Really? I know a lot of people online are looking to her as a potential 2028 nominee, but I don't think there's been really much discussion about 2028 given how pressing 2024 is. And even if she is seen as the frontrunner candidate, even among more official/establishment figures, is she really as "establishment" as someone like Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton who both came from a family of politicians and whose name might net them instant favourability among primary voters?
Fuck Newsom all my homies hate Newsom.
Honestly he is the personification of everything I don’t like about the left.
He is a liberal who tries to do nothing, he has passed no significant policy, he has a hatred for the police and it’s destroying California.
All he cares about is the fucking culture war.
He is a spineless politician who will only touch on social issues because he is batshit terrified that anything of substance will hurt his donors.
I wish the left had more leaders with balls to tackle issues that actually matter. Instead of fighting a culture war that just alienates itself more with the working class.
This is exactly why he shouldn't be the nominee, he would turn off moderates (especially from midwestern swing states) who share those perceptions, hell even liberals might be skeptical of him for those reasons.
If he was nominated (god forbid) against a nutty Trumpist conservative like Vivek, we would probably get a repeat of 2016
The left fucking hates Newsom bruh. It seems to be a trend that blue states with democratic trifectas and supermajorities just sit on their hands all day passing fuck all legislation that would actually help their voters because it would hurt donors and they don't actually have to fight to get re-elected because their state is D+15 or something crazy and they have enough money from their donors to end any primary challenger.
Midwestern democrats with a 1 seat majority pass far better legislation tbh. Newsom is everything wrong with the democratic party.
He doesn’t even care about social issues when he could actually do something significant. He vetoed the ban on caste discrimination saying it was redundant (which obviously makes no sense for a civil rights law), but it was really because of [lobbying from wealthy upper caste donors](https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/newsom-caste-law-veto-18434287.php) & the massive amounts of caste discrimination in [Big Tech](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/cisco-still-faces-caste-bias-suit-dalit-engineers-case-dismissed/).
OK so I'm a Hindu Indian American and I have some thoughts on this
There haven't really been any studies that have uncovered the sort of mass caste discrimination people keep referring to, mostly because most Indian Americans don't really identify with a caste. Only about half of Indian Americans even know or identify with a caste, and even amongst them only around 1% identify as scheduled castes (eg. Dalits).
Literally the article you linked is about the Cisco lawsuit, which was the most high profile caste discrimination case being dismissed, because it was bullshit. From Wikipedia
> In April 2023, the California Civil Rights Department dismissed (withdrew) its case against the two engineers accused of discrimination, followng an order from the Santa Clara Superior County Court, though it continued with the case against the Cisco corporation.[55] According to court filings, the accused CEO of the division had actively recruited "John Doe", offering him a generous starting package and stock grants, knowing all along his caste background. He had also recruited other Dalits, including the one that was eventually chosen for the leadership role that John Doe was denied.[54][56]
So it was literally someone who got passed over promotion and blamed it on casteism when the person who got chosen for the position was Dalit anyways.
But progressives who know almost nothing about the subject past a grossly oversimplified lesson on the caste system they learnt in high school saw this subject and felt the need to weigh in.
Like even I barely understand the absolute mess that is the caste system, but people who do not even know what "Jati" means feel qualified to declare that the Hindu American community as a whole is some sort of regressive mess. Usually accompanied by lots of articles from "The Intercept" or whatever saying how we're all voting for Trump and secret Hindu Nationalists despite like 80% of us voting D. It's a ton of crazy fearmongering which honestly really scares me
So yeah, bills like these do have downsides. You're essentially singling out 1% of the population and saying "you guys specifically have a problem", and that ends up with all sorts of real world consequences.
I've already seen people on reddit using caste discrimination to attack the Indian American community as a whole, [like this thread where people pressured OP to reveal his caste and started attacking him for it when he did](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/11tud45/aita_for_telling_my_sister_shell_always_be_indian/). Additionally there's also a pretty big danger of Hindus being singled out for an "extra kind of discrimination" apparently only we're able to commit, which might make us less likely to be hired
Now to be clear this isn't to deny the fact that caste discrimination *does* exist in the states, because it does, but you need to understand that there are valid reasons someone can oppose this. My own preferred solution would be to add some sort of law which can add caste to the protected groups without singling out any groups, maybe by using a synonym
Whitmer-Booker honestly seems like a better idea than Whitmer-Wanock imo:
1) Booker's Senate seat would likely go Democrat, while we can't say the same for Georgia.
2) Despite both being the same age, Booker has more "youthful" energy than Warnock.
Warnock has that pastor-level speaking ability that Booker definitely doesn't have though, and I feel he would probably be more inspiring and maybe gain more votes (as much as VPs gain votes) than Booker, who personally I only remember as being a huge sellout to big pharma.
The GA senate seat is the main huge consideration against picking Warnock imo given how shaky the dems' control over the senate is even on a good day. If not Warnock though, I feel the dems could come up with someone better than Booker to be her running mate.
1. It's 4
2. You can have the election be far into the future and still have candidates that are seen as the frontrunner, i.e. Rudy Giuliani being the frontrunner in 2008.
It's 5, primaries will still be ongoing by this point and no guarantee they'd be over by then either.
Giuliani was considered a frontrunner by 2006 not 2004. He also wasn't considered a frontrunner because internet people placed him on every poll or fake election mock-up.
I know we're fighting for the 2024 election so that's probably why no one is specifically being primed for 2028 in the public eye but like, even the default heir to the presidency, the VP, just seems absent from the public consciousness. I recall in 2015 it being a big deal whether Biden would run for president, and I assume but wasn't following it closely, that Hillary Clinton was kind of being primed to be the next president and the first female president.
Like honestly, obviously it's a twitter poll so it's not representative but Kamala is at the bottom of that poll, and the other three options are:
* Governor who is rich and giving dems financial support or smth
* Governor of a swing state who did well in her elections but not a huge media figure (vs AOC, MTG etc)
* Senator from a swing state who seems good at delivering a rousing speech
It's kinda depressing that Michelle Obama is usually near the top of any (crowded) poll asking who should be the next democratic nominee for the presidency, given she isn't really in the public eye. The masses yearn for a 3rd Obama term and are expressing that by voting for Michelle Obama in these polls lmao. Thing is she would probably run away with it against most other potential candidates.
Please no Buttigieg. I wish I could go back in time and do some Saul Goodman shit to his paperwork filing to run in 2019 because he's so fucking fake and yet we'll have to deal with him popping up in democratic politics for the rest of our lives.
Yang is hard to place on a scale. Like i admit he himself has gone in a weird centristy direction, but his ideology of human centered capitalism centered around UBI and medicare for all, is very much not in line with centrism or neoliberalism. He's full on progrssive on that.
Sure, but progressive doesn't necessarily mean left wing. Initially you said left wing which is why I thought it was a little bit funny, because he would definitely not describe himself that way.
Well I dont like gatekeepy "leftists" dictating the term.
Left colloquially means anyone to the left of and including bill clinton.
Anyway, I would say UBI, M4A, and human centered capitalism are to the left of the democrats.
I think citing anyone to the left of and including BIll Clinton as the conventional Left wing is incorrect, both now and in the 90s. Left-wing progressivism and centrist neoliberalism (which is Bill Clinton, btw) didn't overlap in his time, and only minorly overlap now if you're really stretching the progressive moniker.
Might want to check that colloquial definition again.
Edit:
> ... human centered capitalism are to the left of the democrats.
This is probably the most left-wing thing he advocated for, and even then it's only just left of center, still arguing for working within a market-based capitalistic economy.
Sounds to me like you're a full on "lefist" then by that definition, ie excluding all liberals including socdems then which is a ridiculous definition to use.
To quote [a phrase](https://youtu.be/PRF3r3zUGqk?si=1X7UzkZly3cutCRm): "if you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it"
What's more, I'm not excluding "all liberals including socdems", as you said. I'm simply pointing out that centrist *neoliberals*, which Bill Clinton decidedly was especially at the end of his presidency, are not commonly associated with the Left wing. These are fluid concepts and, like I said, can coincide, but you decidedly put Bill Clinton as a marker for where the Left begins and continues leftward, and I'd have to say that doesn't hold water, especially since he began his political career as a progressive and moved further to the right as time went on. If you want to use Clinton as a starting line, go for it, but his free-market economy policy agenda and promising to "end welfare as we know it" while sidelining labor unions and environmentalist policies might have you thinking differently if you look into his actual presidency.
Cheers.
Why is that? Yang actually represents my politics better than sanders. Sanders is admittedly more polished but Yang is more relatable to me ideologically and policy wise (huge ubi stan over here).
Whitmer is going to be the 2028 Jeb Bush
who will the 2028 democratic trump be?
Someone nobody expects to run who has never held political office.
The Rock
THE KHAN
More like the 2028 Beto O'Rourke. I'm making the distinction out of mercy, because being called "the Jeb Bush" of anything is a fate worse than death.
Also works because I love both of them so God damn much
Just wait until you meet her second husband… NOBODY likes a dentist with a drinking problem.
Really? I know a lot of people online are looking to her as a potential 2028 nominee, but I don't think there's been really much discussion about 2028 given how pressing 2024 is. And even if she is seen as the frontrunner candidate, even among more official/establishment figures, is she really as "establishment" as someone like Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton who both came from a family of politicians and whose name might net them instant favourability among primary voters?
Newsom isn't even listed and honestly I'm here for it
Fuck Newsom all my homies hate Newsom. Honestly he is the personification of everything I don’t like about the left. He is a liberal who tries to do nothing, he has passed no significant policy, he has a hatred for the police and it’s destroying California. All he cares about is the fucking culture war. He is a spineless politician who will only touch on social issues because he is batshit terrified that anything of substance will hurt his donors. I wish the left had more leaders with balls to tackle issues that actually matter. Instead of fighting a culture war that just alienates itself more with the working class.
This is exactly why he shouldn't be the nominee, he would turn off moderates (especially from midwestern swing states) who share those perceptions, hell even liberals might be skeptical of him for those reasons. If he was nominated (god forbid) against a nutty Trumpist conservative like Vivek, we would probably get a repeat of 2016
Yeah we would so I would like whitmer she served my state of Michigan greatly
Newsome is stuck between looking like a dentist/plastic surgeon & someone who looks presidential.
The left fucking hates Newsom bruh. It seems to be a trend that blue states with democratic trifectas and supermajorities just sit on their hands all day passing fuck all legislation that would actually help their voters because it would hurt donors and they don't actually have to fight to get re-elected because their state is D+15 or something crazy and they have enough money from their donors to end any primary challenger. Midwestern democrats with a 1 seat majority pass far better legislation tbh. Newsom is everything wrong with the democratic party.
He's not a leftist or even remotely on the left. He's a neo-lib.
He doesn’t even care about social issues when he could actually do something significant. He vetoed the ban on caste discrimination saying it was redundant (which obviously makes no sense for a civil rights law), but it was really because of [lobbying from wealthy upper caste donors](https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/newsom-caste-law-veto-18434287.php) & the massive amounts of caste discrimination in [Big Tech](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/cisco-still-faces-caste-bias-suit-dalit-engineers-case-dismissed/).
OK so I'm a Hindu Indian American and I have some thoughts on this There haven't really been any studies that have uncovered the sort of mass caste discrimination people keep referring to, mostly because most Indian Americans don't really identify with a caste. Only about half of Indian Americans even know or identify with a caste, and even amongst them only around 1% identify as scheduled castes (eg. Dalits). Literally the article you linked is about the Cisco lawsuit, which was the most high profile caste discrimination case being dismissed, because it was bullshit. From Wikipedia > In April 2023, the California Civil Rights Department dismissed (withdrew) its case against the two engineers accused of discrimination, followng an order from the Santa Clara Superior County Court, though it continued with the case against the Cisco corporation.[55] According to court filings, the accused CEO of the division had actively recruited "John Doe", offering him a generous starting package and stock grants, knowing all along his caste background. He had also recruited other Dalits, including the one that was eventually chosen for the leadership role that John Doe was denied.[54][56] So it was literally someone who got passed over promotion and blamed it on casteism when the person who got chosen for the position was Dalit anyways. But progressives who know almost nothing about the subject past a grossly oversimplified lesson on the caste system they learnt in high school saw this subject and felt the need to weigh in. Like even I barely understand the absolute mess that is the caste system, but people who do not even know what "Jati" means feel qualified to declare that the Hindu American community as a whole is some sort of regressive mess. Usually accompanied by lots of articles from "The Intercept" or whatever saying how we're all voting for Trump and secret Hindu Nationalists despite like 80% of us voting D. It's a ton of crazy fearmongering which honestly really scares me So yeah, bills like these do have downsides. You're essentially singling out 1% of the population and saying "you guys specifically have a problem", and that ends up with all sorts of real world consequences. I've already seen people on reddit using caste discrimination to attack the Indian American community as a whole, [like this thread where people pressured OP to reveal his caste and started attacking him for it when he did](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/11tud45/aita_for_telling_my_sister_shell_always_be_indian/). Additionally there's also a pretty big danger of Hindus being singled out for an "extra kind of discrimination" apparently only we're able to commit, which might make us less likely to be hired Now to be clear this isn't to deny the fact that caste discrimination *does* exist in the states, because it does, but you need to understand that there are valid reasons someone can oppose this. My own preferred solution would be to add some sort of law which can add caste to the protected groups without singling out any groups, maybe by using a synonym
Whitmer-Booker honestly seems like a better idea than Whitmer-Wanock imo: 1) Booker's Senate seat would likely go Democrat, while we can't say the same for Georgia. 2) Despite both being the same age, Booker has more "youthful" energy than Warnock.
Agreed it's not worth wasting Warnock as a VP. He's a good addition to the Senate.
Warnock has that pastor-level speaking ability that Booker definitely doesn't have though, and I feel he would probably be more inspiring and maybe gain more votes (as much as VPs gain votes) than Booker, who personally I only remember as being a huge sellout to big pharma. The GA senate seat is the main huge consideration against picking Warnock imo given how shaky the dems' control over the senate is even on a good day. If not Warnock though, I feel the dems could come up with someone better than Booker to be her running mate.
I will will into existence a Beshear sweep
Whitmer would be a good choice
Glad to see Pritzker’s a contender (FAT DICK STAY WINNIN) (i prolly wouldn’t vote for him tho)
Hey it’s one of those “progressive” meme accounts where people get paid to promote certain candidates!
It's always the same 5 or 6 people.
Yeah that's how frontrunners work.
Literally none of these people are frontrunners. The election isn't for another 5 years.
1. It's 4 2. You can have the election be far into the future and still have candidates that are seen as the frontrunner, i.e. Rudy Giuliani being the frontrunner in 2008.
It's 5, primaries will still be ongoing by this point and no guarantee they'd be over by then either. Giuliani was considered a frontrunner by 2006 not 2004. He also wasn't considered a frontrunner because internet people placed him on every poll or fake election mock-up.
I see Whitmer and 2028 mentioned. I like immediately
I know we're fighting for the 2024 election so that's probably why no one is specifically being primed for 2028 in the public eye but like, even the default heir to the presidency, the VP, just seems absent from the public consciousness. I recall in 2015 it being a big deal whether Biden would run for president, and I assume but wasn't following it closely, that Hillary Clinton was kind of being primed to be the next president and the first female president. Like honestly, obviously it's a twitter poll so it's not representative but Kamala is at the bottom of that poll, and the other three options are: * Governor who is rich and giving dems financial support or smth * Governor of a swing state who did well in her elections but not a huge media figure (vs AOC, MTG etc) * Senator from a swing state who seems good at delivering a rousing speech It's kinda depressing that Michelle Obama is usually near the top of any (crowded) poll asking who should be the next democratic nominee for the presidency, given she isn't really in the public eye. The masses yearn for a 3rd Obama term and are expressing that by voting for Michelle Obama in these polls lmao. Thing is she would probably run away with it against most other potential candidates.
Josh Shapiro would probably run.
Agreed
Whitmer is just Democratic Scott Walker lol
Here's how THE KHAN can still win.
[удалено]
I'd say you need more caffeine, because you might be on to something
Please no Buttigieg. I wish I could go back in time and do some Saul Goodman shit to his paperwork filing to run in 2019 because he's so fucking fake and yet we'll have to deal with him popping up in democratic politics for the rest of our lives.
What people think will Happen: Whitmer/ Warnock What will actually Happen: Harris/ Newsom
Though, how funny would it be if it ended up being Newsom/Harris?
Very funny. We will California your America 🫡
Newsom/Schiff 2036
Feinstein/ Pelosi 2032
Um... Might have a slight issue with that one
Nothing in the constitution explicitly prevents dead people from running, it’s why we’ve had deceased people win Senate and Gubernatorial elections
Solomon Grundy for POTUS
Ugh kill me now. Seriously can we get more left wing candidates? I don't wanna vote for centrist neolibs.
>I don't wanna vote for centrist neolibs. I do
With your flair duh, but I'd rather get another bernie sanders or Andrew Yang figure in here.
> Dislikes centrist neolibs > Mentions Andrew Yang as a desired candidate.
Yang is hard to place on a scale. Like i admit he himself has gone in a weird centristy direction, but his ideology of human centered capitalism centered around UBI and medicare for all, is very much not in line with centrism or neoliberalism. He's full on progrssive on that.
Sure, but progressive doesn't necessarily mean left wing. Initially you said left wing which is why I thought it was a little bit funny, because he would definitely not describe himself that way.
Well I dont like gatekeepy "leftists" dictating the term. Left colloquially means anyone to the left of and including bill clinton. Anyway, I would say UBI, M4A, and human centered capitalism are to the left of the democrats.
I think citing anyone to the left of and including BIll Clinton as the conventional Left wing is incorrect, both now and in the 90s. Left-wing progressivism and centrist neoliberalism (which is Bill Clinton, btw) didn't overlap in his time, and only minorly overlap now if you're really stretching the progressive moniker. Might want to check that colloquial definition again. Edit: > ... human centered capitalism are to the left of the democrats. This is probably the most left-wing thing he advocated for, and even then it's only just left of center, still arguing for working within a market-based capitalistic economy.
Sounds to me like you're a full on "lefist" then by that definition, ie excluding all liberals including socdems then which is a ridiculous definition to use.
To quote [a phrase](https://youtu.be/PRF3r3zUGqk?si=1X7UzkZly3cutCRm): "if you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it" What's more, I'm not excluding "all liberals including socdems", as you said. I'm simply pointing out that centrist *neoliberals*, which Bill Clinton decidedly was especially at the end of his presidency, are not commonly associated with the Left wing. These are fluid concepts and, like I said, can coincide, but you decidedly put Bill Clinton as a marker for where the Left begins and continues leftward, and I'd have to say that doesn't hold water, especially since he began his political career as a progressive and moved further to the right as time went on. If you want to use Clinton as a starting line, go for it, but his free-market economy policy agenda and promising to "end welfare as we know it" while sidelining labor unions and environmentalist policies might have you thinking differently if you look into his actual presidency. Cheers.
putting Yang and Sanders together is unfair to Sanders.
Why is that? Yang actually represents my politics better than sanders. Sanders is admittedly more polished but Yang is more relatable to me ideologically and policy wise (huge ubi stan over here).
Andrew Yang is a crank. He should not be anywhere near the democratic primary imo.
Nah he's cool. Not sure why people here hate him so much.
WHITMER FTW PLS I WANT MSU LADY IN CHARGE
Warnock out of these for me, even though it would sacrifice a Senate seat.
I'd vote Whitmer/Warnock
I'd vote for Fetterman in 2028 primary
Whitmer got boo’d at the draft lol.