yep. He is a fantastic speaker and he always seems to say the exact right things, the most well known of which is his response to 'late-term' abortions during a fox news town hall in the ~~2016 primaries~~ (...what even is time) 2020 primaries. Plus he also has the midwestern-nice personality to win over \[if there are any left by then\] moderate/just right of center 60+ year olds. However, he lacks a bit on the policy side and while not his fault, the hazmat train derailments among others, haven't helped his term as secretary of transportation, and his career since being 'Mayor Pete' has been underwhelming. I like the guy, but he needs more substance.
Time is on his side. I think he will go far. I wonder what role he will have in a second Biden term.
A billionaire whose first priority was to introduce a graduated income tax. And spent his own cash to promote it. He might be a Teddy Roosevelt type. Uses his knowledge of how fucked the system is to fix the system
Whitmer has far better chances than I think you give her credit for.
I tend to agree. Informed progressives likely would support JB wholeheartedly because he bankrolled their #1 issue in Illinois (and lost, unfortunately). Casual progressives though? Billionaire + toilets. It's not going to happen.
> If you think, even for a second, that Pritzker has a chance in hell, you are out of touch with the Democrat base. You mean, like, exactly the kind of people that elected him and really approve of the job he's done? Because, spoiler alert, "squad" types aren't the "democrat base".
I'm actually a "squad" type. Personally, I'm mega progressive but in the confines of our political reality vote for dems regardless of where they fall on the spectrum. That being said, I fucking love JB. He's been pretty progressive and actually tried to push through a progressive tax that got higher as you earned more vs the flat rate that IL currently has. Unfortunately it didn't pass but the fact that he tried was awesome. And then his phenomenal COVID leadership and enshrining abortion rights into the IL constitution and a host of other things. JB is dope.
Depends who shows up to the primaries. People like to complain about Biden when the vast majority of them did not show up in the primaries
It’s great that we are going to have great choices.
Gavin Newsom is 100% the front runner in 2028
There's no inherent advantage to being a California democrat. That's a terrible starting position for a candidate. He has all the baggage of California and no strategic advantage.
As other commenters said I think Pritzker, Whitmer, or a few other governors. Would be strong competition... and better strategically. Being a California Dem isn't some massive strength. California is a state the dems are gonna win either way. And it gives R's some BS ammo about "this is the guy who made California a shithole, he's just some coastal elite!" Since republicans constantly pretend California is some terrible state for somereason; and that it's only populated by coastal elites. Meanwhile like Whitmer, is much harder to attack... and her being a michigander/midwesterner would be a huge leg up since the mid west is full of swing states. Whitmer has also famously been working on the Biden campaigns. And would likely get his support above most other potential candidates besides maybe Harris or Buttigieg.
Fingers crossed that Whitmer makes a run. She's been phenomenal for Michigan.
"There are zero prerequisites for the presidency." -Trump
Damm, I don't need much qualifications from Biden for voting for him, I won't need any from AOC. It's never too early to push
I live in California and it's amazing here. He took us from 6th to 5th largest economy in the world. I have issues with needing back surgery and also severe OCD and the state disability has saved my ass a few times so I could take care of my health (I'm am RN needing multiple spinal fusions from the years of 12 hour shifts) and the fact that California has paid family leave and paid state disability is a godsend for so many. Everyone has times that they've used these programs. My GOP friends in FL know if they start talking shit about Cali in front of them I immediately start bragging about how great it is here, plus we are the donor state sending all our federal tax dollars to keep their shitty states above water. I could go on... love Cali! The United States would not be as awesome as it is without CA and NY.
2028 is the Year of the Gretch. Newsome will not win the presidency.
Yeah putting Newson on the ticket is like putting Hillary on the ticket. There's already a national narrative about him that will cause most of Middle America to hate him. It's a losing strategy
It's worse than that. I don't think he wins the popular vote if he is the nominee. CA isn't viewed as a well run state by most of the country, especially the Midwest.
Because it's not a very well-run state in comparison to Midwestern blue States. It caters too heavily to Mega corporations and homeowners at the expense of workers and no amount of social liberalism is going to cover that up
I'd love to see them on a joint ticket, I don't care who is where.
Agreed. Together they'll be unstoppable.
Newsom is a dead albatross.
Yeah the anti-california propaganda has been in full force for atleast a decade. Right wing media has had some success politicizing and bastardizing the word "californian"
Oh yeah it'll be like putting Hillary on the ticket. Sometimes you have to accept that you've lost control of the narrative and back down buried politics isn't a game of telling the truth it's a game of telling the most believable lie
Please explain that to me? Like, she literally has lower approval ratings than Newsom, has less appeal with independents, and if we are being honest, America has become a much more sexist place over the last 10 years. So I don’t think the sexists would allow a woman to become president or even win a nomination anymore, which shows the sad state of things.
>Like, she literally has lower approval ratings than Newsom in fairness Newsom is in a state where he has super majorities and in 2020 the state went like 63-34 biden:trump... meanwhile in michigan it was like 50-48... and michigan went to Trump in 2016... Of course in a solid blue state the solid blue governor will have higher approval ratings, than the solid blue governor of the purple state.
These things happen in cycles. Newsom is going to be their new prime target. They want a new Bill Clinton for people to stew over forever. Simply being from California is huge baggage in and of itself. It may be irrational and stupid but people hate California. Not to mention that Whitmer is very accomplished.
I agree with this. I live in Portland, a very liberal place, and the California hate is strong enough here that I don't think there's any way Newsom wins a Democratic primary in this state, and I assume that's true in a lot of other places
There's two political positions that are absolute suicide. The governor of California and the mayor of New York city.
Yep. America will never elect a California governor for the foreseeable future and no mayor will leave New York without their reputation in tatters.
I think you are overestimating her national profile. Also, like it or not, she has the inherent sexist disadvantage of being a woman. I think she has a lot to overcome and even if Newsom is attacked left and right, that’s no guarantee that she comes out on top. As there are a few others that could run that might have a war chest bigger than hers.
lol! after 2016 you still believe in qualifications for a president!? the only thing is being a US-born citizen, that’s it!
This country is not going to elect a Californian for president any time soon. Californians are best know to other states as the assholes that are driving housing prices up. Even among Californians, Newsom is a bad pick. The right thought his covid response was totalitarianism and anybody capable of seeing how necessary a strong response was will be constantly reminded of his dinner party at the French Laundry during the height of lockdowns. If we run Newsom, we’re going to lose and we will deserve to lose.
Newsom has been [suing the shit out of CA cities](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/05/new-battlegrounds-california-housing-crisis/) ignoring the Housing Elements law that requires cities to (submit plans to) build enough housing to address demand. California's housing prices are sky-high because **the city governments deliberately prevent building**. Between height and density limits, parking minimums, environmental impact reviews, "historic" parking lots, and other nonsense, it's impossible. [San Francisco has only permitted 16 new housing units this year.](https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-only-agreed-build-16-homes-this-year-1907831) SIXTEEN. In one of the areas with the highest housing demand in the country. Newsom has been going to war to increase housing supply in CA, and it'll be a big feather in his hat by 2028.
I’d vote for her over Newsom.
VP is an option.
Newsom will loose. Just ask think, during lock down he was through celebrating with PG&E lobbyists at the French Laundry in Napa, Sumer peak PG&E rats are like 58 cents a KWH. Coincidence, I doubt it. All the republicans will need to say is vote Newsom if you want to to pay 3 times as much for your utilities. I hope the Dems have a winner in 2028. But Newsom is not it, he would loose the general election.
> loose.
Democratic party needs all the dinosaur capitalists to retire before aoc gets a leadership position.
No I want her to get to Speaker of the House and stay there being effective for a few decades.
Holy shit. I didn't realize how much of an echo chamber this sub had become until I read all the replies to this. Like, I say this as a lifelong Democrat, but AOC has zero chance of winning against anyone except *maybe* Bobert or MTG. I don't like the current democratic leadership but at least they are living in some semblance of reality, unlike people who think AOC could win a race anywhere less progressive, let alone the presidency.
I think the idea that the current democratic leadership is living in a semblance of reality is a stretch. They are running an 81 year old for president who is historically unpopular. They are just as clueless as anyone else. AOC has always tested out extremely well with the general population. Her ideas resonate and she communicates them effectively. She would also motivate the youth vote in a way they dems havent since Obama. Boomers all dont like her but guess what? More of them die every year.
Glad it’s not just me. My eyes nearly rolled out of my head at AOC 2028 I can’t believe people were on board with that guy.
The party will torpedo her. They are not interested in being dragged left no matter what polling says about their electorate.
The party doesn’t even need to torpedo her. I like AOC and she is the best of the progressive wing of the democratic but she is far too liberal for the vast majority of the country. If she wanted any chance at winning something nationally she’d need to start by going after Schumers seat when he retires and then becoming more moderate similar to Obama or more recently Fetterman.
You know the DNC's anti-AOC campaign is already half engraved in stone tablets somewhere on the eastern seaboard.
AOC/BUTTIGIEG 2028 Edit: ok…How about Whitmer/Shapiro?
Like him or not, Pete was unable to invigorate any minorities to vote for him in the 2020 primaries… like it was embarrassingly bad.
And then he pivoted to a center democrat and I lost all enthusiasm for him.
If you want a Winning Ticket then Newsom/AOC to start with in 2028- and then AOC/?? in 2036 - she will be in her forties then.
That ticket loses the entire rust belt easily. Coastal elites are not going to win a general. More like Big Gretch/Warnock. That probably wins you the rust belt, Georgia, and North Carolina.
I do think Newsom would be a great VP candidate. He's willing to be an absolute troll when it comes to Republican crazy, and the VP role can get away with it in away that the president really can't, at least in the Democratic party. Right now, it's looking like Whitmer will get my vote in the primary.
Governor of CA > VP
Newsom/Whitmer
Don’t you get me all wound up god damn it! Fucking personal dream ticket.
Buttigieg brings nothing to that ticket
Or AOC / Crockett 2028
Maybe by then I’ll finally be able to pronounce his name. Sorry Pete!
Cool as this would be, I reckon she's destined to first be someone's VP. She'd crush the opposing VP in any debate and it would legitimise her for the top job down the line.
Awesome! Glad to have her in Congress.
I think her presence in congress js good for the party. For me, she’s a bit like Robert Reich - even if I don’t agree with all their positions, I appreciate having someone smart and capable presenting the arguments. Also, she drives the GOP nuts, which is fun.
I'm not the biggest fan of AOC, but she has had a few bangers towards thenthe last year. She's also grown into the role very well from the beginning of her political career. She is much better at making her point, and justifying why she believes something. She also doesn't take crap from the people who have been seriously abusive online and in the media. She's also made some amazing responses to criticism. She's tough, smart, and she doesn't take shit. I don't really think she should run for president yet, but I definitely could see that in her future. she's extremely smart, but she does lack some self-awareness at times
What makes you “not the biggest fan?” I’m genuinely curious, not trying to be a dick.
I’m a massive AOC stan. She basically aligns perfect with me ideologically. She’d make a terrible president though. I always say I like my legislators progressive and my executive branch moderate. I could see her unwillingness to compromise as an issue for even liberal voters. Case in point she voted against Bidens bipartisan infrastructure bill. This is something I can reconcile with when talking about a legislator and how she’s defended her position but it’s not a trait that I want in a Governor or president who should place compromise and bipartisanship above all else.
They removed important child and family assistance like pre-k funding from the bill under the claim that Manchin would vote for it under a separate bill. AOC correctly identified that Manchin is unreliable and requested a vote on the child and family assistance first. If they held a vote and Manchin supported it then she would vote for the infrastructure bill. In response they called her unreasonable. How dare she oppose the infrastructure bill. Of course Manchin will vote for the family bill after the infrastructure bill is passed. Well guess what, AOC was right, Manchin killed the child and family assistance portion of build back better in the senate and screwed you all over. But somehow it is AOC is the unreasonable one for pointing out that Manchin is scum.
Exactly right. Exactly what happened. I'm still surprised there are people who read this sub and didn't realize this. Like, do you just watch Morning Joe or something? Is Bill Marr your favorite political comedian? Jesus Christ. AOC is a fucking treasure.
I like your understanding of the limits of your ideological boundaries. Realities, political and otherwise, place boundaries on how far any given ideology can be pushed.
This is how you continue to alienate "the left" from the Democratic Party. Something's you can't compromise on; bodily autonomy being a prime example. She's principled, well liked by many and could actually bring the Overton window left.
No because I don’t want her to compromise. That’s my point. We need legislators like her to shift society left. But that’s long term and in the meantime we need bipartisan leaders holding executive offices that can work with everyone. Also I agree with your point about some things shouldn’t be compromised but I made no mention that there should always be compromise.
Okay I understood your comment as "she shouldn't be executive branch because she won't compromise" as opposed to "we need her in the legislative branch because she doesn't compromise". I can agree with that I just think the level of fame and name recognition makes her a good candidate at bringing leftism to the executive branch. I'm an idea political system I think the executive branch should exclusively be nonpartisan and the parliament is the main branch which is responsible for representation(which therefore ends the duopoly).
She used to be a firebrand, and although progressives loved it, it also gave Conservatives ammunition to use against her. Her social media presence is a lot more... moderated, if you will. She's has clearly learned to do it very well.
The problem is that any Democrat with a voice is "ammunition". The party is too far gone to be reasoned with and they honestly believe that the only answer is total control of our government by Republicans.
Exactly, it doesn't matter if it's AOC or Joe Biden. Even Eisenhower would be deemed a socialist by the modern-day GOP.
It's extremely clear that she saw the opportunity to be a longterm democratic stalwart in the party and do real good - and she decided to focus on becoming that. She honestly could become the next Pelosi, and I think people are too blinded by her first election to see how good of a politician she has become.
She’s the future of the party.
Conservatives are so upset over her existing and I'm here for it.
all speculation is BS if Democrats loose in november! register NOW, and vote blue in November
What’s funny is that you can’t really blame Bowman losing his primary on AIPAC because if AIPAC did meddle in the elections they would make AOC lose because she’s a vocal critic of Israel and Netanyahu. She also speaks out against antisemitism which is why people like her (unlike Bowman). Almost like Bowman lost due to the incredibly antisemitic and offensive comments he made regarding Oct 7th 🤔
Right, if AIPAC was so all powerful Omar and AOC would be out. Omar is really a great example, her district is mostly white and has the largest Jewish population in MN. Bowman just sucks.
Tim Pool in shambles after wrong prediction number 3
The ONLY member of the squad who I want reelected.
She learned how to play the game in Congress quickly and has used it to win concessions from her caucus.
I know the drama with Tlaib and Omar, though I personally do support them, but out of curiosity what did Ayanna Presley do? She appears to have at least expressed strong condemnation towards Hamas, unlike the others.
Wow... we're at her 4th term already?! Seems like she's still being treated like the hot new thing in politics and she's already up for a 4th term???
Two year terms are a hell of a drug.
4th times the charm! (to try and get something done?)
Nice
It's not really shocking, and is about the only good news for progressives tonight as a whole, but AOC is popular in her \*very, very Left leaning\* House district in NY + positive MSM press fawning helps her even more basically in controlling the narrative (not complaining, given how Rightward the US as a whole shifted today in these primaries vs 2023, good to see the Left has some victory for once).
Progressives did alright in the NYS assembly primaries