Nate Silver? The gambling addict now funded by Peter Thiel to pump out pro-Trump analysis? That Nate Silver? The one who is no longer affiliated with FiveThirtyEight for undisclosed reasons?
Polling pundit Nate Silver predicts Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will be the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee.
I kinda dare them to run Trump against AOC. Too bad our voting machines aren’t open source so they are transparent and Musk will likely control elections going forward.
Musk will likely control elections going forward
Elections are run by the states themselves even for federal office. Notable race in particular for Musk was the Wisconsin Supreme Court race earlier this month. Musk poured millions to try to make it go the other way and tried to bribe voters with $1 million lotteries if they “signed a petition against activist judges”. The Musk backed candidate still lost by 10 points
Don’t do his dirty work for him and suppress the vote before anything happens. The fight ain’t over till it’s over
The fight isnt over and I truly dont believe this is lasting 4 years in a similar state. He had access to voting machines in the 2024 election. I am positive there are plans to expand that access.
Trump can’t run again, no matter what they keep saying about it. States control their own elections, and will not allow him on the ballot on the majority of the states because they actually give a shit about the constitution.
How much you wanna bet they’re gonna do it anyway and red states will go along? Thats four years, though. Might as well be eternity in this climate.
He literally cannot be President again according to the constitution. They MIGHT try to run someone else with him as VP, then have that person step down, but the Constiris crystal fucking clear on this.
Yeah you also can’t deport citizens lol the old world is dead. Theres only a few ways to revive it and they are dwindling fast.
Be a doomer, or get with action. Don’t be so lame.
I just need you to realize how serious this is. Dont assume just because I’m admitting a deadline means I’m doing nothing. But 4 years is far too late.
Just block and move on. The doomerism is just another form of trolling but you can block the user and it’s like their doomed attitude got sent to El Salvador.
Colorado’s Supreme Court found that he engaged in an insurrection and was therefore ineligible. Then SCOTUS basically said “uh, this gives me the federal feelsies because it’s a federal office, so Congress has to do it”
Feels like all Congress has to do is say that the first term didn’t count. But to be honest I can see poor health catching up to him first anyway.
I think you need a Tim Waltz. You need to peel back some MAGA and a white man would do just that.
We’ll see, though, I would love to see AOC at the house.
You need to peel back some MAGA and a white man would do just that.
Yeah, like the last Dem who flipped red states all over and helped out with down ballot races…
You know, Barack Obama.
People want progressive policy and couldnt give a fuck who the candidate was.
AOC would smash trump or anyone else, because she has good policy and isn’t ashamed of it.
“People want progressive policy and couldnt give a fuck who the candidate was.”
I don’t think this squares with reality. Democrats ran women against Donald Trump twice, and a boring old white man once.
I think ignorance runs too deep, and there’s a larger swath of “well-meaning” centrist voters who “daggum just know a woman cain’t do the job!” than we want to admit.
And it fucking sucks.
Democrats ran conservative campaigns against a nazi candidate. Unsurprisingly, going for the ‘rich people who aren’t nazis’ demographic failed to swing yet another election.
Democrats ran women
So?
They weren’t progressive for the year they were running in.
Yeah you are just wildly fucking wrong. Barely the time in life to have to keep swatting down this idiotic take.
Harris didn’t lose because she was black or a woman: She lost because she ran a Republican/ corporate race in a Democratic lane.
If Democrats keep trying to be Republicans, they’ll keep losing, and your take steers them in that direction.
Democrats aren’t ever running against the Republican in the race. That’s not how elections in the US have worked since 1992.
Democrats are only running against the couch, and when your campaign principal message is “Nothing would fundamentally change”, when the incumbent was polling at 33%?
I appreciate the response, but I think you’re incorrect. This might be the sentiment in your peer group, but it doesn’t square with what we always end up seeing play out nationally.
Rather than celebrating “swatting down” my “idiotic take” I suggest you engage in a bit of self reflection.
If you think Democrats are losing nationally simply because they’re not progressive enough, it’s because you do not have a clear understanding of national politics. That’s fair though, because it helps to drive home my point, because the bloc of voters who swing elections do not have a firm grasp on national politics, either.
Yours is a daft take and if the Democrats proceed with this mental framing, they’ll continue to lose elections. You think you’re right, but same same people who think like you do were the ones making decisions for the Harris/ Biden campaign. This kind of take is presented as wisdom, and yet, when proceeding with it, Democrats consistently lose in its application.
Lets start it off right: firstly and most importantly, bloc’s of voters don’t move elections, and haven’t for almost 30 years. Going after “swing voter” has been a losers approach, and when the Republicans gave up on this strategy in 2000, they began defining the modern political hegemony we find ourselves in, and have found great success. Modern elections aren’t between two parties. They are between each of the two parties, and their likely voters respective couches.
The two most successful political movements in the previous 40 years have been a) the MAGA movement, and b) the progressive movement. Both found their footing in identifying and acknowledging the real pain people experience in their lives, and giving them something to do about it it: vote, march, dial, campaign, etc.
The Harris/ Biden campaign ran in almost direct opposition to all of the movement the base had in developing the progressive platform. It focused almost entirely on the basically fictitious “centrists” and moved entirely away from the base. They refused to be honest with voters about both Biden, his adequacy as candidate, and his competency in office. They elevated Republican voices while simultaneously pushing away their own core constituencies.
If you continue to both think and campaign using the political hegemony which died almost 10 years ago, you will not win elections.
Maybe try to explain, then, your “clear understanding of national politics”? And square that understanding with the fact that the most successful Democrats in recent years have been Bernie and Obama.
Thanks for taking the time to politely remind these lemmy users they are in an echo chamber.
I agree that running a female candidate will lose votes. It wont lose my vote, but it will lose enough votes to potentially lose the election.
I’d rather her be Speaker of the House or go Senate and be party leader. Progressive needs to be more that a minority that’s afraid to push too hard or get shut down by their own party. Plus both of those are more long-term positions of power, and in some ways more powerful than a President (well, legally). She can run for President later to finish off her political career.
This would be a great path for her.
Yup. Aoc is perfect for a party leader.
They’ve already picked newsom.
deleted by creator
