I’d say Mark Kelly is running for President.
“Sen. Mark Kelly answers President Trump’s sedition accusation by comparing his actions with Trump’s during the same years.” [Video at reddit link - 1:22.]
Screenshot:
Not me.
While some would vote against someone because of being in those categories, others would vote for them for that reason. I do not see evidence as to how that nets out.
With every identity group you mention, there is a history showing that someone in the group can win statewide.in a swing state. I don’t see any reason why swing voters would think a female governor is OK but a female national chief executive is not.
What is the ideological preference of these voters who would not vote for a female, Black, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, gay, or trans candidate? Answer: Right wing! If you want to appeal to them, you would have to give messages they like. They are not going to be fooled into thinking that Gavin Newsom is centrist just because he is a hetero white man
It is not safer to pick a white hetero man. It is safer to pick the best candidate regardless of that. If voters get the idea that Newsom or Kelly was picked by Democratic primary voters because he’s a white hetero Christian male, said voters will also get the idea that Democrats think swing voters are bigots. That will hurt at the polls.
At the end of the day, the fact remains that if Hillary Clinton had not spent the last week of her campaign in 2016 telling rural Pennyslvania voters that she was going to take away their guns, she would have just completed two terms as president and we’d currently be in the Tim Kaine administration.
The problem is that Democratic strategists are absolutely clueless about what swing voters need to hear or how to run a campaign that targets anyone besides the most committed Democrats who don’t need to be persuaded. If that problem is solved, magically “misogyny” and “racism” will go away because Democratic candidates who are women or racial minorities will start winning and we won’t need to make up explanations for why anybody but the World’s Dumbest Idiots at DNC hq are responsible.
After eight years with the White House in the control of one party, a great many swing voters think it is time for a change.
In your scenario, the same party would control the White House for five consecutive terms. This has only happened once in American history in the last century, and it was in a context without term limits and with a total war.
Even expecting a third Democratic term after Obama’s two terms was a stretch.
Because of the Latin Americanization of U.S. politics, this time for a change dynamic isn’t necessarily predictive for the future. But that’s how it traditionally works.
I think this is the main driver of presidential elections. After the election and a honeymoon period, the pendulum of public opinion starts moving back and we see it’s effect in the midterms. Due to our extreme polarization we may even be in an era of one-term presidents.
20 votes would not have made the difference, and no, she didnt do that.
If true, that would indeed be a fact.
But it isn’t, so it wasn’t.
It’s very illuminating of the mentality at work here that your response to my hypothetical situation in which a Democrat wins an election is to change it to him losing so that you have another opportunity to come up with an excuse for why it wasn’t his fault. As for the real-world comparison, that seems to have been brought up a few times here, and it seems like it’s being treated as some sort of physical law of nature.
People don’t tend to avoid voting the same party into power for decades because they feel like it or because Isaac Newton forbade it. They do so because parties which lose a lot of elections tend to do honest self-analysis about why that happened and change some combination of their policies and their messaging. It seems very worrisome that Democrats don’t think they have any need to do that and are waiting for some sort of chemical reaction to deliver them voters.
There is some backlash to “Trump in practice” that has disillusioned “Trump in theory” voters - though that also happened in 2018 and 2020 too and it didn’t stick. There are also a lot of new challenges for Democrats ahead. The real racial issue isn’t the made-up “unwillingness to vote for black women whom they otherwise support on policies,” it’s how closely Democrats as a party and any particular candidate as an individual will be associated with a decade of discriminatory hiring practices or the hyper-indulgence of urban crime. What’s Gavin Newsom’s plan to deal with that? Keep saying “shit” on Twitter?
Maybe. What examples are you thinking of?
I’m a moderate liberal Democrat – not a progressive, I voted for Dean Phillips in the 2024 primary. So I’m personally, without agreeing with every sentence in your posts, a bit in your direction.
I say to look at Democratic candidates who have won races in constituencies that Trump also won. If we agree that defeating MAGA is more important than specific issues closest to our hearts, it really does not matter whether the Democratic candidate is good at self analysis. It just matters that they are good at winning difficult November elections. And the best way to know that is by seeing whether they have done it before.
I don’t think low information swing voters paid that much attention to what Hilary said, so I don’t believe that specifically made the difference, but I agree with the general sentiment. A lot of people want to blame Biden and Harris’s failure entirely on misinformation and ignorance. Hell lots of people who vote for Democrats due it despite how terrible they think the party is. Biden was really unpopular. Not everyone who disapproved of Biden was brainwashed or stupid. The Democrats will probably do well in the next few elections since Republicans are even more unpopular than them now, but if you don’t deal with why people don’t like you the cycle will just keep repeating.
Why didn’t people like Biden?
I agree that a history of winning difficult elections is critical, but I don’t think it necessarily has to be someone from a purple State. Consider AOC, for instance; her only competitive election was her first primary, where she built a grassroots organization that upset a well-financed incumbent. Brooklyn obviously isn’t a swing district, but it is true that she has experience winning elections that nobody gave her a chance in.
That is a good question. I think for a lot of voters he just seemed out of touch with the problems they were facing. Young people in particular see the climate getting destroyed, high inflation, immigration rising, entry level jobs rapidly disappearing, buying/renting a house becoming unaffordable. They want bold action not someone who makes the status quo, which to many is fundamentally broken, slightly better. Biden wasn’t up for the challenge and refused to step aside. They don’t want to be told that the economy is actually pretty good by someone who is 50 years their senior and never faced many of the issues that they are facing today and who’s generation caused many of the problems.
Many did, but the GOP propaganda mill was in full operation. Also in Bidens first year, inflation was too high. Of course that wasnt Joes fault.
It was, frankly, too high (by the standards of the past few decades) for most of Biden’s term. U.S. annual inflation rates by year of his term:
- 2021 7.0%
- 2022 6.5%
- 2023 3.4%
- 2024 2.9%
For most years between 2000 and 2019, annual inflation was in the 1% to 3% range; the last time it had been above 3% (prior to 2021) was 2007.
Yes, inflation was lower in each subsequent year of Biden’s term, but compounding significant price increases year-on-year throughout his term absolutely made Americans concerned about affordability and their budgets, even without “the GOP propaganda mill.”
Data source: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/
I know that you feel that Biden was unfairly criticized for a lot of things, and I agree that the president only has so much direct influence on inflation, but inflation really was a serious problem throughout his term, and a legitimate concern for people.
2005= 3.4% 2004=3.3%, 2011= 3.0%
So 2.9 isnt really high, this year 2.7%.
Sure, it was quite high in his first two years- but that had nothing whatsoever to do with Biden.
Legit concern or no, blaming the White house for one years inflation is like blaming them for a hirricane.
Which is why I said “for most of Biden’s term.”
You yourself, one line earlier, said:
Also,
You know and I know that presidents get way too much credit for a good economy, and way too much blame for a bad economy. But, the COVID stimulus payments, the third round of which were championed and signed into law by Biden in early 2021, likely did play a role in exacerbating inflation. (link to Federal Reserve analysis which came to this conclusion)
But, you do you. I shan’t criticize the martyred St. Joseph of Scranton any further here.
Huh? Two bad years and two terrible years.
Pete just can’t stop giving Mark Kelly free publicity. You’d think he wants him to run.
Hegseth Starts Proceedings Against Sen. Mark Kelly Over His Remarks
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth blasted the senator for “seditious” remarks. Mr. Kelly said he had done nothing wrong and cited similar comments by Mr. Hegseth.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the military had started administrative actions against Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, that could result in a reduction in his retirement rank and military pension.
In November, Mr. Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers who served in the military or the intelligence community released a video reminding their still-serving counterparts that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders.
In a social media message issued on Monday, Mr. Hegseth called the video “seditious” and criticized Mr. Kelly for a “pattern of reckless misconduct” aimed at undermining good order and discipline in the ranks.
Mr. Kelly and his lawyers maintained last month that the senator was simply articulating a fundamental principle of military law. They noted that Mr. Hegseth had made similar statements in the past.
…
“If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that,” Mr. Hegseth said in a speech to the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley in 2016. “That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief.”
…
Yes, but that was not the Presidents fault. In fact the White House cant really do much to reduce inflation, except maybe very slowly.
First two were from trump.