I don’t know, he’s too oily, too insincere, the trend has been against that kind of politician for some time (yes Trump, I know, but somehow his supporters don’t see him that way, while Newsom’s would probably agree that he’s a bit too overproduced)
Well put. Sadly it seems to work. He managed to become governor of California after all. I fear it will work for president. Somehow that scummy, used-car salesman thing gets votes. I will never understand why. He’s the sort of person I would instantly distrust within one second of meeting him (it’s a vibe thing).
JB Pritzker.
I’d vote for him.
I think it is too early for her.
She should replace the worthless Chuck Schumer and serve as senator for a bit then run for president in 2036. IMHO.
Not fighting the hypothetical, and assuming any major political chicanery is foiled (note, this is a huge ask IMHO), I’d agree that Mark Kelley would have a shot. If the Trump administration keeps getting us into conflicts, there’s going to be both major economic consequences and fatigue. Kelly, being by most definitions a real “hero” is going to be attractive if he is going to pull us back to focus on economic issues, and yet his status, his accidental endorsement by the political elements against him, and the fact he’s honestly a bit more honest (heh) in terms of perception than Newsome would be advantages.
An older, white guy with military experience who is once again trying to bring back a level of sanity didn’t fully work out for Biden, but given the amounts of Chaos Trump creates, it’s likely to work again if we get something resembling free and clear elections.
I agree. If OP is wanting one name only, then the answer of “J D Vance” would imply that the poster thought that they had the majority of the chance, when they might only have a plurality. It’s possible that a poster can think it more than 50% likely that the Democrats will win the election and their candidate will successfully be inaugurated, but at the same time feel that the field is so crowded that any one candidate does not have more chance than Vance.
That’s just what I was suggesting earlier.
It’s silly to give percentages this early, but for the heck of it:
Vance - 30 percent chance
I do not think any one individual on the Democratic Party bench has even a 10 percent chance of winning the POTUS general election, even though, collectively, their chances are, oh, say 55 percent.
Shoutout to anny_m for avoidance of unwarranted optimism.
And a very good one, always standing up to trump.
True,
It will be Trump, following the “election”. He will look far worse, his brain will function far less, but I’m not convinced he doesn’t have another decade of life in him, and as long as he is alive, he will do everything possible to remain in the White House. I hope I’m wrong.
Vance
If I were betting, I’d put my money on Vance.
Plus, if anything happens to him, we have a spare.
I was going to add that, it would be like the movie “Dave”.
I think it would be clearer to ask “Who will be POTUS at 12:01 pm 01-20-2029?”
I agree with the general consensus: Vance has a higher chance than any other specific individual, but a considerably lower than 50% chance overall. On the Democratic side, no clue. (If a thread like this had existed on March 3,1974, I don’t think anybody would have predicted Jimmy Carter – although it would have been trivially easy to see that Nixon was in trouble.)
I don’t think Vance has much chance of getting the nomination, let alone winning, unless absolutely nobody else runs. He has zero charisma and no clearly-defined beliefs of his own. DeSantis, Cruz, and even Mitt Romney are more likely to be the nominee.
I put the idea of Trump still being president at barely above zero, partly because I don’t expect him to live long enough, but mostly because his waning popularity is going to make it impossible to execute any kind of coup or extraconstitutional shenanigans.
Newsom is the Democratic party’s answer to Vance - uncharismatic, opportunist, and has no fixed beliefs other than “Gavin Newsom should be president”. I don’t see him going far in the primary.
Pritzker has Newsom’s positives, plus he actually seems to believe in things instead of chasing polls.
It will either be a Democrat or there won’t be a real election, with more than an outside possibility that Der Führer Donald remains in power like his pals Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, or his apparent adversary Xi Jinping.
Don’t let your disdain for his politics cloud your judgement. Newsom is quite charismatic. It is in good part how he has steadily scaled the mountain of CA politics for the last 20+ years to his current position of dominance. It may not be nearly enough to carry him past his negatives/skeletons/Californianess, but IMHO he’s definitely got more native skill than say a Harris, Padilla or Schiff (the latter two are the CA senators).
Is he? He’s always struck me as being the real life equivalent of the bad guy real estate developer in a '90s kids movie, the one who wants to tear down the beloved school/sports field/community center in order to build luxury condos. He’s always seemed slimy and opportunistic to me, going back to 2003 when he was mayor of San Francisco and started issuing marriage licenses to gay couple, knowing they wouldn’t be recognized as valid under state law.