If Kamala loses in 2024, who will Democrats run in 2028?

x65943 · Tuesday at 12:24 AM

Kamala's numbers are hurting, the trend is not good for her. It's still anyone's election, but the momentum is gone

Some attribute this to Kamala doing more speaking engagements lately, but I suspect it may have more to do with the "new" factor having worn off

The Democrats are fractured - Muslim Americans pledging to vote green due to the mainstream Democrat support for Israel - and also those who feel the party has gone too far left, or too far right

I think currently the party has no real contenders, it's hard to imagine Buttigieg (who has never served as governor or senator) could realistically cinch nomination and the presidency - and it seems few have nationwide appeal

I think tho, the Democrats will likely avoid nominating another woman at least for a few cycles after 2016 and 2024

DiscostewSM · Tuesday at 12:27 AM

If Trump wins, then chances are there won't be another election.

x65943 · Tuesday at 12:39 AM

DiscostewSM said:
If Trump wins, then chances are there won't be another election.

Trump is 78 and not in great shape, I would be shocked if he could survive long enough to end democracy definitively

Viri · Tuesday at 12:39 AM

Chris2055 · Tuesday at 12:44 AM

DiscostewSM said:
If Trump wins, then chances are there won't be another election.

Or at least, whatever election happens post-Trump would probably be an extremely flawed one. Imagine the damage Trump could do with another 4 years. In his first term he already destroyed the Republican party, cast widespread and lasting doubt on our election integrity, weakened our institutions (potentially forever), exacerbated the effects of a global pandemic, incited an insurrection, stacked the judiciary, ran up the deficit 8 trillion dollars, validated dictators, made the U.S. the laughing stock of the international community, exploited his office for personal financial gain, caused multiple constitutional crises... I could go on.

Now he's vindictive because he lost in '20. Imagine what he'd do with a second term.

DiscostewSM · Tuesday at 12:53 AM

x65943 said:
Trump is 78 and not in great shape, I would be shocked if he could survive long enough to end democracy definitively

It's not about just Trump though. He's the ticket to the administration making the necessary changes towards that, and JD Vance is completely onboard with upholding that should Trump die. Trump's main purpose for being President is staying out of jail.

x65943 · Tuesday at 12:57 AM

>destroyed the Republican party
Would argue that was Newt Gingrich

>cast widespread and lasting doubt on our election integrity
That's fair, but I think a other aspect of that is now we are more aware of the role that foreign governments play in our elections - something that's not necessarily new

>weakened our institutions
Sort of a repeat of what was said above

>exacerbated the effects of a global pandemic
Hard to say how much effect he really had, everyone had to open up eventually and truthfully there is data both that supports lock downs saved lives, and reports that show they had little to no effect

>incited an insurrection
Absolutely

>stacked the judiciary
That's actually just literally the job of the president, he didn't do anything sneaky or against the rules - he just nominated justices

>ran up the deficit 8 trillion dollars
Literally anyone would have done that, every president for the past 20 years has increased the national debt to an insane amount - and it didn't help he was as president during the pandemic

>validated dictators
>made the U.S. the laughing stock of the international community
Fair

>exploited his office for personal financial gain
They all do this, take a look at Pelosi's stock portfolio

>caused multiple constitutional crises
He wanted to, but actually didn't cause any - it would have surely been one had Pence agreed not to validate the election

Chris2055 · Tuesday at 1:44 AM

x65943 said:
Would argue that was Newt Gingrich

Depends on what you mean by "destroyed". Trump is replacing traditional republicans with MAGA by forcing out anyone that doesn't back up his lies. A majority of Americans don't agree with MAGA extreme views so Republicans have been losing.

x65943 said:
That's fair, but I think a other aspect of that is now we are more aware of the role that foreign governments play in our elections - something that's not necessarily new

Except Trump blamed the democrats, not other countries, and now that's what people believe.

x65943 said:
Sort of a repeat of what was said above

Our election system involves specific institutions, but Trump has weakened so many... from the CDC to the Department of Education he has done a lot of damage.

x65943 said:
Hard to say how much effect he really had, everyone had to open up eventually and truthfully there is data both that supports lock downs saved lives, and reports that show they had little to no effect

I personally think we re-opened too early but my biggest gripe is how he downplayed it early on when fast action could've helped a lot.

x65943 said:
That's actually just literally the job of the president, he didn't do anything sneaky or against the rules - he just nominated justices

This is true actually. However, McConnell withheld Obama's SCOTUS nomination for 10 months in hopes a Republican would be the next president, then pushed ACB through a month before the election. Because of these manipulations Trump was able to pick one third of the Supreme Court himself. So while Trump didn't do anything sneaky here, his party definitely did. They abused the role of the Senate in confirming justices.

x65943 said:
Literally anyone would have done that, every president for the past 20 years has increased the national debt to an insane amount - and it didn't help he was as president during the pandemic

Increase the national debt, yes, but not at the same level Trump did. Trump ran up double the deficit of Biden.

x65943 said:
They all do this, take a look at Pelosi's stock portfolio

I don't agree with Pelosi's stock portfolio (or insider trading in general) but others doing it doesn't justify him doing it too. Plus Trump profited in more direct ways and his administration had unprecedented levels of nepotism.

x65943 said:
He wanted to, but actually didn't cause any - it would have surely been one had Pence agreed not to validate the election

There's the issue of presidential immunity which SCOTUS left open enough to still cause one, although they'd likely rescue him in the 11th hour if it became necessary. They're Republicans, after all.

supermist · Tuesday at 2:22 AM

Christopher Walken

M7L7NK7 · Tuesday at 2:31 AM

Chris2055 said:
made the U.S. the laughing stock of the international community

We've been laughing at you all for years before trump

Joe88 · Tuesday at 2:37 AM

I'm sure they will again try to prop up a female poc running a low charisma build.

NyaakoXD · Tuesday at 2:39 AM

x65943 said:
Trump is 78 and not in great shape, I would be shocked if he could survive long enough to end democracy definitively

And that's what he can easily set out to do without much effort. He already has tons of MAGA allies within the government and all over the USA. They pretty much already know what to do to quickly kill off any voting rights and election so that no democrats would ever win. In fact, there's already been some instances of actual election interference already as we have witnessed over the past several weeks of state governments (Republicans, btw) trying to pass laws to try and delay or interfere with the election results.

There's already a giant list he can easily follow thanks to his buddies over at the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025. He's already shared in plenty of his rallies some of the exact same stuff coming out from that document. He doesn't have to be active as President as we have all seen during his presidency of him mostly golfing and letting his lackeys do most of the work for him while also licking the boots of his role models, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

There's so many reasons why he's a huge threat to our democracy and letting him win again will likely be the worst possible thing in the modern age of the USA.

Viri · Tuesday at 3:00 AM

Joe88 said:
I'm sure they will again try to prop up a female poc running a low charisma build.

THE SIGNIFICANCE PASSAGE OF TIME!

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 3:07 AM

Also, when I win in 2028, every single person who posted in this thread, will be deported to Gitmo, day 1!

1stmoon · Tuesday at 3:27 AM

Joe88 said:
I'm sure they will again try to prop up a female poc running a low charisma build.

Uncharismatic people don't usually have jam-packed crowd sizes.

Taleweaver · Tuesday at 6:39 AM

Trump gained a bit in the battle states (though I've got no clue why), but Harris still has the advantage. She'll at least claim the popular vote as well.

So depending on where she'll end up, she might just run again. If not her, i think Gavin Newsom has a decent chance.

granville · Tuesday at 7:05 AM

If she doesn't win, there won't BE another election. The MAGA movement also won't die with Trump, nor did it start with him. Dismantling the election process to turn the US into a fascist dictatorship has been a long term project for the GOP for many decades now. Since Nixon. Trump blew he mask of it, but there's absolutely no going back or slowing the train. Not without the GOP itself collapsing and ceasing to exist (not happening).

That said, she's not likely to lose. Not my own opinion or based off public polling. To the OP of this thread- you're buying into a lot of media BS that isn't actually real at all. Her internal numbers are considerably better than what is being claimed by public polling.

Not that I think it matters much as it's likely just kicking the can down the road without massive reform and an abolition of the electoral college. The EC map is going to be reallocated in a few years and it will make it pretty much impossible for Dems to win anymore unless we move exclusively to the popular vote to decide elections. Which absolutely should be done, but would requires a constitutional amendment. And to do that, you'd need a majority in both the house and the senate (and the Dems are going to lose the latter next month), and either an abolition of the filibuster or at least a decision to make it filibuster proof.

Viri · Tuesday at 8:53 AM

granville said:
If she doesn't win, there won't BE another election. The MAGA movement also won't die with Trump, nor did it start with him. Dismantling the election process to turn the US into a fascist dictatorship has been a long term project for the GOP for many decades now. Since Nixon. Trump blew he mask of it, but there's absolutely no going back or slowing the train. Not without the GOP itself collapsing and ceasing to exist (not happening).

That said, she's not likely to lose. Not my own opinion or based off public polling. To the OP of this thread- you're buying into a lot of media BS that isn't actually real at all. Her internal numbers are considerably better than what is being claimed by public polling.

Not that I think it matters much as it's likely just kicking the can down the road without massive reform and an abolition of the electoral college. The EC map is going to be reallocated in a few years and it will make it pretty much impossible for Dems to win anymore unless we move exclusively to the popular vote to decide elections. Which absolutely should be done, but would requires a constitutional amendment. And to do that, you'd need a majority in both the house and the senate (and the Dems are going to lose the latter next month), and either an abolition of the filibuster or at least a decision to make it filibuster proof.

Yup, when our leader Trump wins, and we start up Project 2025, we're going to abolish Congress. Trump will become Dictator for life, and all the minorities will be deported or shot. Trump is also going to abolish NATO, so Putin can finally conquer Ukraine and the Baltic states. Abortion will finally be banned! All religions except Protestant will be banned! We'll also deport all Irish Catholics, if they refuse to stop recognizing the Pope!

x65943 · Wednesday at 3:58 AM

Taleweaver said:
Trump gained a bit in the battle states (though I've got no clue why), but Harris still has the advantage. She'll at least claim the popular vote as well.

So depending on where she'll end up, she might just run again. If not her, i think Gavin Newsom has a decent chance.

Newsom is pretty unpopular in California and nationwide - Republicans have had years to smear him and anyone who has lived in California will agree his years in office have seen a decline in living standards, affordability, rule of law etc

Would put more stock in an unknown name - Newsom has the same problem Hillary did, in that he would enter the race with a large swathe of the voter base already against him

Taleweaver · Wednesday at 9:18 AM

x65943 said:
Newsom is pretty unpopular in California and nationwide - Republicans have had years to smear him and anyone who has lived in California will agree his years in office have seen a decline in living standards, affordability, rule of law etc

Would put more stock in an unknown name - Newsom has the same problem Hillary did, in that he would enter the race with a large swathe of the voter base already against him

*shrugs*
Republicans are going to smear anyone no matter what.
Can't say i know him aside a few interviews that went well. You asked, i answered.

TomSwitch · 2024-10-18T03:30:50+0100

Trump junior will be crown prince. Harris named terrorist and under protection in Canada.

If Kamala loses in 2024, who will Democrats run in 2028?

毛主席万岁！新中国万岁！！

Well-Known Member

毛主席万岁！新中国万岁！！

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

毛主席万岁！新中国万岁！！

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

[λ]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Storywriter

GBAtemp Goat

Well-Known Member

毛主席万岁！新中国万岁！！

Storywriter

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum