Who will lead the Democrats into the next election?

[mikeiow]

I'm very familiar with Biker's 47th President DJT thread. Always demonstrating how ghastly things are Stateside under his regime!
Also aware of the Democrat minority leaders

However, I am curious how Democrats are playing things, as we head towards the next election.
Or indeed, whether they should have a de-facto "Leader" before the mid-terms?

I think the last election showed America is not yet ready for a woman of colour, which I find mildly depressing, but I'm wondering where they go to now.
I love the energy (& wit) of Gavin Newsom, & also the brains of Pete Buttigieg, but really know little about them, or indeed any other options.

[Skodillac]

Mark Kelly.

[mikeiow]

Skodillac said:

Mark Kelly.

Good shout: defo a strong & decent human - I'm not a US citizen/voter/resident, but I'd be happy with him as a leader!

[Skodillac]

mikeiow said:

Skodillac said:

Mark Kelly.

Good shout: defo a strong & decent human - I'm not a US citizen/voter/resident, but I'd be happy with him as a leader!

Yep. They need someone as armour plated as possible against Trump's bullst accusations of Democrats "wanting to destroy the country". I would hope it's a minority of Republicans, even MAGAs, who would be minded to levy such accusations against this man.

[CountyLines]

The Democrats must take some responsibility for Trump.

They put up Hillary and America wasn't about to immediately break another barrier and have a female president after the black president barrier was broken.

Against Biden, a white man, Trump lost. Convincingly.

When a Biden replacement was needed, what do the Dems do?

A black woman (who to be fair to her didn't have enough time for a proper run).

Utter stupidity.

(I'd rather not drag race and gender into it, but that reality of America unfortunately).

[Skodillac]

CountyLines said:

The Democrats must take some responsibility for Trump.

They put up Hillary and America wasn't about to immediately break another barrier and have a female president after the black president barrier was broken.

Against Biden, a white man, Trump lost. Convincingly.

When a Biden replacement was needed, what do the Dems do?

A black woman (who to be fair to her didn't have enough time for a proper run).

Utter stupidity.

(I'd rather not drag race and gender into it, but that reality of America unfortunately).

The Democrats must take responsibility for the reality of America? Why?

I hate this argument - the people responsible for Trump are the morons who voted for him. Nobody else. They had an objectively better candidate in front of them and chose Trump. For whatever reason - bigotry, misogyny, racism, all of the above, whatever. It's on them. The Trump voters. The Democrats didn't make them morons.

[p1stonhead]

Skodillac said:

Mark Kelly.

Absolutely.

They've tried already, but trying to continue denigrate a real veteran and freaking astronaut is going to be as hard for Republicans as physically possible.

[CountyLines]

Skodillac said:

CountyLines said:

The Democrats must take some responsibility for Trump.

They put up Hillary and America wasn't about to immediately break another barrier and have a female president after the black president barrier was broken.

Against Biden, a white man, Trump lost. Convincingly.

When a Biden replacement was needed, what do the Dems do?

A black woman (who to be fair to her didn't have enough time for a proper run).

Utter stupidity.

(I'd rather not drag race and gender into it, but that reality of America unfortunately).

The Democrats must take responsibility for the reality of America? Why?

I hate this argument - the people responsible for Trump are the morons who voted for him. Nobody else. They had an objectively better candidate in front of them and chose Trump. For whatever reason - bigotry, misogyny, racism, all of the above, whatever. It's on them. The Trump voters. The Democrats didn't make them morons.

SOME responsibility.

If you and me and most of world can see the ugly truth about American society, why can't the Dems?

They shot themselves in the foot.

[valiant]

Skodillac said:

Mark Kelly.

Yep, they need someone with a proud service record that can't be tarnished no matter how much they try and someone who can throw st back about trump and his service record or lack of. They also need someone who gets under Trump's skin to make him sound even more unhinged when he loses it.

I would also say Gavin Newsom who seems to enjoy getting under Trump's skin.

[JoshSm]

I'd hope it isn't Newson - for all his more recent media strategy he's still a bit too shiny fake, and he seems to have a lot of dirty laundry waiting to be aired.

They need to find a credible candidate and that needs broad support and more than just being 'not-Trump'. Especially as it won't be Trump on the opposite side next time.

[Tankrizzo]

Skodillac said:

The Democrats must take responsibility for the reality of America? Why?

I hate this argument - the people responsible for Trump are the morons who voted for him. Nobody else. They had an objectively better candidate in front of them and chose Trump. For whatever reason - bigotry, misogyny, racism, all of the above, whatever. It's on them. The Trump voters. The Democrats didn't make them morons.

It's a two-party system. I'd say that - especially when faced with an orange lunatic child like Trump - as the opposition party you've got to put up a candidate who has a very good chance of winning.

Trump isn't their fault but they certainly didn't help, I agree with CL.

[Skodillac]

Nope, the sole responsibility lies with those who punched the Trump chad on their docket, or whatever it is they do in the States, whoever the opposition candidate was. That's how it works. The French managed when presented with the choice of a st sandwich and a douchebag - they voted for the douchebag. If Americans aren't intelligent enough to see that, when presented with two poor candidates, you choose the least poor, that's entirely their fault.

[mikeiow]

JoshSm said:

I'd hope it isn't Newson - for all his more recent media strategy he's still a bit too shiny fake, and he seems to have a lot of dirty laundry waiting to be aired.

They need to find a credible candidate and that needs broad support and more than just being 'not-Trump'. Especially as it won't be Trump on the opposite side next time.

I read hints of Newsom having a dodgy back story....any clues what that is?
He is certainly one of the most vocal critics the past few months.

I *personally* hold Jill Biden responsible for the loss last time....she *must* have known the real state Joe was reaching, & should have encouraged an earlier handover, but power corrupts & he ended up handing the title of 47th to Trump when he had that appalling face to face debate.
No time for proper hustings, & although I feel Harris would have been a way better President in ALL respects, it was too late. IMHO, from the back seat over the pond (like most of us here!)

[CountyLines]

Skodillac said:

Nope, the sole responsibility lies with those who punched the Trump chad on their docket, or whatever it is they do in the States, whoever the opposition candidate was. That's how it works. The French managed when presented with the choice of a st sandwich and a douchebag - they voted for the douchebag. If Americans aren't intelligent enough to see that, when presented with two poor candidates, you choose the least poor, that's entirely their fault.

I'm not getting into an argument, so this will be my final comment.

While the responsibility ultimately lies with the voters (I've not said otherwise), if you want to win something, anything, you pick the best people, team, car, weapon, resources or whatever you need, to give you the best chance of doing so.

That applies to a kids 5 a side team right up to a presidential candidate.

The Dems clearly did not do that.

They hobbled themselves with 2 of their 3 choices. The one that they got right, won the election. Funny that...

If you can't see it, that's on you. I've said nothing controversial. It's common sense!

[WH16]

Someone who will not treat the voting public with utter contempt maybe?

Remember this ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk4ueY9wVtA

[Supersam83]

Skodillac said:

Mark Kelly.

Has there even been a President who is also an identical twin?

He can just hire his identical twin brother to work as his double!

[Skodillac]

CountyLines said:

Skodillac said:

Nope, the sole responsibility lies with those who punched the Trump chad on their docket, or whatever it is they do in the States, whoever the opposition candidate was. That's how it works. The French managed when presented with the choice of a st sandwich and a douchebag - they voted for the douchebag. If Americans aren't intelligent enough to see that, when presented with two poor candidates, you choose the least poor, that's entirely their fault.

I'm not getting into an argument, so this will be my final comment.

While the responsibility ultimately lies with the voters (I've not said otherwise), if you want to win something, anything, you pick the best people, team, car, weapon, resources or whatever you need, to give you the best chance of doing so.

That applies to a kids 5 a side team right up to a presidential candidate.

The Dems clearly did not do that.

They hobbled themselves with 2 of their 3 choices. The one that they got right, won the election. Funny that...

If you can't see it, that's on you. I've said nothing controversial. It's common sense!

Common sense, eh. That old chestnut. Look, you might not want an argument, fair enough, I don't really either and I'm trying not to make it in to one. I accept you only said that SOME of the blame is on the Dems, and OK, I concede, if it makes you feel better, that some of the blame can be put there, but it's such a small proportion as to be negligible. The simple fact is that the Dems did put up a better candidate than Trump. That's all that should have mattered. If you are contending that Harris was a worse candidate than Trump, and then by all means go ahead, make that argument. But it shouldn't matter who it was so long as they were a better candidate than Trump. If that's not common sense, to vote for the better candidate out of two, whoever they were, then I don't know what the phrase means any more. The lion's share of blame is on the voters, such that it make talking of any blame on the Dems to be pretty much pointless. If you can't see that etc, etc...

Anyway. Anyone got any better candidate for the Dems this time than Mark Kelly?

[bloomen]

Even if Newsom doesn't have a bunch of tweenies entombed in a dungeon somewhere, he still represents shoplifting, men in dresses and tent cities to many a voter outside California.

He's better used as a screaming head.

Mark Kelly seems like the obvious one to me too. He's not part of the Dem zombie lineage and actually seems vaguely human.

And they totally do have some culpability for the failure of US politics. Multiple times victory was theirs to throw away, and throw it away with gusto they did.

It's like they've had some sort of optics/ credibility blindness for the last few years.

[Catatafish]

CountyLines said:

The Democrats must take some responsibility for Trump.

They put up Hillary and America wasn't about to immediately break another barrier and have a female president after the black president barrier was broken.

Against Biden, a white man, Trump lost. Convincingly.

When a Biden replacement was needed, what do the Dems do?

A black woman (who to be fair to her didn't have enough time for a proper run).

Utter stupidity.

(I'd rather not drag race and gender into it, but that reality of America unfortunately).

I tend to think Hilary's awful personality trumps her being a woman in the reasons not to vote for her. I doubt I'm alone in that opinion.

Similarly, if Kamala could do a style of speech that wasn't a verbal holding pattern, she should have done so. She could speak endlessly without saying anything.

Not to mention trying to con the electorate with Biden.

I agree that they played a big part in losing, mainly down to absolutely whopping, gargantuan arrogance and a chasm between them and reality.

[aeropilot]

valiant said:

Skodillac said:

Mark Kelly.

Yep, they need someone with a proud service record that can't be tarnished no matter how much they try and someone who can throw st back about trump and his service record or lack of. They also need someone who gets under Trump's skin to make him sound even more unhinged when he loses it.

I would also say Gavin Newsom who seems to enjoy getting under Trump's skin.

It won't be Newsom, that would be another foot shooting choice by the Dems.

Newsom is pretty much despised outside metropolitan California and New York, he'd would never appeal to middle American voters.