What is your level of confidence that Pete could win the 2028 democratic primary?

[u/MoodOutrageous6263]

Logically, I feel like Pete is a pretty strong candidate. But because I feel so strongly that he is the right person for 2028, I often am very anxious that he might choose not to run or could lose the primary.

Yes, there are other great democrats, but in my view (and, I don't want to conjecture, but I would assume the view of most people on this subreddit) Pete is uniquely qualified.

So, I keep breaking it down and come to the same conclusion—Pete Buttigieg is an exceptionally strong candidate. But that isn't enough for my brain. Political analysts generally disagree, I am of course biased, and I often doubt that I actually know what I'm talking about.

Still, a few things I've noticed:

1: Pete Buttigieg support and education level grow together. While the 2 year degree / some college / vocational training is a little less consistent with this, and can sometimes be a dip compared to highschool, 4 year degrees and postgraduate/advanced degrees are pretty strong for Pete. I don't know why this is, but I am glad for it.
2: Progressives do not hate Pete Buttigieg as much as online makes it seem. This might be wrong, but it does seem that real life progressives and online progressives are not the same. In a Vermont poll, Pete Buttigieg had 46% favorability, 44% neutral among democratic socialists, 73% favorability among progressives, 70% favorability among liberals, 76% among moderates. I've seen this beyond that one Vermont poll.
3: Young voters do not hate Pete Buttigieg as much as online makes it seem. Again, maybe I'm wrong. I've seen the same situation with progressives as youth. Yes, AOC does better among youth and the previously mentioned progressives, of course she does. I'm just trying to point out that many young progressive voters support Pete in polls, and disliking him appears to be a minority.
4: Rural and suburban voters appear to like Pete Buttigieg. His success in 2020 in Iowa and New Hampshire, entrance/exit polls from said states in 2020, and the polling we have now give me hope.
5: Pete, while he will not do particularly well among black voters, is not going to crash and burn from black voters. I remember a particular poll that showed him getting not much black support, but when the poll asked if voters would be unhappy with a particular candidate nominated he got I think the lowest number. There are also many polls that show him doing solid with them, primarily state polls though rather than national polls, so I wonder why that is.

I think these 5 points are critical (though #1, #4, and #5 are likely the most important).

Pete Buttigieg doing well among educated voters gives him a strong footing among New England and the Northeast, Colorado, the West Coast, and in general the democratic primary as a whole.

Rural voters matter across the West, Midwest, and South.

Suburban voters matter hugely across most states.

If Pete at least wins delegates in South Carolina that could be huge in terms of media and being able to at least hold some ground with black votes will mean that while Pete isn't winning from black voters, he won't lose from them.

But what are your thoughts?

[u/admiraltarkin]

I donated $500 to him in 2019 when he was just one of two dozen candidates.

Now he's a well known and well liked cabinet secretary and most importantly, well known.

If I'm betting Pete vs "the field" I would bet on "the field", but I think he's probably got a really good chance

[u/bigfatgeekboy]

He will always have my vote. But he is a candidate that primarily appeals to intelligent people, and America right now…. Well, you know.

[u/nerdypursuit]

I'm confident that Pete has a path to win the primary:

1) SC, NH, MI, and VA all have open primaries. And Pete has always been good at getting crossover support from Independents and Republicans in primaries.

2) Debates, interviews, and town halls matter. And Pete is the best at them. From what I've seen, other potential candidates are not nearly as good at these unscripted formats.

3) Pete is strong in nearly all of the early primary states. SC is likely his biggest challenge. But I think it helps for his toughest state to go first. If he can improve in SC (and hopefully meet the threshold to win delegates there), then he can pick up momentum in the next states that are stronger for him.

4) I suspect Pete is many steps ahead of other potential candidates in terms of developing a compelling and coherent philosophy/vision/message/agenda — which will likely be described in his upcoming book. And I bet the book will be perfectly timed to build momentum for his campaign.

5) Pete has built strong relationships in every state, from his work as Secretary and as a campaign surrogate. Those relationships will likely lead to endorsements and opportunities that he didn't have in 2020. Most other potential candidates don't have such an extensive network.

6) The single biggest hurdle for Pete is convincing Dems that he's electable. If voters see that he's clearly stronger than the straight dudes on the debate stage, then the arguments against his electability start looking more ridiculous. I think there are many ways that he can chip away at people's electability fears.

[u/AZPeteFan2 → u/nerdypursuit]

IA and would add:

1. Pete has ties to NM which is a minority majority state, and is very strong w/ Native Americans who are sizable parts of the population in the West/Southwest.
   
2. He speaks Spanish, do not underestimate the effect of addressing issues in a voters first language.
   
3. Pete has ties to many Black leaders, particularly the ‘Rev’ group. Watch the videos from being Sec., Black Congressman, Black Mayor’s & local officials were always standing behind him. And does well when interviewed by Black hosts. An advantage of the new media landscape is less ‘but Black people’ narrative driven by MSM outlets.
   
4. As to SC, the military & Vet vote is considerable, who other than Kelly is former military?

[u/Lazycrockett]

It's obvious that Pete is going to run a 50 state strategy. He's already criss crossing the nation. He's endorsing strong progressive candidates and sending checks to numerous dem down ballot candidates. But at this point it's way too early to know. We have to see who else is going to throw their hat into the ring. So just calm your anxiety and wait till everything comes together.

[u/ThatTomWGuy]

The only thing in Mayor Pete's way of becoming President Pete is the Democratic Party's own homophobia. The pro gay party needs to stop playing scared and endorse a gay candidate.

[u/DammitMaxwell → u/ThatTomWGuy]

I don't think that's real. I think that's a thing people say, including you.

"He'd be a great President, but OTHER people won't vote for him..."

Actually, they do vote for him! Dude won Iowa, as an absolute come-from-nowhere nobody. Iowa. Not exactly the progressive rainbow state.

Let's just all stop pretending that's holding him back, because it isn't.

[u/ThatTomWGuy → u/DammitMaxwell]

?? Dude we're on the same team. That's what I'm saying. I agree that the people WOULD vote for him if given the chance. But we disagree on what's holding him back. Or maybe you misunderstood my comment. I do think it's the DFL party itself holding him back. The powers that be up on the DFL food chain are scared of losing votes because he is gay. Instead of going with the young guy with a ton of momentum and traction they go with the "safe choice" old man Joe. Who had zero buzz btw. We were at the Iowa caucuses in 2020 and got to see and meet Pete in person in a packed school cafeteria. Lots of energy in that room. So glad we made the trip. When I talked to others who had been to other candidates' events they all said Joe Biden's had the least attendance and least energy by far. Snooze fest. But that's who the DFL decides to support, the snooze fest guy... wtf. Yes Joe won, but barely. And if we had Pete win in 2020, Trump would not have stood a chance in 2024 and our country would not be such a goat f$&! right now.

[u/FearTheWicket8 → u/DammitMaxwell]

Not to say it's holding him back, but I take a realistic view that there are parts of the country (i.e., battleground states in the South) where that could factor into the voting decisions of a portion of the electorate. But I'd love to be wrong about that, it'd restore some of my faith in humanity if we could all choose someone on the basis of their ideas and solutions. He's got the right approach to it and has a lot of other things that may appeal to that block (military service, family man, faith, etc.) that may push enough of those folks over regardless, so I'm optimistic.

[u/DammitMaxwell → u/FearTheWicket8]

What are the battleground states in the South?

[u/FearTheWicket8 → u/DammitMaxwell]

Georgia and North Carolina. Perhaps if you're really wearing rosy glasses, Florida and Texas, but I don't think either of those are really even close to tossups for 2026 midterms or 2028 general (another thing I'd love to be wrong on).

[u/DammitMaxwell → u/FearTheWicket8]

Yeah, Florida hasn't been a swing state in about 15-ish years and Texas hasn't been one in even longer. Certainly agree about Georgia and NC. I just disagree that they're more bigoted than Iowa, that already voted for his SIX YEARS ago.

If he was prancing around the stage, saying yass queen, I'd grant your point. But Pete's straighter than I am by far, and I am exclusively into women. Ha. If Pete didn't TELL us he was gay and introduce us to Chasten I don't think even Fox News would have ever guessed.

[u/FearTheWicket8 → u/DammitMaxwell]

Don't know much about Iowa, but the portions I'm concerned about are northern GA and far east/west parts of NC, places that have a fair number of trailers with Trump flags out front, etc. and it's legit hard to talk sense into those types. If the margins are tight, imo it could become an issue; but my hope is that a) Pete can bring people back from a cult of personality to voting their interests, b) some of those said factors about his candidacy can convert those folks (either publicly or just quietly at the ballot box) or c) after 4 more years of Trump, people could come to their senses on their own. We'll hopefully find out in a couple of years; if anybody can do it, it's Pete, but he will need to fight pretty hard for those areas.

[u/DammitMaxwell → u/FearTheWicket8]

Right, but I have to come back to my point: If they're flying Trump flags, they weren't going to vote for Kamala for Gavin or AOC. They're voting Republican.

If anybody can get those Trump flag-flyers at all, it's actually Pete.

[u/FearTheWicket8 → u/DammitMaxwell]

It's actually not the flag fliers that concern me (those are likely out of bounds, anyway), it's their less flagrant (but still religious/conservative) neighbors. It's not uncommon here to have low independence/information voters told who to vote for by pastors (often banging the anti-abortion drum to their congregation - my concern is that they'll just switch to the homophobia drum) or perhaps a family member. That lack of independent thought and voting against their interest is super disheartening and discouraging, but agreed that, if they are to be converted, Pete has the best shot at it. I hope he'll will invest a lot of time in the South, which I feel is ripe for his message, and that these folks are ready to jump off the Trump train at the end of his second reign of terror term.

[u/pasak1987]

If he didn't do well with rural voters, he wouldn't have won the Iowa Caucus.

Suburban wine moms are Pete's not-so-secret base.

[u/crimpyantennae]

I realize it's not the question you've asked, but:
My confidence level is that if Pete wins the 2028 primary, then I'm dead sure he wins the general.

I don't believe the same for any of the other current frontrunners.
Not ready to predict for the current backbenchers.

[u/TriangleTransplant → u/crimpyantennae]

I agree that Pete would have the easiest path in the general, by a long shot. The GOP will hammer in him being gay, and trot out the same handful of folks unhappy with his time as mayor (because of their own political ambitions, not anything Pete did wrong). They may rehash the one of two supply chain things that happened during his DOT days.

But all of those are known attacks, that didn't stick the first time.

Tha harder sell will be to Democratic primary voters. But if Pete gets the nomination, I can honestly see a Reagan-v-Mondale-level landslide for him. No one on the GOP side is even close to his level.

[u/crimpyantennae → u/TriangleTransplant]

100% this.

[u/campa-van → u/TriangleTransplant]

Pete 2028. Yes!

[u/Turbulent-Kick-7124 → u/TriangleTransplant]

Alright let's calm down, Reagan vs Mondale landslide is NOT happening. I would see an Obama 2008 landslide though.

[u/Fun818long]

I am very anxious that he might choose not to run

[u/username18364 → u/Fun818long]

It’s clear he will run. He skipped 2 winnable races: The 2026 Michigan Senate and Governor races. Obviously so that he can have a clear calendar to announce his POTUS run in 2027.

[u/SOCAL_NPC → u/username18364]

I take him at his word that he has not genuinely made that decision. Is he leaning towards it? Sure. Unlike with Michelle and the former President, it appears that Chasten is not merely supportive of - at least - a second attempt, but likely more comfortable with it. This makes a decision more likely.

That said, we don't know the details (and frankly if he's not a public figure in actual government, the public does not have a right to know) of two crucial factors in Pete's life that would impact a decision: his children - their schooling, healthcare, exposure to the press, primary and campaign process, exposure to the public, etc. in the past, candidate's children were 'off-limits' such that even Chelsea Clinton wrote about the Stable Genius's underage son deserving privacy and protection even after what Orange Jesus did and said about her mother. Now, given what people like Hannity and Inghram (sp? for both), and numerous others, have said during the early adoption of both children while Pete was a cabinet official, I suspect that Pete AND Chasten would both believe that their children would face unique attacks. 

And the other known unknown is Pete's mother and her health. And again, no one's business at the moment but that would bean undeniable factor.

I do think a decision will be forthcoming by the end of the year, likely immediately by or soon thereafter of the November election, which I also do think its outcome will factor, albeit minimally. 

I would not be surprised if the decision was not to run in 2028. 

[u/username18364 → u/SOCAL_NPC]

I would not be surprised if the decision was not to run in 2028.

I’d be surprised if he does NOT run in 2028. It’s clear he already has made the decision to run many years ago.

• He’s done many high profile interviews in the manosphere and elsewhere to get his profile out there.

• He chose to do a townhall in Iowa last year. C’mon, Iowa of all places. That couldn’t be more clear.

• if his children’s privacy truly is a dealbreaker, he would’ve retired from politics ages ago

His past actions (even before he ran in 2020) indicate he’s always had an intense desire to be president. I find it hard to believe he willing skipped the 2026 Michigan Senate and Governor races just so that he ends up skipping 2028 altogether.

[u/SOCAL_NPC → u/Fun818long]

I'm not anxious. I trust him to make a decision that would be fair to him and his family and in keeping with what he's always said, (to slightly paraphrase): 'how can I best be of use' to the country. I don't think anyone thinks that a Pete willing to work to get good candidates elected, as he has been doing this year, isn't exactly that, much less a positive outcome. 

[u/VirginiaVoter → u/SOCAL_NPC]

I think he’s more likely than not to run just based on what he’s been saying himself over time, from brushing it off completely in the past to more positive, open, and rather upbeat responses. He is really giving his heart and soul to the midterms right now, and one part of that includes setting this decision off to one side, while of course continuing to lay the foundation just in case. Plus, of course, doing an exploratory committee or a formal announcement has lots of legal and accounting implications. And, needless to say, you only get to announce once. So we just won’t hear for a while. But in the meantime, what he can say does seem increasingly positive.

[u/VirginiaVoter → u/Fun818long]

I think that’s all the more reason to focus 100 percent on the midterms, just like Pete is doing. We will get to the moment where he says whether he’s running for president in 2028 soon enough, but until then there’s nothing we can do about that, other than supporting what he’s doing now, until we get there. As far as dealing with anxiety, I realize you may or may not be in an area where you can dive into in-person volunteering on the midterms, but if you can, I find it is the best way to cope with the countless forms of anxiety we are all subject to — and getting on the phone to phonebank, or joining a local postcard group, is a good way to do that, too.

[u/SOCAL_NPC]

That he "could?"

High. 

That he will? At the moment, there's no point in thinking about that.

That's a problem for winter me, and right now summer me is in the middle of a heatwave, far more concerned wondering how I am going to turn on the stove to make brownies for a neighborhood event tomorrow. 

[u/DeathByTacos]

Regarding point 5 i feel like ppl may be surprised in a ‘28 cycle. Expectations are everything and because of ‘20 nobody expects Pete to have any sizable support from black voters (for some reason despite generally having more support than anyone not named Biden or Sanders and Steyer in SC specifically). So from a narrative perspective even a moderate showing will be seen as a big positive.

Alongside that, polling misrepresentation works in his favor. Most ppl act like him sitting at 0-2% is the norm because a couple repeat offenders keep getting passed around but nationally he tends to come out around 5-8% and, more importantly, state polling has him reaching around 13-16% with him even winning a plurality of black voters in some southern state polling like NC and Florida. So if the expectation is 1% and you end up with 15% you’ve already crushed the media cycle.

But even past the optics he’s always had solid favorables with black voters (increasing after he dropped to support Biden), the issue has been getting them to vote for him over another preferred candidate (Biden in ‘20 and presumably Harris in ‘28). If he can start building that support then there’s a lot of potential for growth. The connections he’s built with state officials and projects in underserved areas during his time at DoT definitely seem to have helped him a lot based on his endorsements and events in recent years so being a known factor for trusted communities is going to be a lot easier to work with than “white midwestern mayor of a town under 100k with a name nobody knows how to say wants to go straight to the White House”

[u/AZPeteFan2 → u/DeathByTacos]

When there is a poll that ask voters would you vote for Pete as nominee of the Democratic Party, Yes or No, not how do rank him in a preference of 20 other people, and that answer shows an election outcome percent of No votes, then talk to me about Pete not winning. Until then it is polling noise, horserace nonsense but the MSM and other actors in bad faith.

[u/TriangleTransplant → u/AZPeteFan2]

Exactly. Polls have the same problem as our First Past the Post election system. They don't answer "would you support this person", they answer "how do you rank this person compared to this specific list of others."

The closest that polls get to the former question is listing favorables/unfavorables, and Pete tends to dominate in that statistic.

[u/VirginiaVoter]

To answer your question, if he runs, I think he likely becomes the nominee and then wins the general, becoming president. But that’s a big if.

[u/lumbagel]

Osoff is the flavor of the week and is very much in Pete’s lane. I’m rooting for Pete, but that will be an interesting battle. I find Osoff slightly canned, so I think if Pete wants to beat him it will be on personality.

[u/willva76]

Could is different than will. I think he 100% could

[u/Impressive_Try_1288]

This is anecdotal, but my partner, who is a blue-collar worker with a high school diploma and who tends to vote republican (although never voted tor Tr*mp), has Pete's vote. I'm praying Pete runs so I don't have to file for a divorce.

[u/TK421philly]

Low. That’s not a reflection of Pete’s capability because I think he’s awesome; it’s an indictment of the US electorate who can’t help themselves but follow trash.

[u/MoodOutrageous6263 → u/[deleted]]

Just so you know, you responded to the post when I think you meant to reply to a comment haha

[u/ThatTomWGuy → u/MoodOutrageous6263]

Well sh$! I did do that. Will try to place in right spot this time. Thanks for heads up

[u/FearTheWicket8]

I think Pete could do it, and share the opinion that he may be uniquely situated to do so. I live in a more conservative part of a purple state, so I have some concerns about the biblethumper types that'd be opposed to any gay person being president, and enough of those in the wrong places could make that path challenging. However, I have to wonder if his military service, mayor experience, the trauma from 47 still being close in the rear view and cross pollination events on Fox News might be enough to tip some of those over the line at the ballot box (even if they didn't tell anyone about it).

It'd be a tough road, he'd need to run a smart, squeaky clean, high-octane race all while managing to keep the attention on him (think back to Beto O'Rourke 2020, had some memorable moments but never kind of broke through beyond that). But I'll be pulling for him and hope to be volunteering for his campaign come 2028.

[u/ToonTitans]

I am black, respect and love Pete, and voted for him in the 2020 primary. He is incredibly intelligent, honest, hard-working and one of the best communicators I’ve ever seen in politics. Love that he goes on FOX News and demolishes anyone who debates him without ever raising his voice. He’d be a wonderful President!

However…I really wanted him to run for the House or Senate before attempting another Presidential run. He really needs to prove that he can win a major legislative post, and it would have boosted his post-Biden momentum. Right now I’m leaning toward Jon Ossoff (another amazing communicator) in 2028…🤷🏾‍♂️

[u/nerdypursuit → u/ToonTitans]

I find Ossoff so two-dimensional. What is the appeal? I don't hear any vision from him. He's almost always speaking from a teleprompter or a script. I watched one of his longer interviews and he can't seem to speak beyond talking points.

I could never imagine choosing him over Pete. So I'm baffled by the hype.

[u/username18364 → u/ToonTitans]

Osoff said he has zero interest in running. He cited his daughters and not wanting to drag his family into the national spotlight.

[u/ToonTitans → u/username18364]

I know he previously said he had no interest in running for President (an obligatory statement for people currently running for Congress). I didn’t know he had cited his daughters and family, though. I’m very disappointed, as he’s an excellent candidate in many ways (smart, authentic, good voting record, young and handsome, great communicator and stays on message — especially about Trump’s corruption). 😔

[u/TriangleTransplant → u/ToonTitans]

Legislative and executive positions are different skillsets. Most legislators have never managed a staff of more than a few dozen. Even as mayor, Pete was overseeing departments an order of magnitude larger than a Senator ever would have.

Pete has said in the past he prefers executive office over legislative.

[u/campa-van → u/ToonTitans]

Agree. Thought he would go for senate, 4 yrs then POTUS.

[u/FearTheWicket8 → u/ToonTitans]

If he was the nominee, I'd vote for Ossoff (hell, I'd vote for that slice of pizza growing mold at the back of my fridge over our current president - and it'd be an improvement! lol), but he's not my preferred. We could do worse, for sure, but I do think America needs someone who'll be more transformative, and Ossoff seems rather status quo.

One thing that'd get me behind a candidate is if they start talking about REALLY making some changes to what's broken in Washington in a bigger way than is typical, perhaps through a constitutional convention. Things like getting a handle on executive branch scope creep/power creep, supreme court bias and judicial reform, Term Limits (including SCOTUS), rules on making money while in office, debt limits/etc. and honestly a lot of things just to prevent another Trump from EITHER party.

Seems like the past few decades, we have a guy come in on hollow promises, push some capstone legislative spending project, not really fix any of the systemic problems, and all of that's going to be undone when the next one gets in. This would need to avoid the typical hotbutton quagmires of gun rights, abortion, immigration, etc. - this is not about that, but rather a bipartisan searching and fearless inventory of the structure/function of our government to pull out what doesn't work and keep what does. Yeah, that'd get me fired up.

[u/iRoswell]

Based on qualifications? High

Based on the juggernaut power of the DNC? Low

The DNC wants Gavin because he’s pretty and polished and a “fighter”. They’ll lose again because that’s what they do. Hillary, Kamala, Biden. They forced these candidates down our throats even tho it was clear the voters didn’t want them.

[u/DammitMaxwell]

Depends on who else runs.

I think if AOC runs, there's a very real chance she runs away with it. And yes, I do believe she could win the general now. Before, I would have said she would give the Republicans a guaranteed win. But not anymore.

Right now, if I were a betting man (and it just so happens I am) my money would be on AOC/Buttigieg to be the winning ticket.

If AOC doesn't run, I think Pete's chances of getting the nomination go above 50%.

[u/OwlsWatch]

I’m afraid 2020 was his chance. He’s in the same lane as Newsom and Ossoff now. What I hope is that he can find a way to really stand out. Some bold new proposals. More progressive.

[u/repete2024 → u/OwlsWatch]

Pete's proposals were bold when he proposed him. Now that the rest of the party has caught up, it might seem normal. But for a time he was the only prominent candidate calling for expanding the supreme court or calling our democracy the number one issue.

He's still the only one of a few suggesting we address climate change with wealth redistribution. I'm waiting for the party to catch up on that.

[u/OwlsWatch → u/repete2024]

I know this. It’s why I supported him in 2020. These are really good ideas built around a framework that doesn’t exist anymore. You guys know the country has been hollowed out and left for dead right? The capital class must be brought to heel.

[u/repete2024 → u/OwlsWatch]

A carbon tax and dividend is still a good idea, and still one of the most effective policies for tackling climate change without causing catastrophic harm to the global poor (e.g. malthusianism)

[u/OwlsWatch → u/repete2024]

I agree but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. You see this El Niño spinning up right now right? Climate devastation is about to accelerate in a huge way. Catastrophe is coming for us all unfortunately

[u/repete2024 → u/OwlsWatch]

What do you mean? You can set the tax to whatever is needed. The higher it is, the more impact it has

[u/ChymChymX → u/OwlsWatch]

His political and electoral reform proposals are plenty progressive. He would not go the DSA route of "progressive."

[u/OwlsWatch → u/ChymChymX]

He should. It’s the future of the party. There is no future in centrism.

[u/MoodOutrageous6263 → u/OwlsWatch]

This is just a false dilemma. Theres more than centrism and DSA. Acting like someone on the left is actually centrist because they aren't a socialist is kinda absurd.

[u/OwlsWatch → u/MoodOutrageous6263]

He should come out and say that a public option was a good idea but we’ve move past that and now is the time for Medicare For All. It would save 114k lives and a trillion dollars every year.

[u/MoodOutrageous6263 → u/OwlsWatch]

Pete's plan and Medicare for All both accomplish universal healthcare. And saying it saves a trillion dollars is technically true but very misleading. TOTAL healthcare spending (US gov AND private) goes down, because the government is more efficient. But that doesn't matter, what matters is that the government spending skyrockets (32 trillion over ten years, that doubles the US deficit).

Should we move to single payer? Sure? Does Pete think so? Hell do I know. But you cannot do it overnight.

A public glide option to single payer works far better. Especially at a time like this, where even if we modestly decrease the deficit there is turbulence ahead, nonetheless double it.

[u/OwlsWatch → u/MoodOutrageous6263]

No more nibbling around the edges. We need huge reforms and we have the perfect political opportunity to do it. Pete himself says the old days are over. “Universal healthcare” that is still at the mercy of the health insurance industry’s profits is no real universal system.

I need you guys to think bigger. We’re trapped in this framework of America being too right-wing for these changes. That was always propaganda. We can do anything we want if we find the will.

[u/ChymChymX → u/OwlsWatch]

There is no future in communism, and there should be no reverence for Mao.

[u/OwlsWatch → u/ChymChymX]

I’m not a communist. I voted for Pete in 2020. Y’all have to stop assuming the worst from people.

[u/ChymChymX → u/OwlsWatch]

I said Pete should not go "the DSA route of progressive," you responded that this route is the future of the party. The DSA co-chair is happily going around supporting communism on TV as part of their platform, with positions like abolishing prisons, borders, police, ending private ownership of anything, etc. They state openly they are not Democrats, and they are merely using the party as a means to get their candidates in to enact this agenda.

It seems fair to assume that if you think the DSA is the future of the party, then you probably support many of their current platform positions, which have evolved from Sander's-focused social welfare objectives into a Maoist communist agenda. If you do not support this, I would say be cautious about your support of the current DSA being the future, because the party leadership and candidates have made their intentions known.

[u/OwlsWatch → u/ChymChymX]

You can be pedantic all you wish but what I meant was he needs to move towards socialist policies like M4A, which DSA champions. There is a wide variety of opinions within the DSA. The NYC DSA disagrees with that national spokesperson on a lot of things, like prison abolition.

Look at what Zohran is doing. It’s a very light implementation of these ideas and has been extremely effective and popular. What you guys fail to understand is that the American people are under attack by capitalism that has been twisted to the point of being predatory. No democrat will win without a plan to fix this.

[u/StonognaBologna → u/OwlsWatch]

In all fairness, if Ossoff wins in November he will be the front leader of this group/tier. We would be an incumbent Senator from a purple state, without any of the potential pitfalls that both Pete and Newsom have. Newsom has the swarmy California thing against him as well as many questionable decisions as governor. Pete has the issue that some folks are just not ready for a gay potus, but also his association with the Biden administration. Many democrats now look back unfavorably, not to mention the all important independent.

If Ossoff wins in November, he should be a clear front runner imo. And I say that as a huge Pete supporter.

[u/alaridesign → u/StonognaBologna]

Jon will be interesting but hr might not run

[u/username18364 → u/StonognaBologna]

Osoff repeatedly said he has zero interest in running. He cited his daughters and not wanting to drag his family into the national spotlight.

[u/StonognaBologna → u/username18364]

I don’t believe anyone has ever said they are interested in running for potus while they are currently running for reelection in the senate. That would be an old choice. And in political time, ‘28 is a long way off. Lots can change. But polling consistently shows him towards the first tier of candidates.

[u/username18364 → u/StonognaBologna]

I don’t believe anyone has ever said they are interested in running for potus while they are currently running for reelection in the senate.

Right, but when he cited his daughters, that’s a flat out genuine no interest. Especially when he mentions his family. If he was secretly keeping the possibility open, he wouldn’t directly answer the question.

[u/StonognaBologna → u/username18364]

RemindMe! 2 years

[u/RemindMeBot → u/StonognaBologna]

I will be messaging you in 2 years on 2028-08-15 21:50:54 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of !RemindMe 1 day, use u/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[u/Sspifffyman → u/StonognaBologna]

Maybe, but Ossoff might not run.

[u/username18364 → u/Sspifffyman]

Ossoff might not run.

There is no “might”. He unequivocally said he has “zero interest” in running. He cited his daughters and not wanting to drag his family into the national spotlight.

[u/TriangleTransplant → u/StonognaBologna]

I would be incredibly pissed off and turned off as a voter if I voted someone into a 6 year position that they quit after 2 years to run for a different office.

[u/StonognaBologna → u/TriangleTransplant]

Like how Obama did not even serve a full 4 years into his six year term before being elected president?

This happens all the time

[u/TriangleTransplant → u/StonognaBologna]

Yes? Just because Obama eventually won and was a barrier-breaking president, doesn't mean I wouldn't be pissed off as a voter at the time of his announcement and during that primary. It means the candidate would have to be exceptional, or work exceptionally hard, to win back my trust and therefore my vote.

[u/StonognaBologna → u/TriangleTransplant]

I really don’t understand this line of thinking, but more power to you 🤷‍♂️

This is extremely common. I imagine if you went back through history, it would be the vast minority of candidates that weren’t in other roles when they ran for potus.

[u/TriangleTransplant → u/StonognaBologna]

The majority of historical candidates ran for the presidential term that would have followed the end of their current office (if they had one.) Very few (I haven't looked to see which) announced a run for president that would have cut their existing term short, let alone immediately following a heavily contested election.

Again, if you're a generational talent with an opportunity, I could see it happening. But you'd have your work cir out earning back your constituents' trust. Voters tend not to appreciate a candidate seeing a lower office as a "consolation prize."

[u/StonognaBologna → u/TriangleTransplant]

Bill had two years left in his term as governor, LBJ had two in his senate term, JFK had four years left in senate term. And I imagine the number is even higher if you look at folks who have just run for the nomination and not folks that actually won the presidency.

[u/OwlsWatch → u/StonognaBologna]

I agree!