18 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

While I agree with you in principle, the past 3 Democratic POTUS candidates were all relatively moderate and look where we are now. The real lefties are at the congressional and gubernatorial level which is much harder for the party as a whole to reign in, but they've actively weeded out the Bernie and Warren and even Cory Booker types in presidential races. And yet they have nothing to show for it. I understand Vans argument that a likable lefty populist might have a better chance at actually winning now, which is sad.

I think we can rule out the Harris debacle due to the overall circumstances with Biden plus how sheet he was/is as a candidate. Had they pulled Biden six months earlier and worked thru things to get a solid moderate candidate they would have won.

In any case, a leftist populist who can attract the middle could work. A far lefty running on the left fringe type stuff will not win. Can AOC move far enough into the middle?

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Is there anything else that is bothering you or just Greenland?

You already know my feelings on Ukraine. I am fully in on supporting them in any/every way possible. Hate this administrations response, and lack of response to that situation.

Dont like plain clothed masked men basically kidnapping people on the streets.

Dont particularly like utilizing military in our streets, though I really do like the intentions there.

Along with potential use of force in Greenland, those would be the 4 things that I wish were not happening.

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

You already know my feelings on Ukraine. I am fully in on supporting them in any/every way possible. Hate this administrations response, and lack of response to that situation.

Dont like plain clothed masked men basically kidnapping people on the streets.

Dont particularly like utilizing military in our streets, though I really do like the intentions there.

Along with potential use of force in Greenland, those would be the 4 things that I wish were not happening.

Ok, thanks. I would think you would be more bothered by what's happening in Ukraine now vs months back and for several reasons including Greenland which is a part of it for sure.

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I think we can rule out the Harris debacle due to the overall circumstances with Biden plus how sheet he was/is as a candidate. Had they pulled Biden six months earlier and worked thru things to get a solid moderate candidate they would have won.

In any case, a leftist populist who can attract the middle could work. A far lefty running on the left fringe type stuff will not win. Can AOC move far enough into the middle?

Eh I'm not so sure about that.

29 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

While I agree with you in principle, the past 3 Democratic POTUS candidates were all relatively moderate and look where we are now. The real lefties are at the congressional and gubernatorial level which is much harder for the party as a whole to reign in, but they've actively weeded out the Bernie and Warren and even Cory Booker types in presidential races. And yet they have nothing to show for it. I understand Vans argument that a likable lefty populist might have a better chance at actually winning now, which is sad.

Agreed on the last three Dem Presidents. Yeah, I see the point and also Vans point. The problem lies at the lower levels and that’s a lot of weeding out, probably on both sides. This is truly a very complicated situation with no easy solution…🤷‍♂️

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Eh I'm not so sure about that.

Ok, what makes you think the answer is go further left?

58 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

That's a really bad example to use given everything with Biden and the very short campaign plus Harris is horrible.

Regardless whether you think she's horrible, she ran, compared to Trump, an extremely bi-partisan, moderate campaign that trotted out every Rep she could find, scorned the far left on Gaza and largely continued the conciliatory tone that Biden had. And then when Trump embraced RFK, the lines were really drawn there. It was very clearly moderation vs radicalism. And it failed. It just won't happen again. It would be crazy and the entire left base would turn their backs on them.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

I disagree with you 100%. The way to win is to grab the middle in combination with restoring the old class based angle allowing poor Latino and poor Whitey back in the tent. These things are won on the margins in the middle and Trump won those last time. Focus on the economy.

This is just lunacy that isn't ever happening again. No one cares about carefully crafted messages that appeal to this group or that group. We'll be extremely lucky if we have an election again and if we do the Dem base will demand what the Rep base has been demanding for decades: pain for the other side.

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Regardless whether you think she's horrible, she ran, compared to Trump, an extremely bi-partisan, moderate campaign that trotted out every Rep she could find, scorned the far left on Gaza and largely continued the conciliatory tone that Biden had. And then when Trump embraced RFK, the lines were really drawn there. It was very clearly moderation vs radicalism. And it failed. It just won't happen again. It would be crazy and the entire left base would turn their backs on them.

This is just lunacy that isn't ever happening again. No one cares about carefully crafted messages that appeal to this group or that group. We'll be extremely lucky if we have an election again and if we do the Dem base will demand what the Rep base has been demanding for decades: pain for the other side.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Your approach will offer MAGA the only chance they have.

Pointing at the Harris campaign as the reason to move further left is extremely poor analysis. She was a very poor candidate who could not offer a vision or even a message other than "Trump bad". She was totally incapable of communicating a clear and simple position regarding the economy. Just a never ending stream of word salad.

Seems to me like you're spending too much time listening to the far left activists.

18 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I think we can rule out the Harris debacle due to the overall circumstances with Biden plus how sheet he was/is as a candidate. Had they pulled Biden six months earlier and worked thru things to get a solid moderate candidate they would have won.

In any case, a leftist populist who can attract the middle could work. A far lefty running on the left fringe type stuff will not win. Can AOC move far enough into the middle?

First part is just wrong.

Second part I agree with. It's not about ideology or far left AOC sheet. It's about constantly preaching policies and messages that benefit people in the cities and in blue states and punish people in rural areas and red states. And then saying it proudly and properly demonizing the people that fall into the second bucket.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Ok, what makes you think the answer is go further left?

I'm not saying it's the answer I want. I just don't think it's as simple as "if the Dems put up a moderate candidate they win in a landslide" because recent history has shown that's simply not true. Populism, us vs them rhetoric and ridiculous claims/promises have been a much more winning combo in recent history. From Trump to Mandami. So it's hard to argue that moderation is the short term "winning" solution, even if it's one most of us want.

6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Regardless whether you think she's horrible, she ran, compared to Trump, an extremely bi-partisan, moderate campaign that trotted out every Rep she could find, scorned the far left on Gaza and largely continued the conciliatory tone that Biden had. And then when Trump embraced RFK, the lines were really drawn there. It was very clearly moderation vs radicalism. And it failed. It just won't happen again. It would be crazy and the entire left base would turn their backs on them.

This is just lunacy that isn't ever happening again. No one cares about carefully crafted messages that appeal to this group or that group. We'll be extremely lucky if we have an election again and if we do the Dem base will demand what the Rep base has been demanding for decades: pain for the other side.

Honestly, the issue really isn't moderate vs. progressive. The issue is finding an entertaining, captivating figure to run against the circus show that is MAGA. Basically, they need another Obama or Bill Clinton -- someone likeable that will engage both the base and independents. Hillary, Biden and Harris were all awful politicians/campaigners -- Biden won because Trump is so awful and COVID was the last straw.

They need a talented politician who can capture the spotlight and draw eyeballs away from the MAGA car crash. As much as I don't like him, that guy might be Newsom.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

First part is just wrong.

Second part I agree with. It's not about ideology or far left AOC sheet. It's about constantly preaching policies and messages that benefit people in the cities and in blue states and punish people in rural areas and red states. And then saying it proudly and properly demonizing the people that fall into the second bucket.

Policy is irrelevant when the electorate is this dumb and can't read/understand anything longer than 140 characters. They don't need a policy wonk, they need someone entertaining.

Just now, DEagle7 said:

I'm not saying it's the answer I want. I just don't think it's as simple as "if the Dems put up a moderate candidate they win in a landslide" because recent history has shown that's simply not true. Populism, us vs them rhetoric and ridiculous claims/promises have been a much more winning combo in recent history. From Trump to Mandami. So it's hard to argue that moderation is the short term "winning" solution, even if it's one most of us want.

I didn't say that was the only thing. They also need to be able to clearly articulate a good economic plan as well. They did not do that with Harris. The singular reason that Trump won was that there was a group of people in the middle and from the poor minorities, poor Latinos, and poor whiteys that believed Trump offered the better chance for their economic situation to improve.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Policy is irrelevant when the electorate is this dumb and can't read/understand anything longer than 140 characters. They don't need a policy wonk, they need someone entertaining.

Depends on what you mean. Healthcare policy is boring. Affordable housing policy is boring. But "We'll be imploding the White House ballroom live on Netflix and then anyone that wants to pay $100 to the the tear-down fund can come by a take a sheet on the rubble." is a quality policy push.

3 hours ago, Frankfurteagle89 said:

Look HE, you made the statement that you now regret your vote for this unhinged 2nd Term. At least that’s what I interpreted?!

I stated you should not be attacked here as you’re one of the few that apparently can see the madness this lunatic is causing.

Then you came back with your post basically defending / liking the goals Trump is trying to achieve. You topped it off by basically saying that this is all better than anything a Dem could offer. That’s were you lose me completely, as there is nothing worse than this lunacy… IMO

4 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Don't fall for the charade, they're all hopelessly irredeemable and mentally broken people. No sane, sentient person capable of feeling actual regret would've voted for him 3 times like they did. So no, don't feel sorry for them, they fully deserve to feel the economic pain they will be enduring. When they lose their job or have to take out another loan, that's literally their own fault no matter how many times they've tried to blame their failures on someone else. They voted against their own self interests three times, so now they have to deal with the consequences of those choices. That's the only way they'll learn.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I didn't say that was the only thing. They also need to be able to clearly articulate a good economic plan as well. They did not do that with Harris. The singular reason that Trump won was that there was a group of people in the middle and from the poor minorities, poor Latinos, and poor whiteys that believed Trump offered the better chance for their economic situation to improve.

Because Trump "articulated a good economic plan"?

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Policy is irrelevant when the electorate is this dumb and can't read/understand anything longer than 140 characters. They don't need a policy wonk, they need someone entertaining.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Honestly, the issue really isn't moderate vs. progressive. The issue is finding an entertaining, captivating figure to run against the circus show that is MAGA. Basically, they need another Obama or Bill Clinton -- someone likeable that will engage both the base and independents. Hillary, Biden and Harris were all awful politicians/campaigners -- Biden won because Trump is so awful and COVID was the last straw.

They need a talented politician who can capture the spotlight and draw eyeballs away from the MAGA car crash. As much as I don't like him, that guy might be Newsom.

I agree but I also don't agree with the examples here. Obama and Clinton were engaging...in their time. That time's past. They're honestly boring now. New face has to integrate a lot more insane sheet into their presentation. Being an MLK style master orator is past it's prime.

But I do like Newsom. We'll see if he can thread the needle.

Just now, VanHammersly said:

Because Trump "articulated a good economic plan"?

More of a "blame Biden/Harris" for the inflation and bad economy message. Harris was never able to counter that and often didn't even offer a serious attempt to do so.

2 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

Yes, as well as many people who did not vote for him 3 times. Youll need to stop deflecting if you want to see a difference made.

The ship already sailed, moron. We're already into a second term of a retarded convicted felon and rapist who's hell bent on destroying every institution convention while he can. The time to "make a difference" was prior to November 2024. Maybe it makes me callous or indifferent, but I'm no longer interested in helping. The only thing I'm interested in now is reminding you of your mistakes and watching you idiots suffer the consequences of your own actions for years to come

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I agree but I also don't agree with the examples here. Obama and Clinton were engaging...in their time. That time's past. They're honestly boring now. New face has to integrate a lot more insane sheet into their presentation. Being an MLK style master orator is past it's prime.

Right - didn't mean they'd work now. But in the 1990s and 2010s, they were. Clinton was going on Arsenio Hall, playing the sax, etc. And Obama's team was the first to really lean into social media, and he's also a fantastic speaker. What Newsom is doing trolling Trump on Twitter -- that could work. It's why Trump fixates on someone like AOC - she can attract a crowd.

Democrats need to realize the new way to win is to engage in online trolling and spectacles.

13 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I didn't say that was the only thing. They also need to be able to clearly articulate a good economic plan as well. They did not do that with Harris. The singular reason that Trump won was that there was a group of people in the middle and from the poor minorities, poor Latinos, and poor whiteys that believed Trump offered the better chance for their economic situation to improve.

No

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Policy is irrelevant when the electorate is this dumb and can't read/understand anything longer than 140 characters. They don't need a policy wonk, they need someone entertaining.

Yes

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

No

Yes

13 minutes ago, Lambo said:

He'd probably win

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

More of a "blame Biden/Harris" for the inflation and bad economy message. Harris was never able to counter that and often didn't even offer a serious attempt to do so.

Trump's entire messaging is "blame everyone for everything". And it works. Dems should be doing it too, except blaming the radical right wing rural meth heads. Hold a press conference every time a Republican is arrested for a child sex crimes (granted they'd have to hold one every hour of every day but still), talk endlessly about the meth and radical right wing policies that are destroying our once great rural areas. Blame. Constantly. And this time, the people they're blaming deserve it.