mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Would you vote for her in a primary?
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - "Not All Dems Are The Same"
- Thread starter AnonymityX1000
- Start date
Spidey Man
Superstar
Idk. It depends on where she stands on the important issues like Mets vs Yankees, and God forbid if she uses a knife and fork to eat a slice of pizza.
It's too far out to say now. We don't even know who would be in the primary. I'll give her a chance to convince me and the other voters. I will say, that I'm voting for whoever becomes the candidate.
Spidey Man
Superstar
We are only 8 months into Trump 2.0.
Let's see if the same holds up after years of this circus and stagflation.
Good point.
Unironically:
After a poor result with black voters, if Mamdani were not an Ugandan rapper named Kwame, he would have probably also been accused of being a rasist...
That accusation might be harder to wash off for AOC...
Unironically:
After a poor result with black voters, if Mamdani were not an Ugandan rapper named Kwame, he would have probably also been accused of being a rasist...
That accusation might be harder to wash off for AOC...
On a more serious note, the Southern states should be farther down the primary calendar. It doesn’t make sense for states Democrats have no chance of winning to have such outsized influence. Outside of Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina - it makes little sense. I don’t get starting off with Iowa anymore either given how MAGA it is. Give them a small state in New Hampshire for a primary and then move on to Nevada (Union-heavy) and then the Midwest, West, South, Mid-Atlantic, and the the rest of New England. I’m just spitballing but those just seem like very-specific tests.
Last edited:
It shouldn't matter where the primaries start. If you're the best candidate you should be able to win by larger margins and not need to rely on small pluralities of the vote share.
But to get everyone to shut up about what is fair in the primary they should just start with 4 states a Northern a Southern a Midwest and a Western state. It would be a broad stroke of the electorate and it would force the candidates to really showcase their message to the people. And again if you're the best candidate you should be able to win the broader electorate.
Agreed if you have an economically populist message that appeals to everyone it should resonate from sea to shining sea.
Also I thought we need to go for the 50 state strategy and we need to stop ignoring states and we could win Mississippi/louisiana/etc if we got out the non voters? probably shouldn’t avoid the states where the base is concentrated
Regardless it’s a moot point. The people in charge ain’t changing it so need to focus energy on putting people in place that will.
This is not true at all. The entire reason they moved earlier primaries to the South was because members of the CBC complained that candidates were getting momentum and traction and others were dropping out before black voters got a say. To pretend that the primary schedule doesn’t play a role is being entirely disingenuous or just ignorant of the discussions that went into its restructuring. The problem with a lot of you guys is that you have no inherent sense of how/when to make systems better. Your natural orientation - even unaware of it - is to support the status quo and all your arguments revolve around justifying it while trying to seem pragmatic as possible. This isn’t even a political thing per se - it’s a personality trait. And that’s why you’re often at odds with someone like me. I would argue (with history on my side) everything positive (and negative) that happens is due to people with an orientation opposite to yours but you then contort yourself to convince yourself “this is what I’ve been saying” and that people are fighting for perfect. In actuality, people like me have been settling our entire lives and your “rational” solutions are things we had to fight tooth and nail for and then settle on - it’s literally the entire history of progress in this country. Every “pragmatic” measure for progress is an answer to forward-thinking people identifying a problem and pushing to solve it in the broadest way possible. So if early momentum effects funding, media attention, and other voters down the line based on what they view as realistic and inevitable - and your approach is “it shouldn’t matter” - then you just have a fundamental difference in ideology and personality traits from me and there’s no reason for us to even debate because we will never see eye to eye. It’s no different then my approach in businesses - I’m not the lawyer who says “we can’t do this.” I say “we can’t do it this way but nothing says we can’t do this.” We are fundamentally different humans. I finally realized that watching a lot of you post. You’re not even bad faith people - you’re just opposed to the entire archetype of what makes someone a forward-thinking business or political person. It’s not who you are and you’re not cognizant of it.
No. Run for senate and lock down new leadership in the Upper Chamber and let the Newsome/Whitmer ticket clear the presidential field. AOC is all good, but there's no way she wins in Iowa or Ohio. Whitmer could help solidify the midwest and Newsome knows how to dumb down the Anti-Trump/GOP message to white folks.
I don't really care for him either, but not thinking that he has the best shot this early on is silly. Only JB Pritzker is close.
I'd rather see Pritzker be the nominee than Gavin.
I'm not sure people understand how successful the right has been at parodying California. Even people who dont pay close attention to politics are privy to it.
Whole damn election will be a referendum on the state, not a good decision from an electoral strategy standpoint.
Somebody else needs to step up and take the mic away. I think JB moneybags would be a good option but I can already see the usual suspects ripping him apart and knee caping his campaign in fall 2028 because he’s rich. How can we fight the oligarchs while we elect him
Gavin has the juice right now. Up to somebody to take some away before it’s too late.
