I suppose it’s kinda hard to raise money for things if you completely shut the door on your political career.
We don’t do much politics on the campaign anymore. Other than mud slinging ads. So for the huge masses of independents is is just the attitude and confidence of the candidate that matters. They have to see a leader in about 30 seconds. If it takes longer…click.
CNN: Pete Buttigieg is becoming a prolific endorser of Democrats, with some clues to his future
After reading Michelle Goldberg’s opinion piece on Jon Ossoff in the NY Times, I’m all aboard the Ossoff train. And if he’s sincere about not being a 2028 candidate, then I hope that whoever is, clones his message.
He could carry Georgia.
How about pulling back from the specific candidates to what broad sort of candidate is going to perform best? What is the country’s mood looking for? Pick the most important aspect but feel free to comment otherwise. Clearly these are not mutually exclusive characteristics.
- A change agent
- A fighter
- A healer who can reach across the aisle
- Appeal to particular identities
- Other (s)
0
voters
I voted “a fighter”, but “a change agent” could also fit. Someone who recognizes that trying to treat current politics as normal, and reacting in a normal way, isn’t working.
If the option had ended at “healer,” I would have taken it. While it would be nice to be able to find bipartisan solutions to the quagmire we find ourselves in, I fear an emphasis on “reaching across the aisle” would lead to a repeat of the Obama experience (with even more rancor on the other side). I have a feeling it will take a couple of cycles in the wilderness to clean the worst of MAGA from the GQP, assuming that’s even possible.
It didnt take long to get rid of the Tea Party (about 8-9 years) nor the Goldwater-ites.
Once trump is dead, etc, MAGA will go away, then be replaced by something else reactionary in a half decade or so. The bigots and deplorables have to have someplace to go, with any luck a 3rd party (it has happened before, with Wallaces AIP). Lets hope.
If by “get rid of”, you mean “they changed their name”. I’m not sure what good that accomplishes. They still got Trump elected.
I’m all for reaching across the aisle. So long as they do the reaching first.
How can someone be a healer without reaching across?
If not the aisle, maybe reaching across to other groups that feel ignored by the D side before?
What sort of healing messaging do you think could be effective?
I interpret “reaching across the aisle” to mean attempting to work with the opposition on legislation. And we saw how well that worked with Obama (see Mitch McConnell’s statement to his caucus at the start about making Obama a one-term President). Which is not to say that the next Democratic President should emulate Trump’s tactics, but enacting effective legislation should be a priority over appeasing a rabid opposition.
“Healer,” on the other hand, implies — to me — trying to get people of all political stripes to realize that whatever their beliefs, they have a stake in the well-being of their fellow USians (whatever their status) and the country in general. Which is probably a fool’s errand in the current climate, but is certainly worth trying. It just doesn’t inherently involve politics.
Any doctor will tell you, though, that the first step in healing a wound is draining all of the pus. Trying to close up a pus-filled wound just leads to sepsis.
The change agent or the healer would need to have some fighter in her/him anyway. ‘Cause you just know there would be some on their nominal “same side” who’d dig their heels at “no, not [so much/so little/that kind of] change!”; and many across the aisle who’d dig in on “nuh-uh, YOU are the divider if you don’t let us keep having our way”.
So “fighter” leads, with “change agent” not far behind. “Healer” pulling up the rear. No big love for identity politics.
How do the talked about potentials rank in those lenses? My WAGs:
Ossoff … has middle of the road appeal, I like him, but doesn’t shout either fighter or change to me.
Buttigieg too. More healer vibes.
Beshear? A change in that he wins in a Red state, but also more a healing message. Not a big fighter image.
Pritzker. Definitely pugilistic. And has enough progressive cred to carry a change message. Some.
Gallego? I don’t know enough about him to say if he can sell change but he seems able to fight.
Both Khanna and AOC are strong on both. Khanna just little known and AOC maybe so much change that she loses the middle. But maybe not. She does seem to fit both disruptive change and fighter motifs well. Not who I’d prefer at first glance, but I looking through this lens she may be worth seriously consideration.
Newsom? Harris? Booker? Zero change. Scream status quo. Emmaul? Zero chance. Whitmar? Sales pitch is competence at governance not change or fighter. Don’t know enough about Warnock.
I miss any major possibilities? Any comments on the hot take through this specific set of lenses?
Newsom is attacking trump pretty hard, and his policies for CA show a lot off change.
Yet he still comes across as an establishment tool.
He seems to me to be attacking Trump via the posting of dumb memes that copy things Trump has posted.
Not exactly what is required in these times.
not a zero change from MAGA. Return to normalcy, perhaps. Status quo recently has been total fuck up and corruption. So, any of these three would be a vast improvement (Low bar, I know).