The law contains a procedure for firing federal employees for incompetence or lack of “merit” for their position, complete with appeal procedures and so forth. The idea that it is blanketly illegal to fire an appointee is, of course, false.
I would love to see the Democrats make an exhaustive, specific list of Trump actions and how they plan to reverse them and run on it as part of their platform.
Matthew Yglesias has good advice for posting in forums like this:
Sounds like that will work itself out naturally. If a candidate can’t figure out how to come out on top of the Democratic primary, then they don’t really have a chance of winning the general election.
The question is whether the contest “can this person win the Democratic primary” truly translates to “is this the best Democrat to win a general nationwide election”. I’m not sure it’s a 1:1 correspondence, but I am sure a primary is the best method we have, even if it is imperfect.
Plus, I think that the primary itself impacts how well the candidate performs. Harris didn’t win a primary and that hurt her. Clinton won her primary, but her victory was (unfairly, I would argue) tarnished by the Bernie Bros and their claims of a rigged primary, and that hurt her.
Winning a real primary will be a big factor for whoever ends up winning it in and of itself.
I hadn’t been thinking of Raphael Warnock until Yglesias mentioned him. Someone who has a chance of bringing their state with them is a big plus in my book. And Warnock is in the news today:
Warnock Responds to President Trump’s Truth Social Attack on his Faith
It would be better if he wasn’t divorced and currently single. But no candidate is perfect.
I’ve been a huge fan of Warnock for a few years, and think he’s got a lot of potential if he decides to throw his hat in the ring. I don’t like the idea of losing a Senate seat though. And the fact that he had a messy divorce with accusations of running over his ex-wife’s foot with his car doesn’t help (ftr, there’s no evidence he actually ran her foot over, just her accusation, but that hasn’t stopped Republicans from using it against him).
Warnock currently sits at number 3 on my short list of 2028 favorites.
And, as a Michigander, I’m always surprised how much attention Gretchen Whitmer gets when it comes to presidential conversations. I think she’s been a fine governor, but to me, her public persona comes off as a bit phony or forced most of the time. I’m glad to see someone like Matthew Yglesias mention Elissa Slotkin in a presidential conversation. Now she’s a Michigander that really impresses me. Great background, great speaker, comes off as authoritative and knowledgeable, and I love that she participated in the famous “no illegal order” video. I hope more people take notice of her over the next couple years and that she considers throwing her hat into the ring. Even if she’s not at the top of the ticket, she could add real value as a running mate.
The ‘exact flaws’? Can’t really agree - he has his own set of flaws, but a number of them are non-overlapping. I’m on record as being skeptical of Newsom myself for a variety of reasons including his closet full of skeletons as well as his “California liberal” labeling (one area where he does overlap with Harris). But he’s personally more articulate, organized and charismatic than Harris ever has been, all issues that dogged her.
As we saw with Harris.
Yes, but having the wrong political views is not a reason.
“Mr. President?”
This is why Dems lose.
Nobody should be calling him “Mr. President.” He’s a sack of shit. He’s a rapist and a scumbag who is mutilating and raping our country. How can anyone show this kind of deference to him when calling him the shitbag that he is would have 100x the effect of rallying the opposition against him?
See? The gloves need to come OFF. Any Democrat angling for 2028 needs to be building a rep NOW.
I get that Warnock is a Christian and doesn’t want to say “Trump is a sack of shit” the way I would if I had a national platform. So he could be classier about it and say “Trump is walking the path of Satan and he’s going to spend eternity in Hell.”
Instant folk hero status. Instant 2028 contender. Instant media darling.
These people don’t know the power that they could hold by breaking out of their rigid Politician boxes and saying what EVERYONE IS THINKING.
A good line from “Band of Brothers”- “You salute the rank, not the person.”
I like Warnock just fine, but it’s a bit too much that he describes himself as “Senator Reverend.”
This isn’t Band of Brothers and Trump is not Sobel, a merely incompetent officer. Winters and Sobel are ultimately on the same side. Trump is NOT on our side. His title of president is a complete joke and people need to treat it as such, not sanewash him by acting like this is all normal.
Meh. Rashida Tlaib called him a motherfucker on her very first day in Congress and nobody seems to be talking her up as a 2028 contender.
There is categorically no evidence supporting the notions that:
Trump’s abrasive rhetorical style won him votes among persuadable voters who did not otherwise like what they understood to be his policy promises, or
That matching Trump vulgarity-for-vulgarity as Tlaib did or Newsom is making his entire brand has any effect at all on anyone’s voting preferences
I think this is yet another manifestation of the need for Democratic strategists (professional, armchair, or otherwise) to get out of their excuses box and deal with the reality of what motivates voters, which came down to “they liked what they understood Trump to be offering and Democrats need to either change their platform or communicate their value proposition more effectively” - in other words, actually run a real campaign in a real election instead of relying on nonsense that has never worked.
Things that have never worked and Democrats love to keep pretending matter year after year despite no evidence of them ever working:
Out-Trumping Trump on being president of shitty Twitter insults, per above
“You have to vote for me or you’re a racist/misogynist” type ultimatums and nominating candidates whose only branding is that
Running military veterans and demanding that people who claim to be pro-military vote for you lest you label them hypocrites
Anyone selling one of those approaches is probably very happy to continue drawing six-figure paychecks advising Democrats how to lose elections and should be disregarded.
The Harris campaign did that more than adequately. As did the Hillary Clinton campaign. Neither were successful.
I love Mayor Pete, but right now I’d go with Mark Kelly.
I do not believe being the first gay President is an issue. Buttigieg at the top of the ticket would give him room to pivot to the center after the convention without losing the base.
What I do see as an issue is that it is highly unlikely he can carry his state.
The Democrats have a bunch of good possible candidates likely to switch their state from having been R in 2024 to D in 2028. Pick one of them.