The 119th United States Congress

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I’m not convinced. Obama is still the most popular democrat. Hillary and Harris were out in tough situations. Hillary did win the popular vote and Harris got 75 million votes. 

That was 2008 and 2012. This is 2025. Things definitely change in 13 years. Just look at the difference between 1958 and 1971.

Also, Hillary was nine years ago. The difference between 1962 and 1971 may also apply here.

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The same party hasn't won three straight terms since HW Bush won in 88. Hillary wasn't going up against an unknown politically with Russia putting their thumb on the scale. She still beat him by 3 million votes. 

In some states, voting was harder in 2024 than 2020 so I disagree about voting being easier. Overall turnout was down in 2024. 

It's easy to frame things to make your party's candidate look good, but I don't think was anything particularly difficult about Clinton's candidacy.  She was up against a relatively unknow clown and was expected to win easily.

There was way more access to mail in voting in both 2020 and 2024 than any previous election, so the vote totals mean nothing historically.  

 

 

[Motown Bombers]

19 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That was 2008 and 2012. This is 2025. Things definitely change in 13 years. Just look at the difference between 1958 and 1971.

Also, Hillary was nine years ago. The difference between 1962 and 1971 may also apply here.

Excellent, since Hillary was 9 years ago and attitudes change, she would probably have a shot now.

Obama is still the most popular Democrat. Most polls have Michelle Obama with the highest favorability of any potential Dem candidate, and I think she would win easily. I also believe MAGA is going to continue to become even more unpopular so any reasonable Dem would win. 

[Motown Bombers]

17 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It's easy to frame things to make your party's candidate look good, but I don't think was anything particularly difficult about Clinton's candidacy.  She was up against a relatively unknow clown and was expected to win easily.

There was way more access to mail in voting in both 2020 and 2024 than any previous election, so the vote totals mean nothing historically.  

 

 

Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes. She had the Comey email thing when things like that actually mattered to voters.

States like Georgia passed voter suppression laws after 2020. 

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Excellent, since Hillary was 9 years ago and attitudes change, she would probably have a shot now.

Obama is still the most popular Democrat. Most polls have Michelle Obama with the highest favorability of any potential Dem candidate, and I think she would win easily. I also believe MAGA is going to continue to become even more unpopular so any reasonable Dem would win. 

unfortunately, being the "most popular" democrat is right up there with being the most popular leper.

[chasfh]

28 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Excellent, since Hillary was 9 years ago and attitudes change, she would probably have a shot now.

Obama is still the most popular Democrat. Most polls have Michelle Obama with the highest favorability of any potential Dem candidate, and I think she would win easily. I also believe MAGA is going to continue to become even more unpopular so any reasonable Dem would win. 

Neither of us is going to convince the other guy here, so all I can say is, as little as it matters to me personally, if the candidate coming out of the Democratic convention is not white and/or not a man and/or not cis and/or not “Christian”, my concern is that it will lose them enough votes on the margins to cost them the election. And given how the middle ground of thinking on issues of identification is likely to shift between now and 2028, that marginal loss of votes may be even more likely than it was in 2024 or 2016.

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

Neither of us is going to convince the other guy here, so all I can say is, as little as it matters to me personally, if the candidate coming out of the Democratic convention is not white and/or not a man and/or not cis and/or not “Christian”, my concern is that it will lose them enough votes on the margins to cost them the election. And given how the middle ground of thinking on issues of identification is likely to shift between now and 2028, that marginal loss of votes may be even more likely than it was in 2024 or 2016.

yup. Not the world I'd prefer to live in but the one I also think we are in, and if anything the DEM party insiders are going to be even more adamant that they have to get a woman elected, and to be honest, a good deal of the best Dem talent is female. But that and $5 will get them a Vente and a President JD Vance.

Edited Monday at 08:50 PM by gehringer_2

[smr-nj]

You have no idea of the depth of my disappointment that it seems men are just throwing up their hands and , 3 years out, already just accepting that the US will not elect a woman. 
 

 

[Motown Bombers]

I am not accepting it. I think 2028 is a very good year for a woman to win. I think a normal Democrat like Harris or Whitmer would win in 2028. I also think Slotkin is an underrated candidate. 

[chasfh]

19 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

You have no idea of the depth of my disappointment that it seems men are just throwing up their hands and , 3 years out, already just accepting that the US will not elect a woman. 
 

 

I wish that were not the case.

[gehringer_2]

32 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

You have no idea of the depth of my disappointment that it seems men are just throwing up their hands and , 3 years out, already just accepting that the US will not elect a woman. 
 

 

Personally, I don't consider voting for two of them 'throwing up my hands', but nor I can't deny what my eyes are telling me about the society I'm living in. Of course if the Dems could manage to make themselves into a more overall appealing party, they could probably elect candidates even given the irreducible residual of sexism, racism or whatever 'ism' that is always going to infect some marginal number of the voting populace. It's pretty disappointing to me that by early in Trump's 1st term there seemed to be democratic voices with leadership potential showing up all over the place, but so far I don't really see opposition leaders meeting the challenge of building a winning movement to turn things around (in fact we get Hogg trying to self-immolate what's left of his party). I think it has to start with a message that defines more than opposition - that may be enough for another close win in the next election, but it's not enough break the stranglehold that nihilist zero sum politics has on too much of the US electorate. It won't start the kind of civic transformation we need. The dems need to find an ethos richer and deeper to mine.

Edited Monday at 10:08 PM by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, smr-nj said:

You have no idea of the depth of my disappointment that it seems men are just throwing up their hands and , 3 years out, already just accepting that the US will not elect a woman. 
 

 

A lot of the types of people we need to get voted for Haley over Trump, so I do think it's possible a woman could win. I don't think Clinton and Harris lost because they were women.  I do think a woman would be at a disadvantage though, so it needs to be the right one.  

[Tigerbomb13]

Ain’t she lovely?

[smr-nj]

Just now, Tigerbomb13 said:

Ain’t she lovely?

Whoah.

what the hell?

[LaceyLou]

37 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Ain’t she lovely?

What a lovely person.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, LaceyLou said:

What a lovely person.

As I've said before, the Catholics may very well be an early target of the authoritarian regime. 

[LaceyLou]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

As I've said before, the Catholics may very well be an early target of the authoritarian regime. 

Definitely. The KKK had definite opinions on "papists" and I assume they still do.

[oblong]

Their only use for Catholics is their pro life stance.  And I assume JD would turn on them too. 

[chasfh]

I don’t know about a Catholics purge, other than to the degree they could use it as a way to wipe out Latinos. But the vice president himself is Catholic; six of the nine SCJs are Catholic, including five of the six conservatives; and a new kind of retrograde Catholic-infused political ideology that aligns really strongly with MAGA has really come to the fore. Catholics may never be truly embraced as a full brother-in-arms by the hardcore evangelical red hats and MAGA leadership, but I’m having a hard time envisioning them lumping Catholics in with Muslims, Jews, atheists, and anyone else they might try to genocide off the planet during the late stages of MAGA rule. I’d be surprised if MTG’s bid to amp up hate against Catholics gain any traction here. She might be getting talking points from the Kremlin on this one.

[Motown Bombers]

I know who I’m voting for. 

 

[romad1]

She's really losing her bearings

 

[oblong]

Getting Dave Grohl vibes.

 

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, oblong said:

Getting Dave Grohl vibes.

 

Not Steven Tyler? 

[oblong]

that too.

 

[Motown Bombers]

Wasn't Mace originally supposed to be one of the sane ones? I think she completely broke when she went to New York to grovel in front of Trump Tower.