Gabby Giffords has a spine of steel and would make a wonderful First Lady. I wouldn’t count Kelly out because of that.
Agreed.
I think he had to ask her permission before agreeing to be on a video that would obviously trigger MAGA. Her answer to whether he should run for president would likely be the same.
Hell, IMHO she’d probably make a better-than-average President (although “President Gabby” somehow doesn’t ping the respect meter). But one nearly-successful assassination attempt is more than enough.
ETA: Yes, I know that’s not her real name. But I also know that’s what she’d be called.
On the other hand, it would tie in to the new hit children’s show on Netflix, Gabby’s White House.
I have just learned that in 2016, Mark Kelly arranged for a gorilla suit to be smuggled onto the ISS so his twin brother could put it on and scare one of his fellow astronauts by chasing him around the station in it.
This primary is over. THAT’S the man I want to be my president.
You just know some MAGA doofus would start questioning every time if it’s him or his brother.
As they are based in prejudice and are unsupported by observable fact, they are, in fact, bigoted and transphobic. There may be a well-reasoned debate to be had about trans athletes, but not until a good-faith effort is made to understand the actual outcomes of inclusion of trans athletes, rather than just throwing around vibes-based assertions.
John Oliver did a report a while back that addresses the issue very well, if you care to Google it.
To be clear, the view Newsom expressed that you are objecting to us the idea that the current law in California, which states that participation in sports should be based entirely on self ID with absolutely no requirement for any sort of medical transition, is not fair.
That’s got nothing to do with prejudice or transphobia. Accusing Newsom of being prejudiced or transphobic for holding a view that over 70% of Democratic voters agree with is ridiculous.
There’s a other thread on this site where we discussed Oliver’s episode in great detail. I think it was pretty good at debunking right wing transphobic attacks on trans people. It didn’t at all addres the argument that sports shouldn’t be entirely based on self ID (something I suspect Oliver would agree with, based on some of the comments he made in that same special).
The time to vote your conscious is during the primaries. Once that’s over, anyone who cares about liberal, progressive, or Democratic issues needs to vote for the Democratic candidate whoever they are regardless of their positions on the issues. We are in a culture war right now. Elections are won by razor thin margins. Getting upset because the Democratic candidate isn’t properly aligned with a particular issue and deciding to vote 3rd party or stay home as a form of protest is essentially giving a vote to the Republican side. Any Republican candidate is going to be much, much worse on any progressive issue than any imperfect Democratic candidate. If Newsom became the candidate, anyone who actually cares about trans issues should vote for him regardless of whether they totally agree with his viewpoints on trans issues. If he doesn’t win, then a Republican will win, and trans issues will be trampled on for the next 4 years along with all other progressive causes.
And a LOT of liberal SDMBers. Please Kyomara, if you want to debate this, open a new thread on this, I think many of the replies by respected liberal pro-trans posters here might change your mind away from calling it ”transphobia”.
You don’t get it. It isn’t a specific position on the issue, it’s the issue itself. Every mention of it feeds into the right-wing transphobia campaign. Anybody who helps keep it going is helping the wrong side.
You aren’t going to get “status quo” liberals to care because it’s not their rights under attack.
Israel and Gaza is going to be a big part of the '28 primary, IMO. In a Q poll from a few months ago, 77% of Democrats believe Israel was overseeing a genocide in Gaza. Pushing back hard against Trump and MAGA will be the biggest thing, but every Democrat will be on the same side of that (and each one will insist that they’re the best one to push back against Trump/MAGA). I think Israel and Gaza will be the biggest issue that not all candidates will agree on - and based on polling at present, I don’t think we’ll nominate anyone who has been supportive of Israel’s actions in Gaza over the last two years.
My guess- altho peace in the Middle East has always been and issue, this will fade as before.
“You must agree with my take on this issue and even discussing it means you are aiding the enemy” is not a convincing argument to people who don’t already agree with you.
Nonsense. Access to gender affirming care isn’t “my rights” either, but I’m strongly in favor of Democrats protecting that.
(I assume you’re talking to me; I’m hardly for the “status quo” but that seems like a way you’d refer to people who support Newsom).
So much is going to happen in 2026 and 2027 that I think it a little silly to speculate over what will be the biggest issue that Democratic presidential candidates disagree on in early 2028. But I will do it anyway.
In 2026 and/or 2027, Trump will, I say with low confidence, conquer some piece of foreign territory, with American troops having died to secure it. The piece of land could be Greenland, could be the Panama Canal, or it could be something else.
Democratic candidates will disagree over whether we should quickly give it back with nothing in return.
The second biggest area of disagreement could be over deTRUMPfication (although we have to come up with a more positive word for it) in general, and what to do about the Federal Reserve chair in particular. Trump is going to appoint a toady when Jerome Powell’s four your term ends in May 2026. Return to normalcy BOTH requires letting Trump’s appointee complete their four year term, and getting Trump’s chair out of there immediately. And you have to choose one.
We’ll see, but I think it’s different this time. I don’t believe the polling has ever been nearly so bad for Israel as it appears to be now. Not just a small majority, but 3-1 or so, Democratic voters appear to no longer favor Israel over Palestinians.
It is a good point that political predictions, especially this early, are no better than guesses. So yes, I’m just guessing. We’ll see.
Right, because what Democrats want is a straight-laced conventional white guy who talks about church a lot.
What matters is what the majority of VOTERS want. And yeah, I believe they will want a straight (don’t know about straight-laced), conventional, white guy. I don’t think he needs to talk about church, but he needs to have and live by values that the majority of VOTERS support.
Whoever it is needs to be, above all, electable, which means appealing to the most people and pissing off the fewest.