Rahm Emanuel Is Gearing Up to Run for President - POLITICO Aside from the negative that is his faith, which will lead to lots of racist resentment from libs, he's an intelligent, competent, well spoken guy who can pull swing voters. Ironically the dems are turning to the radical cheerleading of AOC to rile up the inmates instead of pushing towards level headed centrists like Rahm. They truly are too lost to be taken seriously without a captain to steer the ship.
Rahm left office with a sub 20% approval rating. He was awful as Chicago mayor and tried covering up a murder of a 17 year old black female. He was run out of town and he was corrupt
If the republicans like him . . .. . that will immediately give me pause and mean i have to look under the hood but in this case I don't really have to the guy just seems swarmy Rocket River
you are too willfully ignorant to be taken seriously the top Dem candidates include Kamala, Gavin Newsom, Mayor Pete, and others as pointed out by Astros123, Emanuel can't even win his home town of Chicago
Here is the thing. Everyone in the center wants more efficient government. I personally don't think the government should be involved in everything. I don't think we need the ATF when we have the FBI. Why two agencies. I don't think we need to spend a trillion on defense every year. However, how and why Trump is doing what he is doing is an issue. Here is an idea. Let's not let billionaires run the country and not pay their fair share. Let's have efficient government. let's invest in infrastructure. Let's protect personal freedoms. Let's fix the healthcare system so it isn't like close to 20 percent of the economy. It's currently 15K per person per year and people aren't getting basic services. That's stupid. I'm all for moderate candidate.
It don’t think it matter if the Dems put forward a generic Clinton admin centrist Dem, he will be called communist and evil all the same. It’s been 12 years of Hillary, Biden, Harris, all establishment, Christian, and rather centrist Dems who have all been accused of being far left communist, corrupt, of course really stupid, and akin to the devil. The right can run off a cliff trying to accomplish all their dreams and desire, but of course, the left can’t and shouldn’t. Alrighty then.
A moderate is the last thing in the world I want. We've had too many moderates, trying to 'return to normal order', sit on their hands while Trump dismantled democracy. I usually consider myself rather moderate (which might be part of the reason Trump offends me so much), but the response to Trump cannot be moderate. A moderate might find a majority (if there's an election) but I don't think I'll be in it. Ironically, I know my reaction perpetuates a vicious cycle. If a more progressive leader I support somehow prevails, MAGA will be radicalized even further. The way to break a vicious cycle is with magnanimity, usually. Finding a moderate democrat to run is a bet on magnanimity. But right now, I don't think we can afford it or risk it. With Trump, magnanimity would only be exploited. So strong resistance and perpetuation of the vicious cycle is the path for right now. We need a hard left turn.
Rahm seems to be an LBJ like operator from his stint as Chief of Staff. He didn't want Obamacare to be the first and only prio, but he held his breath and got it done, albeit for the entire first year at the expense of all the hopes and dreams progressives thought Barry would usher in. I don't know how he'd govern, though I bet a chicagoan would give a better guess. As I digest the data dumped from this interview, one thing I do know is that most of America does not want a left turn right now. They didn't want one when they delivered Biden a split congress that took 2 GA runoffs in order to secure a tie. The demo of 35-55 upper-middle income that posts on here might have a different mindset than what's happening in America. It'll take a heavy economic downturn to unbreak perceptions of Trump's "strengths" in economy, defense, immigration, inflation and other categories in that interview. He's kind of doing it now with the terriffs, but the bellyaching here isn't the norm to Americans who have tuned out news sources and mostly go by gut or their crazy political uncles. The more they tune out, the more center-right leaning they vote. It's a broken record, but many libs are either deluded or circled their wagons into thinking Biden ran or managed things greatly. The waste hysteria didn't come out of nowhere. Some posters still stroke it to Bidenomics or maybe they only post their love here because of the sideeyes they'd get irl...
That was 100 percent because of inflation. Biden should have pumped the brakes on the crazy economy. We didn't need him the last trillion dollar stimulus package. We didn't need him paying some people more in unemployment to stay home than to work. I would vote Biden over Trump every day of the week, but Biden was never exciting. Kamala isn't exciting or even likeable. My liberal friends including my wife don't understand why I didn't like Kamala. I voted for her, but she didn't excite anyone. She's never accomplish anything that excited people. She doesn't have Obama's optimism and class. I would vote for AOC over what we have now, but I wouldn't want her as president. Maybe Speaker of the house where being extremely partisan isn't a horrible thing. I want someone that seems above the fray as president.
I suspect that individual "left" policies poll very well. Yes to minimum wage bump plus COLA. Yes to Medicare for All or 50+. Yes to tax the top 1%. The right will always have their completely pulled-out-their-asses cultural issue that they run on ... versus what policies they can deliver on. The left really could use a candidate that hammers the right on their BS.
I share a similar dislike and nose pinching for Kamala. She was my senator, and booked it without even completing a full term. Her weaknesses simply weren't acceptable to middle Americans. They wanted a fighter and doer. She knew the numbers but couldn't bite Joe's hand. JD Vance follows the same trajectory, but with the pompous nerve wracking obliviousness that only a yale law grad could pull off. There's a certain respectability with AOC as a person, but as I alluded to in another thread that devolved into shameless poo flinging, DNC needs to take their gender disparity seriously and rethink taking the young vote for granted. Running up the bill to protect and coddle the elderly, who nonstop trashes younger gens, is a roadmap in some circle of hell. They need a charismatic young male whose not an effiminate pushover and can't last 5 mins in an unscripted blue collar townhall, let alone a dive bar. Double minus points for bringing out a POC who has been washed and cleaned of all hints of danger or aggression. Delusional and thickly patronizing messaging.... That's not to say he cuts in line, but a true free and open debate in town halls would reinvigorate internal discussion within tne party itself, where a compromise and bridge would undo a lot of distrust of dems making decisions behind closed doors.
Most of America gave us Trump. So I'm not really looking to most of America when I evaluate what we need. What you're speaking to is who might find traction. And I already conceded it may well be some moderate platform that can find the biggest coalition. But in my personal view, that doesn't solve our problem. It will just bake in the damage that Trump has already caused. So I'm not going along.
The times have been changing fast. We're no longer the prime demo bringing out new ideas even if we're the ones executing them. A lot of the outrageous ideas brought out during covid isolation and amplified through the internet is still lingering in many echo chambers. There's a difference in importance and prioritization. For example, I think trans rights is important to help trans kids and adult escape stigmatization or suicide, but i dont think the full throttle approach of gender affirming care for minors should have have been prioritized as an issue to defend or stand on. When you have kids telling their parents of what teachers are pushing, that not X to blame for the pull-outta-their-asses outrage issue. It says a lot when Biden officials promote or confirm the same shaky talking points in contention and declare the debate is settled. Pretty galling when you think about. We're at least ten years early in social progress because earnest research into it, The Science, hasn't fully matured and it still needs more time in to guide governments (note European missteps), let alone societal change. These are the traps Shor emphasizes, though he readily admits inflation being the key indicator for moderates who are disconnected. Its just infuriating for them to see such a focus and drag in admin mindshare when they're swimming in debt and CoL increases while the media swears The Numbers indicate Booming Economy.
This is a SCW talking point. The Rs keep saying saying the Ds are pushing a "gender affirming care for minors" agenda, when they are not. The Ds have said that the parents and the child should make a decision that is best for them. D candidates did not run on this issue. Th Rs used it as a wedge issue.
There's reams of pages covering it in real time over at least 3 threads on here, mostly garbage but with some sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/opinion/gender-affirming-care-cass-review.html https://www.city-journal.org/article/gender-affirming-care-is-fundamentally-flawed https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/why-democrats-are-struggling-on-trans I'll spend some tokens to clear the air. You're right in that it wasn't "full throttle". Dems didn't run on the issue. It's worse -- they enacted their position of the debate legislatively/executive action, then tucked tail when Republicans capitalized on the public backlash by campaigning against the policy changes. Which ****ed it up even more because of a messaging vacuum.
Is this AI? Fair summation. The R talking point "little Jack went to elementary school and came home a Jill" is still complete nonsense ... and one that the Rs shamelessly lead with.
I agree with most of this. While Kamala was certainly qualified for the job, especially compared to the clown she ran against, her track record lacked big achievements. And while I thought she was quite likable when rallying supporters, her sit down interviews and unscripted remarks could be cringe. If you look at recent Democrats that went on to win (younger Joe Biden in 2020, Obama, and Bill) they could rally the troops and were more than comfortable in sit downs and small, intimate settings. The ones that couldn't handle both well, like Hillary, Gore, and unfortunately Kamala, all lost. IMO, the next Democrat to run for POTUS is going to have to handle both types of situations well and come across as a fighter if they want to win.
