2028 ELECTION THREAD

Just when you thought the apparent IQ lower limit had been reached.

You must be an enormous fan of the Khmer Rouge.

lol you think when MLK was talking about white moderates he was talking about liberals and not people who wanted to compromise on civil rights legislation? and do you think that this was an expression of absolute belief or a two paragraph passage from a letter he wrote while in jail, contextualized to the timeframe responding to criticisms of his tactics?

Tucker Carlson at +3000 is amazing. How would he be more likely than Pete or Desantis?

C'mon buddy, she's got a career to build. The always vote for the second worst candidate crowd need someone to vote for.

Shapiro and Kelly seem like good bets at those odds.

What a depressing list

Way too early, but this starting to look like a conversation about who Newsom will pick as VP running mate.

North-East: Pennsylvania is important to keep in the blue wall so leans towards picking Josh Shapiro as VP running mate. New York is safe enough that Newsom doesn't need AOC.

South: Kentucky's current Governor Andy Beshear shows a DEM other than B. Clinton can win in the south.

South-West: Arizona senator Mark Kelly has been a total dud. And Arizona probably too close o California and would be a weak ticket not covering other parts of country.

Wild Cards. Grethen Withmer if Newsom wants a woman other than AOC also from a blue wall state. Pete Buttigieg is a midwesterner for coverage.

West: California is already a lock for DEMs with Newsom as current Governor and a double California ticket with Harris on it seems beyond foolish.

Any ticket with Harris on it is foolish. How about Newsom/Whitmer? Michigan can be swingy.

addendum: Every Dem ticket since 2016 has had a woman on it. Would be perceived as a step backward if no woman on the ticket in 2028 imo.

Yeah I was editing and put Whitmer in there as the other woman to AOC and also a blue wall state. White women with a college degree vote at an extremely high certainty and all black women are proving to be a lock to vote Democratic so a female on a Dem ticket might be almost a forgone conclusion in coming cycles.

We’re currently bumping up against the Sahm Rule, which has a 100% track record of calling a recession once unemployment ticks up 0.5% from its low. On top of that, there's a $2 trillion debt wall in real estate about to hit a breaking point next year, and the "AI hype" spending that’s been propping us up is starting to plateau.

• California's unemployment rate has hovered around 5.3%–5.6%-- among the highest in the country.
  
• Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is approximately 4.2% to 4.3%. The state is currently outperforming much of the country in terms of new job creation.
  

We'll have to see how the candidates resonate and who the second picks are but a Shapiro-Whitmer ticket could work. Harris seems like a non-starter just based on policy.

I really, really can't imagine Harris winning the nomination. I can't see anyone choosing her as a running mate, and I doubt she would want to be anyone's running mate. Unless someone puts her in a cabinet position, I think her days in the federal government are over.

I could see her reclaiming her Senate seat at some point.

Sure but this is he DNC we're dealing with. If there's a logjam with establishment candidates, AOC could come out of the gate on top. Then what?

Oh please she dropped out of the first race with no support and than was appointed Queen Kamala and made Biden and Trump look like great public speakers . WE all remember what would you different than Joe? Nothing

The Dems are stupid but not that stupid to select her again even for VP

What do you mean by "then what"? I don't expect that to happen, but if it did, then she would be the nominee against the Republican nominee in the general election.

I also don't what you mean by your reference to the DNC. For better or worse, the DNC and RNC don't have secret backroom processes through which they control the behavior of nominees or through which they select nominees. There is ample evidence on this point. If the national committees had that sort of control, then Trump would never have been the GOP nominee in 2016.

We could argue the DNC does have some influence as they were able to quash Bernie's momentum

I agree they neither control nor select nominees, but they do put the thumb on the scale quite a bit. It’s politics, of course, but people don’t like it, which is also politics.

Losing a crowded primary when there was a clear favorite with name recognition and wide familiarity is not indicative of the amount of potential support she could have as a candidate in the future. She acquired those things immediately when she became VP and, voila.

By the DNC delegates who voted nearly unanimously for her to be the nominee. Which is how it works. Delegates have a responsibility to vote for those whom their constituents support, which was made very clear through polls. Further, no one stepped forward to challenge her. She was basically unopposed.

lol no. Absolutely not. This is just abject stupidity.

And what was she referring to when said that? Provide context.

They made her QUEEN KAMALA so I relinquished my mental faculties to a pathological authoritarian cult

eat that libs

At least he got through all that without making an "on her knees" comment. Growth?

NO QUEENS!

I cant imagine defending Kamala and the Dem handling of the election. you guys are unreal brainwashed.