United States Politics Thread 47

[Raphael]

(continuation of previous post)

JB Pritzker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JB_Pritzker

Born 1965

Governor of Illinois; before that, heir in a rich family whose investments made him a billionaire and who occasionally dabbled in politics a bit.

I don't know much about him, except that he and the Trump Administration seem to hate each other, and that zompist, who lives in his state, has said friendly things about him once or twice. He also seems to have managed it to avoid the traditional Illinois-Governor's-Mansion-to-prison pipeline so far. Those would, in themselves, be good signs.

But he seems to have had some kind of relationship with Rod Blagojevich back in the day. Oh my. And, well, he's a billionaire. I'm still undecided on how much or how little I myself want to hold that against him, but I know that many other people will hold it against him. I don't think that 2028 is likely to be a good year for billionaires among Democrats.

Besides, well, given the state of my own looks, I shouldn't really bring this up, but he's not exactly handsome. No, that shouldn't matter. But yes, it probably does. Even for a man.


Josh Shapiro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Shapiro

Born 1973

Governor of Pennsylvania; before that, Attorney General of Pennsylvania; before that, various less important political jobs.

Mainly notable for comfortably winning an election for Governor of a major purple Rust Belt state which Trump won twice. I've seen fairly mixed reports about how well or poorly he's doing in that job. Not sure what to make of it.

Seems to be an overall fairly conventional mainstream Democratic Party politician who started out with the standard political positions that fairly conventional mainstream Democratic Party politicians used to have not too long ago, and has now tried to shift some of those positions a bit in line with the changing times. That's probably just not good enough for times like these.


Mikie Sherrill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikie_Sherrill

Born 1972

Governor of New Jersey; before that, Member of the House from New Jersey; before that, briefly a federal prosecutor; before that, Navy pilot and Navy staff officer.

I'm only listing her here for completeness' sake, because she got herself elected Governor of a state during Trump's second term. She's not listed as someone who's shown interest, someone who's who's been speculated about, or even someone who's said "no" on the Wikipedia page about the 2028 presidential election.

Spending two of the first three years of your first term as newly elected Governor of a state running for an even higher office would strike me as just plain bad manners, and pretty unfair towards the people in your state who elected you. And I suspect that she herself might well agree with me on that point. So I think it's unlikely that she'll actually run. Again, just listed here for completeness' sake. But going through the motions of checking her CV...

Her military background would, of course, annoy some fringe people, but would probably play well with a larger number of others. It's interesting that she spent about a year as a federal prosecutor and then quit the job. Could it be that she didn't like what she saw during her time in that job? In that case, she might be interested in changing something about the criminal justice system. But that's just tealeaf reading.

In the House, she was both a New Democrat and a Blue Dog. Err, nope. Nope, nope, nope. OK, she apparently eventually left the Blue Dogs after a while. Good for her, but not good that she had joined them in the first place.

Then, as Governor, she seems to have bothsided the protests against ICE, criticizing ICE, but criticizing the protesors, too. Nah, I don't see how that'll play well with, err, anyone.

Apparently, during her time in the House, for a while she was a flatmate of Abigail Spanberger (see below).


Elissa Slotkin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elissa_Slotkin

Born 1976

Senator from Michigan; before that, Member of the House from Michigan; before that, career CIA employee and official in the Department of Defense.

Mainly notable for winning, even though just barely, a Senate seat in a major purple Rust Belt state which Trump won twice, and doing so on the very election day on which Trump won that state for the second time. In itself, that's certainly impressive.

As for her CV - well, first, there's the whole CIA stuff. I guess it's theoretically possible that she wasn't directly involved in any atrocities during her time in that job. But in any case, many people, in her party, in the general electorate, and if she should somehow end up in the White House, around the world, would understandably assume that she was. That would be bad for her in the primaries; if she could somehow overcome that and get herself nominated, it would be bad for her in the general election; and if she could somehow overcome that and get herself elected, it would be a major problem for her already near-hopeless attempts to deal with the rest of the world.

Then, in the House and in the Senate, on a number of domestic policy matters, she has moderate or moderately right-wing positions. And to top it off, she's not just decidedly pro-Israel, but even decidedly pro-Saudi-Arabia. Do I need to go on? No. Just no.


Abigail Spanberger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Spanberger

Born 1979

Governor of Virginia; before that, Member of the House from Virginia; before that, CIA employee and private sector consultant for academic institutions.

Same rules apply as with Mikie Sherrill above: I'm only listing her here for completeness' sake, because she got herself elected Governor of a state during Trump's second term. She's not listed as someone who's shown interest, someone who's who's been speculated about, or even someone who's said "no" on the Wikipedia page about the 2028 presidential election.

Spending two of the first three years of your first term as newly elected Governor of a state running for an even higher office would strike me as just plain bad manners, and pretty unfair towards the people in your state who elected you. And I suspect that she herself might well agree with me on that point. So I think it's unlikely that she'll actually run. Again, just listed here for completeness' sake. But going through the motions of checking her CV...

For the CIA period, see my comments on Elissa Slotkin above. Consulting is usually not exactly a glorious and praiseworthy profession, either. As for her political career, it seems to be a mixed bag. Decidedly anti-Trump instead of trying to make nice with him, which is good. But she also said repeatedly that other Democrats were, in her opinion, too radical, and should just be normal and non-chaotic. In other words, she's explicitly in favor of the approach that the Democrats tried for most of the time since the 1990s, and which usually brought them either defeats or Pyrrhic victories.

As Governor, she took a mostly confrontational stance towards the Trump Administration, but with some lapses, and otherwise seems to have implemented mostly run-of-the-mill mainsteam Democratic Party policies. There are mixed reports about her level of popularity in her state.

Apparently, during her time in the House, for a while she was a flatmate of Mikie Sherrill (see above).


Gretchen Whitmer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer

Born 1971

Current and outgoing Governor of Michigan; before that, various state and local level political offices.

Notable for winning two elections for Governor of a major purple Rust Belt state which Trump won twice, too.

Famously nicknamed "The woman in Michigan" or "That woman from Michigan" by Donald Trump, of which she'd probably remind Democratic Party primary voters at every opportunity if she'd run.

A bunch of fascist Trumpist terrorists planned to kidnap and murder her once during her time as Governor.

Mostly standard Democratic mainstream positions, combined with mutual loathing between her and Trump.

Record of being pro-Israel, though. Which, however, didn't really come up much during her career so far, which was entirely at the state and local level.

Despite her Israel support and otherwise fairly standard Democratic positions, it's arguably a bit strange that her solid anti-Trump bona fides haven't given her a better position in polls yet, where she doesn't seem to do too well. Perhaps people simply haven't heard of her? Being term-limited, she probably won't have a day job in 2027, which might give her a lot of time to spend in early primary states. Perhaps that might improve her standing.


So much for the serious or sort-of serious or perhaps potentially serious candidates. Now for two brief honorable mentions:


Rahm Emanuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

Born 1959

Former this; former that; former various other things.

A few people seem to have seriously suggested that Rahm Emanuel might be a contender for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the USA. To these people, I say: Thank you. In grim times like these, it's important to get a bit of comic relief every now and then.


Bernie Sanders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Born 1941

Senator from Vermont; before that, Member of the House from Vermont; before that, Mayor of Burlington.

Probably no introduction necessary for him, either. Has explicitly said that he won't run again. Would be, assuming nothing happens to him, 87 on election day 2028, and 91 at the end of a hypothetical first term.

Despite these facts and numbers, there still seem to be a few strange people who hope that he will run again. Let it go, people. Let it go.

[malloc]

Interesting and detailed analysis. Unfortunately it does highlight a major problem facing the Democrats these says, the tension between centrists and leftists. Any prospective nominee has quite a difficult needle to thread in appealing to both of these factions enough to win the election.

[zompist]

I don't have any special knowledge about Pritzker-- reading the Wikipedia article, he strikes me as very good for a conventional Democrat, and seems to get along well enough with progressives. I think his recognition outside Illinois is low, but he might rise as an alternative to Newsom.

I think AOC is one of the stars of the party, but honestly before she tries for president it would be better to show that she can win somewhere besides NYC.

Though amusing, I think your view of Vance may be overblown. His popularity is a tad above Trump's. I suspect the 2028 Rep primaries are going to be t the strangest political circus since the death of Stalin. If Trump is still alive, he'll still dominate the news cycle. And if not... Trump likes to surround himself with, to use the right-wingers' own worldview, beta males. Guys who will wear shoes too big for them to prove their loyalty. They may have their Beria in Stephen Miller, but I don't think that guy is electable.

[jcb]

Lindsey Graham has died. No "Weekend at Bernie's" shenanigans with this one.

Graham died Saturday night “from a brief and sudden illness,” his office said in a statement.

[Raphael]

I don't have any special knowledge about Pritzker-- reading the Wikipedia article, he strikes me as very good for a conventional Democrat, and seems to get along well enough with progressives. I think his recognition outside Illinois is low, but he might rise as an alternative to Newsom.

He's still a billionaire, though. I don't think either primary voters or maybe-maybe-not type general election voters would like that.

I think AOC is one of the stars of the party, but honestly before she tries for president it would be better to show that she can win somewhere besides NYC.

I tend to agree.

Though amusing, I think your view of Vance may be overblown. His popularity is a tad above Trump's. I suspect the 2028 Rep primaries are going to be t the strangest political circus since the death of Stalin. If Trump is still alive, he'll still dominate the news cycle. And if not... Trump likes to surround himself with, to use the right-wingers' own worldview, beta males. Guys who will wear shoes too big for them to prove their loyalty. They may have their Beria in Stephen Miller, but I don't think that guy is electable.

Fair points. I had originally planned to write a bit about potential Republican contenders, too, but then I decided that it was late, I had written enough, and I just wanted to post something, dammit.

Interesting to hear that Vance is now more popular than Trump himself. I think that wasn't the case back in 2024? But, well, if Trump would have died a year ago, while the Vance Administration, during that time, would certainly have been as generally horrible as the Trump Administration really was, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as comically horrible. Probably no clown shoes, no obsession with triumphal arcs or party halls, and no losing of a struggle against brainless single-celled organisms. So it would probably have done better in the polls. Trump himself personally is, right now, the weakest part of the larger Trumpist movement.

As for the clown shoes worn by beta males, this reminds me... a while ago, I saw a Bluesky thread by John Cole, of "Balloon Juice" fame, claiming that the GOP elites supposedly all wanted Rubio as Trump's successor. I generally respect Cole, but I'm not buying it.

First, there's the whole Latino thing. Yes, he's Cuban, which might be almost honorary white, but that's still not the same as "white white". Yes, before Trump, right-wingers liked to keep a few POCs around for decorative purposes, but even back then, they generally wouldn't have wanted him to actually rise all the way to the top, and now, even less so.

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, based on what I've seen and heard of Rubio so far, he seems to have basically the personality of a bullies' toady. And the GOP base generally wants their leaders to be regular bullies themselves, not people who suck up to bullies. I've seen a convincing argument long ago that that was a main part of Romney's problem back in 2012.

As for the GOP elites, if they'd always get what they want, Trump would never have been nominated in the first place.

[Raphael]

Lindsey Graham has died. No "Weekend at Bernie's" shenanigans with this one.

Graham died Saturday night “from a brief and sudden illness,” his office said in a statement.

South Carolina has a Republican Governor and is one of the states that authorize the Governor to instantly appoint a replacement, so no shenanigans necessary.

[Raphael]

Please forgive me for getting a bit less-than-completely political for a moment in this thread, but does anyone else find the way Lindsey Graham died a little bit worrying? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean in some kind of bonkers conspiracy theory way. I just mean in an "It sort of makes you think" way.

As in, they say it was "a brief and sudden illness". Of course I know about long illnesses, which can end in death. Shorter illnesses might, sometimes, too. And then there's medical conditions, which often result from older illnesses, and which can kill you pretty quickly, like strokes and heart attacks.

But a "brief and sudden illness"? That sounds to me as if he got the common cold and then died of that. Huh. I guess I should know that stuff like that can happen, especially at his age. But still a bit of a shock to hear about it in that way.

[rotting bones]

Populism is at heart, telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it makes sense. How does that help?
Electorally it would work in theory, except that the right-wing has a twenty year headstart.

The quoted article is clearly about a style of talking. The word you're looking for might be demagoguery. Populism means a politics based on policies that are actually popular. Left-leaning policies are always more popular than what technocratic elite wants.

Furthermore, the people are right and the experts are wrong this time. It IS harder for ordinary workers to afford essentials: https://youtu.be/AtBOEN-wdU4

If you don't promise voters what they want, they're simply not going to vote for you no matter how much of a head start the other side has and no matter how right or wrong anyone is about anything.

But let's assume the left could make it work (even though it can't): a left-wing loud narcissist telling people what they want to hear isn't much of an improvement over a right-wing one.
People assume you can have the big loud mouth without the character issues. I don't think it works that way.

I don't think Trump is in control of as much as he'd like to be. The people actually running America are his Heritage Foundation buddies.

I'm just like everybody else is that I want my side to win, but not at the cost of having to root for an incompetent narcissist.

Founders of the Democratic Socialists of America describe themselves as populists. In the US, AOC and Bernie are considered to be the populist left. Are you saying they're narcissists?

The US is so right-wing, common sense is considered being a loudmouth here.

[malloc]

Interesting to hear that Vance is now more popular than Trump himself.

That's quite alarming to hear. It means that Trump dying would only strengthen the MAGA movement.

[Travis B.]

Please forgive me for getting a bit less-than-completely political for a moment in this thread, but does anyone else find the way Lindsey Graham died a little bit worrying? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean in some kind of bonkers conspiracy theory way. I just mean in an "It sort of makes you think" way.

As in, they say it was "a brief and sudden illness". Of course I know about long illnesses, which can end in death. Shorter illnesses might, sometimes, too. And then there's medical conditions, which often result from older illnesses, and which can kill you pretty quickly, like strokes and heart attacks.

But a "brief and sudden illness"? That sounds to me as if he got the common cold and then died of that. Huh. I guess I should know that stuff like that can happen, especially at his age. But still a bit of a shock to hear about it in that way.

They're saying he died of an aortic tear, which really is not suspicious for someone of his age.

[malloc]

Somehow, Mitch McConnell has returned.

[Torco]

we have a saying in spanish, la mala hierba nunca muere.

[jcb]

Populism is at heart, telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it makes sense. How does that help?
Electorally it would work in theory, except that the right-wing has a twenty year headstart.

(1) No it's not.
(2) What's so bad about "telling people what they want to hear"? Hearing liberals say stuff like this makes me deeply suspicious of whose side they're on. It sounds awfully similar to elites telling proles to just accept their sorry lot in life and get over it.

[Ares Land]

(1) No it's not.
(2) What's so bad about "telling people what they want to hear"? Hearing liberals say stuff like this makes me deeply suspicious of whose side they're on. It sounds awfully similar to elites telling proles to just accept their sorry lot in life and get over it.

Like everybody else, of course I prefer and vote for politicians that are as close to my ideas as possible. And of course candidates should be able to speak to their voters and adequately represent them. So in itself, there's really nothing wrong with 'telling people what they want to hear.'

But it shouldn't stop there. We should also ask: why are people telling these things? Do they believe in what they're saying? Do they intend to act on these views? Do their opinions vary when they're talking to a different audience?

Seemingly nobody asked these questions about Platner.

I really get the appeal of fiery charismatic leaders that are willing to fight dirty for your side.
The problem is that this is a magnet for narcissists, who are all charm and charisma and all empty behind that facade. They're in fact better at it; they can say anything that works because they don't believe in anything.

So yes, we should be wary of politicians that seem to be saying all the right things and press all the right buttons, just like we should be wary of 'Make money fast!!!' schemes.

[Raphael]

Seemingly nobody asked these questions about Platner.

A number of people did. They did not exactly get a friendly.

So yes, we should be wary of politicians that seem to be saying all the right things and press all the right buttons, just like we should be wary of 'Make money fast!!!' schemes.

So, so true.

[Raphael]

I'm now seeing talk that Trump's plan is to have Maduro, as part of a plea deal, "confess" to having manipulated the 2020 elections, use that to justify declaring a state of emergency, and use that to justify taking over the elections and making sure the GOP "wins". Not that I want to sound like malloc, but I'd really like to know how to stop this.

[zompist]

I'm now seeing talk that Trump's plan is to have Maduro, as part of a plea deal, "confess" to having manipulated the 2020 elections, use that to justify declaring a state of emergency, and use that to justify taking over the elections and making sure the GOP "wins". Not that I want to sound like malloc, but I'd really like to know how to stop this.

Why not just be simpler about it, and suggest that Trump could go to Congress tomorrow, shoot machine guns until everyone is dead, and appoint himself Dictator for Life? That would be bad. Can anyone prove that he won't do that?

What if he takes off his mask, reveals himself to be a reptiloid from Planet 10, and explains that through climate change he is terraforming Earth for his fellow aliens? That would be bad. Can we prove that it's not true?

Is there really not enough to worry about in the world?

There is no "state of emergency" to declare. There is no "taking over the elections", there is no "make sure the GOP wins." We can't prove this to you, but we shouldn't have to, for the same reason we don't have to disprove every nightmare someone on the Internet comes up with ten times a day.

Unlike malloc, you should have some basic understanding of US elections, and US elections are not run by the federal government.

[jcb]

(1) No it's not.
(2) What's so bad about "telling people what they want to hear"? Hearing liberals say stuff like this makes me deeply suspicious of whose side they're on. It sounds awfully similar to elites telling proles to just accept their sorry lot in life and get over it.

Like everybody else, of course I prefer and vote for politicians that are as close to my ideas as possible. And of course candidates should be able to speak to their voters and adequately represent them. So in itself, there's really nothing wrong with 'telling people what they want to hear.'

But it shouldn't stop there. We should also ask: why are people telling these things? Do they believe in what they're saying? Do they intend to act on these views? Do their opinions vary when they're talking to a different audience?

Seemingly nobody asked these questions about Platner.

I really get the appeal of fiery charismatic leaders that are willing to fight dirty for your side.
The problem is that this is a magnet for narcissists, who are all charm and charisma and all empty behind that facade. They're in fact better at it; they can say anything that works because they don't believe in anything.

So yes, we should be wary of politicians that seem to be saying all the right things and press all the right buttons, just like we should be wary of 'Make money fast!!!' schemes.

My thoughts:
- I don't think Platner was a narcissist.
- Platner would not have run if he wasn't convinced to do so by a group of political operatives (who now look very foolish).
- Platner's problems were his having raped a woman, his nazi tattoo, and other personal things, not his policies.
- When did Platner change his answers for a different audience?
- Why don't you apply that same curiosity to (Hillary) Clinton and Obama?, asking why they thought a $15 minimum wage was too much, or why they're infatuated with education and tech companies, or why they declined to prosecute bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crash?

[Ares Land]

The guy had a Nazi tattoo. Of course his views weren’t wha he said they were!
There was no problems with his platform, but what would he have done once elected, and do we even want to know?

I don’t mean 'narcissist' as an actual diagnosis. To put it another way: some people want Trump liike personalities, except on their side. So they get, well Trump like personalities.

It’s not just on the Democratic Socialist wing either. See also: Gavin Newsom.

I don’t know why you bring up Hillary Clinton and Obama. But asking the same questions -- Obama ran as a moderate liberal, he is a moderate liberal and governed as one.
What your're saying is that he was a moderate liberal and not a democratic socialist, which is an entirely different issue.

[Raphael]

I'm now seeing talk that Trump's plan is to have Maduro, as part of a plea deal, "confess" to having manipulated the 2020 elections, use that to justify declaring a state of emergency, and use that to justify taking over the elections and making sure the GOP "wins". Not that I want to sound like malloc, but I'd really like to know how to stop this.

Why not just be simpler about it, and suggest that Trump could go to Congress tomorrow, shoot machine guns until everyone is dead, and appoint himself Dictator for Life? That would be bad. Can anyone prove that he won't do that?

What if he takes off his mask, reveals himself to be a reptiloid from Planet 10, and explains that through climate change he is terraforming Earth for his fellow aliens? That would be bad. Can we prove that it's not true?

Is there really not enough to worry about in the world?

There is no "state of emergency" to declare. There is no "taking over the elections", there is no "make sure the GOP wins." We can't prove this to you, but we shouldn't have to, for the same reason we don't have to disprove every nightmare someone on the Internet comes up with ten times a day.

Unlike malloc, you should have some basic understanding of US elections, and US elections are not run by the federal government.

Well, we might see what they're up to on Thursday.