I know the Democrat I want to run in 2028.

[Chasstev365]

1. We need someone who has a skill that I think only two exceptionally smart presidents have really possessed. FDR and Bill Clinton could make complicated issues easy to understand for average people. God, do we ever need this!

2. We need someone who is not afraid to go the attack and actually call Republicans out on their hypocritical Bull Shit.

3. We need someone who isn't afraid to be an actual New Deal/1960's style Democrat, standing up for working class people who have been screwed since 1980 and St. Ronnie.

Al Franken probably wouldn't do it because his own party threw him under the bus so badly, but he checks the above boxes in my opinion.

And when his alleged sexual harassment issue crops up, all he has to say is Trump was a convicted rapist and that didn't matter.

[The Blue Flower]

1. Gov. Jay Inslee (D-WA)

He isn't afraid to speak the truth and take it to the Rs. A very decent man.

[Chasstev365]

3. I supported Inslee in 2020

From some reason he never caught on. I'd support in 2028 if Franken didn't run.

[dsc]

13. He was my choice too

but sadly we were almost the only two.

[Aristus]

36. Three.

I was thrilled when he announced he was running, and saddened when he dropped out. He was a superb governor. I was proud to attend his inauguration ball in 2013.

[DFW]

113. Inslee was my first choice, too

I was very disappointed that his message gained no traction. A bery good man.

[Mountainguy]

2. He'd be almost 78 years old

on inauguration day 2029.

[Chasstev365]

4. Fair point

[milestogo]

5. Pete Buttigieg

He's got it.

[Arazi]

6. Pete has to be the next Secretary of State. We're going to need a master communicator

To help mend some broken ties (to the degree they can be mended)

[DFW]

117. He'd be ideal!

The “Fence Mender.”

[Chasstev365]

7. If America won't elect a woman

They won't elect a Gay married man. He'd be great, but I just don't think he can win.

[elocs]

27. Absolutely correct--America will NOT elect a woman.

I think 2 out of the last 3 election losses should offer some insight. Not even all Democrats will vote for a woman and that includes Democratic women.

[Meadowoak]

126. Andy Beshear will be the next President.

[pinkstarburst]

146. As far as I see it, Beshear's only qualification

is being a white guy. Sorry, that's not enough for me...

[elocs]

26. Entirely qualified but what he hasn't got it the ability to be elected.

Not even all Democrats would vote for him. Reality may suck, but it is what it is and there's no point in pretending otherwise.

[True Dough]

91. I BELIEVE!

They said America wasn't ready to elect a Black man, yet we got Barack Obama (thankfully).

Pete can do it. He's up to the task and the timing might be right after a swing toward fascism. The pendulum will move our way.

[Bluestocking]

136. We need the black vote

Obama brought us the black vote. Pete would not. He would not win.

[pinkstarburst]

145. Pete Buttigieg is the whole package!

No one would have thought in 2004 that a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama could get elected, but he did.

I am not buying into the naysayers who have pre-decided we only get straight white Christian men from here on out. I think that's a very dangerous line to walk. If we start letting the republicans pick our candidate for us, in addition to their own candidate, we're going to have low turnout at the polls every time. No one is going to want to show up and vote when they feel like they only got to choose between 15% of the available candidates and there wasn't anyone they were truly enthusiastic about.

Pete gives people hope. He's the smartest guy in the room.

[Blue Full Moon]

156. He's 3rd way. He's against health care.

[milestogo]

159. Oh, my.

[marble falls]

8. Sen Tammy Duckworth.

[elocs]

29. Yes, losing 3 out of the last 4 elections would be 75%.

What's the old definition of insanity? Oh yeah, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[SheltieLover]

9. Gov. Pritzker

[Chasstev365]

11. He would be great!

[SheltieLover]

16. He would! Dems in IL love him!

[UTUSN]

31. *YES*! - but everybody I pick gets jinxed, arrrgh. So...

[SheltieLover]

48. Oh no!

[uponit7771]

51. On the radar

[NBachers]

88. He may be my adopted candidate. There's a lot of time between now and then.

[SheltieLover]

108. Sure is.

[mzmolly]

10. What about

https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/

[DFW]

116. I admire Jon greatly, and consider him the smartest Senator

But a Jewish Democrat from Georgia without a huge national profile doesn’t stand much of a chance. Jon is a personal friend, and I’d love to have him as President, but I don’t think the Party would let him anywhere near the nomination. As it is, he has a huge fight on his hands just to get re-elected to the Senate next year. Plus, he has a very young family, and I’m fairly confident that he wouldn’t want to put them through a presidential campaign.

On the other hand, he does have that captivating Obama-style of speaking. I just don’t see the big guns or big money backing him, though. If he pulls off a surprising big win next year, that might change the equation somewhat. Then Rob Sand of Iowa to balance out the ticket, and I’d have friends who were both President AND Vice-President! I’m not being selfish or anything, nooooo

[mzmolly]

118. LOL

Well tell him he has fans here at DU. He's so smart, and dare I say, articulate?

Ossoff/Sand! I'm in! And, I'd fully support you getting a position in the new cabinet.

[DFW]

120. Actually, I DID tell him that when we had dinner in DC in January.

I’d really only be sorta qualified for Secretary of State, and Pete Buttigieg is by far the better man for that. My brother could do Defense or Homeland Security, but he recently retired from the spook biz, and I think he’s done with it.

In mid 2016, as a matter of fact, I got a feeler from the DNC—Hillary was still fully expected to win at that point—about being named as ambassador to Germany. I speak the language and my wife is German. I would have been just as happy as ambassador to France (I speak French) or Spain (I speak Spanish and Catalan). But, I might not have been as diplomatic as a diplomat is expected to be, and I probably wouldn’t have liked the pay cut. I might have taken the pay cut to be US ambassador to the UN. My wife and I like NYC, and one of our daughters lives there. Plus, I could tell the Russian ambassador to go to hell (Adlai Stevenson did, sorta, and that was 60 years ago), in public, and in Russian. That’s worth a pay cut all by itself!

[mzmolly]

154. Very interesting.

Plus, I could tell the Russian ambassador to go to hell (Adlai Stevenson did, sorta, and that was 60 years ago), in public, and in Russian. That’s worth a pay cut all by itself!

[DFW]

143. Here is a pic from a little dinner I organized in Washington a couple of years ago.

How's this for some great company?

[mzmolly]

152. WOW!

That’s quite an impressive group, indeed!

[DFW]

153. Senators Ossoff, Kelly and Hickenlooper can now all say

They have friends in low places

[mzmolly]

155. Lol

You’re very modest!

[DFW]

158. In THAT room, anyway

I was definitely low icon on the totem pole, except for two minutes.

For two minutes, two Republican senators, who were having dinner in a room outside ours, popped their heads in to say hello. So, for two minutes, there WERE lower forms of life in the room. It was kinda finny. They knew their Democratic colleagues, of course, but they had no earthly clue who my brother and I were. They must have figured (wrongly, of course) that we were two big secret movers and shakers with the Democratic Party. They were too discreet to ask, but you could see it on their faces how very much they wanted to!!

[mzmolly]

161. Haha

That sounds fascinating! Next time (if there is a next time) you and your brother should wear blues brothers garb.

[greymattermom]

133. Great to hear that.

I went to several of his fund raisers when he was running for the House. He was great then. Even better now.

[Janbdwl72]

151. Jon has a great chance to be reelected Senator next year.

That is a crucial seat in a battleground state. Why give that up two years later. The party needs young, up and coming Democratic Senators like him to remain there. It was terrible that voters in states like Ohio and Montana couldn't re-elect Senators in 2024, as Republican donors basically bought those seats!

I think he's a great candidate, but I would prefer that he remains in the Senate.

[DFW]

157. I think Jon would love another full term in the Senate

I don’t think he harbors any White House ambitions, although if a very strong, charismatic presidential candidate were to ask him in 2028, he’d give it serious consideration, since his Senate seat would be secure if the ticket lost. He and I have talked about foreign relations a LOT, so IF he were to become VP, I might be seriously considered for some post. THAT would be full circle for sure. The last time I worked (salaried, that is) for the Federal Government, I wasn’t yet 20, and my official job designation was “laborer.” At age 77, which I’d be in 2029, I don’t think I’d be much use as a laborer any more!

[mzmolly]

12. Or

https://democraticgovernors.org/governor/andy-beshear/



Or my Governor - Tim Walz.

I play to win, this time! Whoever polls best and has a clean slate, should be our candiate IMHO.

[elocs]

30. Yes, we desperately need to win the election in 2028 and need a solid, safe pick

and fortunately we are blessed with a number of them.
As far as Walz goes he would need to wear a shirt that reads: "I'm Younger Than I Look".

[mzmolly]

33. LOL

I like the Walz shirt idea. I am sure he would also appreciate it.

[elocs]

35. I think you're right since he has a good sense of humor.

I'm in WI but so close to MN that I can see its bluffs on the Mississippi.

[mzmolly]

87. Sounds like you're in a lovely

spot. I used to work near the river and had an amazing view, which I miss. Though I don't miss the commute, given I had to park in the downtown metro area.

[Bayard]

67. Yes indeedy!

[Celerity]

14. No chance I would ever support Franken in a Democratic primary. Plus he would turn 81 in his first term.

Have we learned nothing from last time??

Sigh.

[SocialDemocrat61]

15. Good point about the age issue

But Franken was a decent enough senator. I do think that his being idolized by some has gotten tiresome by now. Do you have any other issues with him?

[Celerity]

18. I will let the first Democratic Senator to go on national television and call for him to resign speak for me:

Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris calls on Franken to resign

[SocialDemocrat61]

21. Isn't interesting that

None of those who go out of their way to demonize Gillibrand, don’t blame Harris or Warren or Sanders or any of the other 30 or so Senators who called for his resignation.

[Celerity]

23. I have brought that very point up (in great detail) since I joined DU 7 years ago.

And it was every single Dem Senator who told him (in public or private) to resign except for the following 5:

First off we start with 4 who deffo would have told him to resign but for unique circumstances:

The 3 Dems on the Senate Ethics Committee who could not comment: Coons, Schatz, Shaheen.

Then Menendez, who was involved in his first federal corruption trial, and he chose to not comment.

And the 5th was (and ONLY Dem Senator to say he shouldn't resign)...Manchin

Gillibrand did not at all act alone, the other Dem female Senators and leadership met for weeks. Schumer et al signed off on it all.

[SocialDemocrat61]

124. It is amazing that so many

have adopted such a simplistic narrative to what was a complex series of events. The way some talk it’s like Gillibrand went to Franken’s office with the resignation later and a gun and told Franken that either his signature or his brains would be on the letter.

[Celerity]

129. Plus many ignore the multiple Democratic women who said Franken harassed them. They only talk about

Tweeden.

Two large points about the whole thing.

1. Remove Gillibrand and the whole thing still would have happened.

2. If it was only Tweeden coming forward, Franken would have never come into any real peril.


Also, just to be clear, I am no real Gillibrand fangirl, I think she takes some poor stances on legislative and other Senate-related issues, but I think she has been turned into a pantomime villain here and elsewhere.

[SocialDemocrat61]

130. I agree

I don’t like several of her recent votes either.

But many have a very skewed view of what really happened back then. And act like Franken was the greatest senator who ever lived, he wasn’t, and he was treated worse by his fellow senators than Julius Caesar.

[SheilaAnn]

149. Why is Adam Schiff never on these lists? I really like him, he's stepped up so many times in the past few months. n/t

[Celerity]

150. He just was elected to the US Senate, I doubt he is already thinking about moving on from that.

[Ocelot II]

53. I loved Al Franken as a senator - he got a bad rap - but he wouldn't have a chance

as a presidential candidate. Anyhow, as you note, he's getting pretty old.

[DFW]

119. Al is not interested, especially in working with Senators who threw him under the bus

The whole series of accusations was an open scam engineered (even announced in advance!) by Roger Stone. That Al didn’t immediately mount a huge defense was due to the fact that he trusted his fellow Democratic Senators to see through it. It blew his mind that they didn’t. He gave them far too much credit. Some (Nelson, Tester, Whitehouse, et al) have made their apologies. Too many have not. Franni is still livid. Al has come to terms with it, but is not over it.

Of those Senators who trashed him during their 2020 presidential campaigns, I have supported the 2020 primary campaigns of exactly none of them, and if any of them run again in the 2028 primaries, I will again support none of them for the nomination. Not Sanders, not Warren, not Booker, not Harris, not Gillibrand. I will obviously fully, and unhesitatingly support the nominee, no matter who it is, as I did last year. Nonetheless, it is my fervent hope that our nominee will be someone other than one of those five. Realistically, it is my expectation as well, just as I am more than a little bit confident that Al will not be trying for it, either. He can read a calendar as well as anyone.

[SocialDemocrat61]

17. BTW

The new deal was in the 1930s, not the 60s. Plus while it helped poor white Americans, most people of color were excluded from the benefits of it. Since most Democratic Party voters are now people of color who don’t have a positive view of the new deal, democrats need a better approach.

[Chasstev365]

19. Like I didn't know that?

The New Deal carried on into the 1960's with JFK's New Frontier and LBJ's Great Society because they were not afraid of being Democrats.

I taught AP US History for 30 + years.

A tad insulting on your part.

[SocialDemocrat61]

22. No they weren't

The new deal ended when the first bomb dropped on Pearl Harbor.

It’s 2025, democrats need to embrace policies that resonate with today’s electorate, not the electorate of 1935 or even 1965.

[mzmolly]

24. The New Deal ended?

I think many would like it to end, on the Republican side, but that is not the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

[SocialDemocrat61]

28. Yes it did

Let’s not pretend that it didn’t.

But the point is democrats need to focus on policies for the future, not the past.

[mzmolly]

32. You're clueless

about what it entailed, if you think it ended. I provided a link so you can educate yourself. Please do so.

https://www.britannica.com/question/What-were-the-New-Deal-programs-and-what-did-they-do

That said, Trump and his flock are trying to do what they can to dismantle many of the protections put in place by FDR. Thus it remains relevant.

[SocialDemocrat61]

37. No I acknowledge reality

The new deal was a great program in the 1930s, but it ended decades ago. That’s reality.

It’s no longer the 1930s. Democrats need programs for the 2020s and beyond.

[mzmolly]

44. No,

it did not end and you didn't bother to click a link in an effort to educate yourself.

Sad that a Democrat doesn't know what The New Deal is, and how it remains an important part of our societal infrastructure, today.

[SocialDemocrat61]

47. The new deal ended decades ago

That’s reality. A few of the major programs like Social Security remain but that was always intended to be a permanent program.

The point is, democrats need policies and programs for today’s problems that speak to today’s voters, not a rehash of policies from 90 years ago.

[mzmolly]

49. Today's voters care about The New Deal.

This is (in part) why Project2025 is highly unpopular.

[SocialDemocrat61]

50. Tell that to a young black voter

or any voter under the age of 40. To them the new deal is something they learned about in history class and doesn’t speak to the problems they experience today.

[mzmolly]

52. I've spoken to many black voters

over the years. I've also spoken to many young people under 40, who are democratic socialists. They want The New Deal, on steroids.

[SocialDemocrat61]

60. On steroids being the operative word

They want policies and programs for today’s problems, not the problems of the 1930s

[mzmolly]

63. The problems of the 1930's will be ours again,

if we don't appreciate what it took to dig us out of that hell.

[SocialDemocrat61]

68. Democrats need policies relevant to today

not 90 years ago.

[mzmolly]

75. We're going to revert to the 1930's

if we don't understand history and how an effective, compassionate, rational goverment impacts us all.

[SocialDemocrat61]

96. Yes, and to achieve

effective, compassionate, rational goverment, new policies that are relevant to today are needed.

[mzmolly]

98. New policies much like The New Deal.

eom.

[SocialDemocrat61]

101. No new policies

that address the problems and of the 2020s instead of the 1930s

[mzmolly]

102. Give us your new and exciting list.

[SocialDemocrat61]

105. I don't have one

and never claimed that I did. But running on the greatest hits from the past is not the way to win elections.

[mzmolly]

110. Greatest hits from the past?

When you can come up with something tangible, please share. Until then, there isn't much point in carrying on this discussion.

We all agree we must win elections. We all agree we should listen to, and appeal to voters. We can leave it at that.

[SocialDemocrat61]

121. Agreed

Democrats need to listen to voters and craft policies that will appeal to them.

[NBachers]

92. This is the point where I vacate this thread.

[thought crime]

128. We still have New Deal programs and structure, but...

The New Deal Era is generally considered to have ended at the end of the 1970's.

[mzmolly]

134. Not sure who generally considered it to have ended in the 70s

but Trump is working to completely dismantle it so someone should let him know.

[thought crime]

137. Yes, Trump & Co. is trying to "dismantle the Administrative State"

Much of the structure of the federal government was created by FDR and others during the New Deal Era. Rather than merely shrinking the federal government as other Republicans have tried to do, without much success, Trump wants to radically transform into something based entirely on loyalty to him. He's going to make a real mess.

[Chasstev365]

42. Read This:

https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/comm461/lectures/reagan.html

[SocialDemocrat61]

43. So now we're going back to the 80s?

Democrats need to focus on the future, not the past. Reagan is dead and the new deal is over decades ago. To win elections democrats need policies for today, that resonate with current voters. Just trying to revisit hits of the past will not move the Democratic Party forward.

[mzmolly]

46. Can we go back to April?

Comment: Trump outlines his aims to undo FDR’s New Deal
Other Republicans have tried. And Trump has issued orders.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-trump-outlines-his-aims-to-undo-fdrs-new-deal/

80 years after President Franklin Roosevelt's death, Trump cuts threaten his legacy
Updated April 17, 2025

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5359114/fdr-new-deal-trump-cuts-threaten-roosevelt-legacy

What you're persistently missing is the fact that the Republican agenda has been to destroy The New Deal, for decades. Trump and Project2025 are part of that destruction. We ignore this at our peril.

[SocialDemocrat61]

56. There's very little left to destroy

New deal programs like the CCC, WPA and NRA ended decades ago. Maybe republicans will repeal laws like Glass Steagall Act. Oh wait, that was repealed in the 90s.

[mzmolly]

61. The fact that some programs no longer exist

doesn't mean those that do, are 'gone' or should be. It means we have more reason to fight!

[SocialDemocrat61]

66. Yes they no longer exist because the new deal ended decades ago

Most new deal programs were short term to address problems of the times. Plus new deal was implemented on a segregated basis with the benefits mainly going to white people. The Democratic Party needs policies that appeal to current democratic voters and address the problems of today.

[mzmolly]

73. You get A, for repetitive commentary.

Hmm, why is Trump trying to dismantle the protections FDR put in place given you have declared there are none that remain?

The problems of today are not much different than the problems of the past, other than the volume and intensity. But, they will get much worse if we don't protect the legacy of FDR and refuse to learn from history.

[SocialDemocrat61]

74. Thanks

I got an A in political science too.

[SocialDemocrat61]

78. That was mean.

Can’t we just disagree politely without insults?

[SocialDemocrat61]

94. Thanks

[Keepthesoulalive]

55. You're going to lose this one

Some people deify the past, it was not good for everyone. People do not see a new vision that will help all Americans so they look to the past. There was no new deal in the south for black folks. They could not vote nor get farm loans, a bottle of pop was 5 cents because when you are picking cotton for 50 cents a sack That’s all you could afford. I get you.

[SocialDemocrat61]

57. Exactly my point

Thank you.

[mzmolly]

59. We ALL benefit today

from the programs FDR implemented.

[SocialDemocrat61]

62. No argument there

But very few are still around today.

[mzmolly]

64. I would say in one form or another

many of the programs do remain in place. The most important certainly do. And we better make sure they remain, unless we want another Great Depression.

[SocialDemocrat61]

70. And the ones that remain in place

Like Social Security were meant to be permanent. Most of the others were meant to address specific problems of that time.

[mzmolly]

79. That doesn't render it

meaningless or over, today. In fact, it's further demonstration of how it remains relevant.

That doesn't mean we ignore what is important to young people by any means. It means we can have a similar vision (relevant to today) which I think he OP tried to point out.

[SocialDemocrat61]

93. Never said it did

But in the end it’s just a name for a bunch of programs that addressed the needs of the 1930s. Most of it ended decades ago. Democrats need policies for today’s problems.

[mzmolly]

104. .

[SocialDemocrat61]

107. Be sure

not to drink and drive.

[mzmolly]

111. I never do.

[SocialDemocrat61]

122. Good.

[Keepthesoulalive]

65. Benefit is relative

It was not the new deal that helped black Americans, we were excluded because of Dixiecrats. A Phillip Randolph had to threaten to March on Washington to get black folks factory jobs. Black people were sharecroppers or domestics and they did not get social security, black farmers lost their farms recently because they could not get low interest loans. The new deal did not lift all boats.

[mzmolly]

80. I am not saying there wasn't a necessary evolution

over time.

[Keepthesoulalive]

89. It wasn't because of altruism

It was because black people gave their lives. FDR did not champion black people, he wasn’t very concerned about their economic plight. It was Eleanor who pushed him to do what little he did. You elevate a man who was color blind, he didn’t see black. It was black people and the people who supported them that brought about the real new deal.

[Jack Valentino]

69. "need to focus on the future, not the past"--- that's why we didn't

prosecute Reagan, Bush and Bush the second, isn't it ???

And because we didn't, now we have THIS

Programs from the New Deal and the Great Society remain, while Republicans continue trying to destroy them....
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP....

Those programs are not "the past", they are the PRESENT!
Whether they are part of the future or not is somewhat in doubt,
but Democrats have good reason to be proud of what they have achieved in the past,
and not shy about mentioning it and continuing to fight for these programs!

None of that prevents us from also talking about the future....
but the best possible future must include continuation of these successes from our past!

[SocialDemocrat61]

72. Yes certain programs still remain

and all the ones you cited were meant to be permanent.

But going forward democrats need policies for today’s problems and today’s voters, not a rehash of things from 90 years ago.

[Jack Valentino]

85. Defending is not "rehashing", unless you think we should throw all those programs

under the bus....


So looking towards this "future", what do YOU think Democrats should be emphasizing or working towards?

If you have any ideas besides just this vague "future", please be specific!!!!---
I for one am open to new ideas...

[SocialDemocrat61]

95. Never said to throw anything under the bus

Just acknowledging the reality that the new deal ended decades ago and it doesn’t resonate with much of today’s diverse electorate.

[Jack Valentino]

97. so noted. I think the new administration should be referred to as

The New TACO

[SocialDemocrat61]

99. Definitely

😂

[mzmolly]

84. Well

said!

[thought crime]

132. Actually, New Deal economic programs DO resonate with voters

I agree that the New Deal Era ended (about 1979). Since that time, the power of the Democratic Party has gradually diminished. But voters still support programs like Social Security and Medicare. They still largely support economic and environmental regulation. Social Justice has been much more difficult. What policies do you think Democrats need to focus on in order to win elections?

[SocialDemocrat61]

135. I think democrats need to focus on policies that will resonate

with the most voters and not waste time trying to resurrect successes from the past.

Btw Medicare was passed by LBJ in the 60s and not part of the new deal.

[thought crime]

139. The New Deal Era lasted into the 70's

LBJ's Great Society was still built on the premise that government can actively participate in the economy in areas where the market fails. I believe that's a big part of Social Democracy. LBJ was a New Dealer. I think we need a lot more Green New Dealers.

What policies do you think will resonate most with voters?

[SocialDemocrat61]

140. I don't know

I don't pretend to be a political or policy expert. I'm a marketing guy.

[Ping Tung]

20. I'd be delighted if we could find another Jimmy Carter. Intelligent, Dignified, Humane, and Deent.

I consider myself to be quite to the Left but he was the best president of my lifetime.

FDR was the president when I was born.

[elocs]

38. Carter was my very first presidential vote in 1972.

I voted for him knowing he was likely to lose as I have in voting for other Democrats, but I've only ever voted for the Democratic or Liberal candidate in every race I've voted in.

[SocialDemocrat61]

45. Carter ran in 76

McGovern was the nominee in 72.

[mjvpi]

40. My first vote fr President. The term "Shining City on the Hill" always comes to mind.

My last drunk started the day Reagan was elected. Oh how far we’ve fallen.

[SheltieLover]

82. Walz?

[Jit423]

25. Kamala made things about a plain and simple as you can get. She had a good an complete message from affordable housing

to affordable health care to ending corruption and restoring respect for democracy and our Constitution. Yet, the media ignored it, and the MAGAs trashed it. Women should be utterly ashamed if they didn't support the person that held hard to the issues that were life-saving for some protection of freedoms for all. It boggles the mind if you have one.

[elocs]

34. Yes, a Kamala loss, beaten by Trump and even there were Democrats who didn't vote.

Last edited Fri May 30, 2025, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

There's a reason why Democrats don't pick the same candidate 2 elections in a row not since Stevenson lost in 1956. I think she should run for the governor of California.

[DFW]

114. Don't tell that to Bill Clinton or Barack Obama

They might have a dissenting view on running twice in a row.

[SocialDemocrat61]

125. The difference being that Clinton and Obama won.

[DFW]

142. Obviously

But they had to win the first time before they could run again. Carter's loss changed the course of history, and not for the better.

[JI7]

39. But they have to be hetero white men ?

Someone mentioned Buttigieg and there are others who aren't hetero white men but they wouldn't count.

So let's just admit we still need white men to help win unless it's someone like Obama .

[Pris]

71. Running just white men and not supporting women or people of color is wrong

In a democracy we all have the right to run.

[mzmolly]

106. Right to run, differs from

a path to win. We have to win in order to advance equality. That said, Kamala and Hillary should have mopped the floor with cheetolini. They did not. That's the sad reality we live in.

[JI7]

41. Andrew Cuomo could win. Why don't we run him ?

and be honest about what it really is that people want.

[Polybius]

147. Let's get him elected Mayor first

The attack ads are brutal here in NYC.

[Polybius]

54. Al Franken will be 77 in 2028

We're past that for a long, long time. Plus we will most likely be going up against someone like Vance who will be just 43.

[BannonsLiver]

58. I do too

And he’s not commonly mentioned here but has been to PA recently. This candidate is male, not white, and likes to push back against dumb shit that repels independent voters, and isn’t afraid to get very nasty on social media with the GOP.

[Tree Lady]

77. I love him but like others have said he is too old

and #2 since the dems ran him over he isn't the bulldog he used to be, kind of lost some confidence when his allies didn't have his back.

[speak easy]

83. A Straight White Male :(

[BWdem4life]

90. God forbid

A straight white male should be our candidate.

Much better to just lose.

[The Wizard]

86. Bring back

Alan Grayson

[betsuni]

100. In the '30s and '60s Democrats had large majorities and bipartisan Republicans to work with.

Why is this so difficult to understand.

[SocialDemocrat61]

103. Because some are locked in the past

And refuse to deal with the reality of today.

[betsuni]

112. The BS "Dems ignore the working class" and "FDR was a democratic socialist not a liberal Democrat so

'FDR Democrats' ('progressives') are true Democrats while the Clinton, Obama, Biden administrations and all other Democrats are corrupt Republican Lite neoliberals who must be purged."

So sick of that and all the other anti-Democratic myths out there.

[SocialDemocrat61]

123. Many people often take a simplistic view

of things as well as project their own views on to others. That’s why they have an idealized opinion of FDR and the new deal without considering any of the flaws or shortcomings. Then they can act superior by labeling themselves as a “FDR or new deal Democrat”.

[betsuni]

127. Huge Dem majorities in Congress during the '30s and a normal opposition party to work with

must be totally ignored.

The stupid myth that Democrats with tiny majorities, 50-50 Senate, Republican controlled House, Republicans a radical obstructionist non-governing nut party, are expected to easily pass any legislature they want and if they can't it isn't because they don't have enough votes, it's because they're not progressive, just like Republicans, bribed and corrupt.

Hilariously ironic they go on and on and on bashing Democrats as elites/establishment/1%/capitalists/too-old-or-sick-clinging-to-power when FDR was as elite establishment 1% who hated socialism and saved capitalism.

This revisionist history began in 2015/16 and people really should stop repeating it.

[LonePirate]

109. No way. He will be 77 years old on Election Day in 2028. We need to aim our sights on younger officials.

[LexVegas]

115. So his counter to his sexual harassment would be Trump is worse?

[Doodley]

131. How about Mark Cuban?

[doc03]

138. The Democratic presidents in my lifetime with the exception of Joe Biden were all younger,

straight men with charisma. We can't expect to win by repeating the same mistakes over and over and
expecting a different result. It would be great to say we elected the first woman, or gay president but today that isn't
isn't a winning plan. We can't keep picking candidates just for the sake of breaking some kind of glass ceiling. Other
than Joe Biden when have we won with an older experienced candidate.



JFK age 43
Carter age 52
Bill Clinton age 46
Obama age 47

[Polybius]

148. To answer your question:

Other than Joe Biden when have we won with an older experienced candidate

Well, to be fair, when have we ran an older candidate besides Biden in that time span? Hillary was the oldest, but still nearly 9 years younger than Biden (she was a vibrant and young 69). Here's the list:

Biden 77 (turned 78 a few weeks after the election)
Hillary Clinton 69
Obama 47
Kerry 61
Bill Clinton 46
Dukakis 55
Mondale 56
Carter 52
McGovern 54
Humphrey 57
LBJ 56
JFK 43

It seems we don't run many candidates over 61, while Republicans do it all the time.

Trump 78 (2024)
Trump 70 (2016)
Romney 65
McCain 72
Bush Jr. 54
Dole 73
Bush Sr. 64
Reagan 69
Ford 63
Nixon 55
Goldwater 55

Over the past 65 years, W Bush, Nixon, and Goldwater were the sole exceptions

[Ritabert]

141. Andy Beshear two-time governor of Kentucky

[librechik]

144. bless your heart! n.t

[red dog 1]

160. J.B. Pritzger