This is coming from a Californian: I am skeptical, purely in terms of political advantage, that it is a good idea for the Democrats to run a California politician for the presidential slot in 2028 unless they are absolutely extraordinary. Two major potential Democratic 2028 nominees, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, are both out of California.
California is going to vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is. If the Democrats nominate a dead orangutan, California will vote for it. It’s like the Republicans nominating the governor of Utah. (Actually, my understanding is that the current governor of Utah is kind of a decent guy, has been one of the people tamping down on divisiveness, but still, Republicans just aren’t getting a geographic benefit out of nominating him).
I’d be more inclined to think that someone like Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, would do well in the general election. She’s managed to win over voters in the Midwest, which have been swing states in recent elections, which is what the Democrats might actually not win in 2028. Biden was out of Pennsylvania.
IIRC from past reading, predictions are that 2028 will see some states further in the southeast might becoming swing states; it’s not as if the set of swing states are fixed. But I am confident that California will not be among the 2028 swing states short of a cataclysmic political upheaval in the next three years.
All that, of course, is entirely disregarding their policies.
This wreaks of the centrism “common sense” that keeps losing us elections. It’s built on the assumption that moderates are innately more electable, while history has shown this is anything but the case. It’s a kind of magical thinking completely divorced from reality.
The flaw in this thinking is that it assumes that there is a large population of political moderates waiting to be appealed to. This is what’s cost Democrats the working class - abandoning workers rights and benefits in the hope of wooing suburban conservatives. And it’s failed election after election.
It fails because there aren’t actually very many true moderates. If you poll people who are politically unaligned, it’s not that they’re unaligned because they lie right between the parties. They’re unaligned because their politics simply don’t match to the existing partisan alignment. Think someone that is pro-gun rights but also supports Medicare for All.
Running performative centrists doesn’t do anything to appeal to these voters, it just makes your candidate come off as inauthentic. Some issues just don’t have reasonable compromises on them. If one party wants to greatly restrict the civil rights of some minority group, taking the centrist position of only restricting their rights a little bit still makes you look like a monster to anyone with a conscience.
This is why centrists fail. Almost no one actually had beliefs that are in the dead middle of the political spectrum. Appealing to these mythical voters is a strategy that fails again and again.
What you are ignoring is that Newsom has a key characteristic that both Harris and Whitmer lack: a penis. If anything has been made clear to me over the past 10 years, it’s that too many Americans view having a penis as a requirement to be President.
if you honestly think a penis is why hillary or harris lost than you are simply out of touch with the majority of america.
people didn’t vote for harris…they voted waltz, the country is tired of these wolves in sheeps clothing. harris drug down the campaign when she flipflopped on universal healthcare a week in, she became “just more of the same” instantly.
it’s why so much of the country votes republican, not abject bigotry and hatred (though there is a large contingent of that)…they vote republican because they know republicans are slimy pieces of shit that can be relied on to cause as much pain as possible, it makes them predictable and by extension makes protecting you and yours easier.
when dems are in charge you have to do a deep dive into everyone’s past, to see if they’re a snake or not. while republicans are either easy to please/step around/ignore (if you have the privilege to do those things) because they’re so open and proud in their corruption
not saying it’s right, just laying it out there as to why most of the country votes for wm over some dem.
obama won because he promised Hope and Change…then showed just how much of a lie that campaign was over his two terms. no democrat will win the popular vote again unless it’s a safe assumption they’re a pushover (biden) or america can trust they’re actually honest about pushing for change (waltz).
the country is tired of playing this stupid fucking game, everyone knows it by now…but if you have to choose between a devil you know vs. one you don’t the choice is easy for most.
if you think simple sexism wasn’t a major factor for a sizable portion of America, my friend, you’re out of touch.
You need to go out to the country/mountain areas. I was out there when Hillary was running. My family are all red voters. Hell, my grandmother told me she would never vote for a woman as president. Paraphrasing her “Women are too emotional and what about once a month with hormones”. Yes, that’s a driving factor in A LOT of rural voters. Simple sexism.
If sexism wasn’t a major factor in America, we wouldn’t have the massive incel problem we have. We wouldn’t have the constant “woke feminism” backlash bullshit.
Pretending America isn’t sexist and isn’t contributing reasion why Hillary/Kamala lost is willfully ignorant.
Those people already weren’t going to vote for a Democrat…women are winning high ranking positions in what most people would consider much more culturally machismo-prominent cultures than the US
If conservatives in Britain can elect a woman as the leader of their country in the 1980s, then the US can elect a woman in the 2020s. We have a problem with misogyny, but I refuse to believe that even though enough conservative Britains could overcome their prejudice to get a woman elected in the 1980s, progressives in the US can’t somehow manage it in the 2020s.
Reality check. A few points swing would have resulted in Hillary of Kamala winning. These were close elections. I’m sure sexism was a factor, but their unpopular policies and corporate fakery were what really killed them.
This is coming from a Californian: I am skeptical, purely in terms of political advantage, that it is a good idea for the Democrats to run a California politician for the presidential slot in 2028 unless they are absolutely extraordinary. Two major potential Democratic 2028 nominees, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, are both out of California.
California is going to vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is. If the Democrats nominate a dead orangutan, California will vote for it. It’s like the Republicans nominating the governor of Utah. (Actually, my understanding is that the current governor of Utah is kind of a decent guy, has been one of the people tamping down on divisiveness, but still, Republicans just aren’t getting a geographic benefit out of nominating him).
I’d be more inclined to think that someone like Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, would do well in the general election. She’s managed to win over voters in the Midwest, which have been swing states in recent elections, which is what the Democrats might actually not win in 2028. Biden was out of Pennsylvania.
IIRC from past reading, predictions are that 2028 will see some states further in the southeast might becoming swing states; it’s not as if the set of swing states are fixed. But I am confident that California will not be among the 2028 swing states short of a cataclysmic political upheaval in the next three years.
All that, of course, is entirely disregarding their policies.
I’d prefer Pritzker. He’s done great by Illinois and has been standing up for the people against Trump at least as well, if not better than Newsom.
Sure, he’d also pass the geography test.
Obama was out of Illinois and made it to the presidency.
This wreaks of the centrism “common sense” that keeps losing us elections. It’s built on the assumption that moderates are innately more electable, while history has shown this is anything but the case. It’s a kind of magical thinking completely divorced from reality.
The flaw in this thinking is that it assumes that there is a large population of political moderates waiting to be appealed to. This is what’s cost Democrats the working class - abandoning workers rights and benefits in the hope of wooing suburban conservatives. And it’s failed election after election.
It fails because there aren’t actually very many true moderates. If you poll people who are politically unaligned, it’s not that they’re unaligned because they lie right between the parties. They’re unaligned because their politics simply don’t match to the existing partisan alignment. Think someone that is pro-gun rights but also supports Medicare for All.
Running performative centrists doesn’t do anything to appeal to these voters, it just makes your candidate come off as inauthentic. Some issues just don’t have reasonable compromises on them. If one party wants to greatly restrict the civil rights of some minority group, taking the centrist position of only restricting their rights a little bit still makes you look like a monster to anyone with a conscience.
This is why centrists fail. Almost no one actually had beliefs that are in the dead middle of the political spectrum. Appealing to these mythical voters is a strategy that fails again and again.
Fuck Whitmer. She’s for the car companies and not for the people. She puts on a show but does nothing of substance.
Run Ocasio-Cortez
The governor of Utah is not a decent guy. He has signed plenty of hate legislation.
What you are ignoring is that Newsom has a key characteristic that both Harris and Whitmer lack: a penis. If anything has been made clear to me over the past 10 years, it’s that too many Americans view having a penis as a requirement to be President.
if you honestly think a penis is why hillary or harris lost than you are simply out of touch with the majority of america.
people didn’t vote for harris…they voted waltz, the country is tired of these wolves in sheeps clothing. harris drug down the campaign when she flipflopped on universal healthcare a week in, she became “just more of the same” instantly.
it’s why so much of the country votes republican, not abject bigotry and hatred (though there is a large contingent of that)…they vote republican because they know republicans are slimy pieces of shit that can be relied on to cause as much pain as possible, it makes them predictable and by extension makes protecting you and yours easier.
when dems are in charge you have to do a deep dive into everyone’s past, to see if they’re a snake or not. while republicans are either easy to please/step around/ignore (if you have the privilege to do those things) because they’re so open and proud in their corruption
not saying it’s right, just laying it out there as to why most of the country votes for wm over some dem.
obama won because he promised Hope and Change…then showed just how much of a lie that campaign was over his two terms. no democrat will win the popular vote again unless it’s a safe assumption they’re a pushover (biden) or america can trust they’re actually honest about pushing for change (waltz).
the country is tired of playing this stupid fucking game, everyone knows it by now…but if you have to choose between a devil you know vs. one you don’t the choice is easy for most.
if you think simple sexism wasn’t a major factor for a sizable portion of America, my friend, you’re out of touch.
You need to go out to the country/mountain areas. I was out there when Hillary was running. My family are all red voters. Hell, my grandmother told me she would never vote for a woman as president. Paraphrasing her “Women are too emotional and what about once a month with hormones”. Yes, that’s a driving factor in A LOT of rural voters. Simple sexism.
If sexism wasn’t a major factor in America, we wouldn’t have the massive incel problem we have. We wouldn’t have the constant “woke feminism” backlash bullshit.
Pretending America isn’t sexist and isn’t contributing reasion why Hillary/Kamala lost is willfully ignorant.
Those people already weren’t going to vote for a Democrat…women are winning high ranking positions in what most people would consider much more culturally machismo-prominent cultures than the US
If conservatives in Britain can elect a woman as the leader of their country in the 1980s, then the US can elect a woman in the 2020s. We have a problem with misogyny, but I refuse to believe that even though enough conservative Britains could overcome their prejudice to get a woman elected in the 1980s, progressives in the US can’t somehow manage it in the 2020s.
Reality check. A few points swing would have resulted in Hillary of Kamala winning. These were close elections. I’m sure sexism was a factor, but their unpopular policies and corporate fakery were what really killed them.