TYT says that no Corporate Democrat can win the presidency in 2028

[Hardkill]

Cenk and Ana say that the Democratic party has to now realize that if any of the Democrats like Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee in 2028, then they are going to get slaughtered by a faux-populist Republican nominee whether it is someone like JD Vance or Tucker Carlson by then.

 

 

Since 2016, they were right about their warnings of Trump and have been right about the Democrats needing to run hard as economic populists.

However, how do they know which candidate is best to put up if hardcore progressives like them haven't even won most statewide elections?

Also, why was Ana chumming it up with Tucker Carlson?

Edited Sunday at 05:16 AM by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

I think it's mostly about personality. It has to be somebody likeable, with an authentic identity rather than a soulless career politician who says calculated things to not offend anyone. The candidate needs to be someone with charm and charisma.

Pundits place way too much importance on policies and not enough on personality.

Find a great personality.

[Hardkill]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think it's mostly about personality. It has to be somebody likeable, with an authentic identity rather than a soulless career politician who says calculated things to not offend anyone. The candidate needs to be someone with charm and charisma.

Pundits place way too much importance on policies and not enough on personality.

Find a great personality.

Apparently, that’s the case—especially in this day and age.

Also, Democrats in general tend to be more afraid of offending anyone than Republicans—partly because the Democratic Party has always been far more diverse, and partly because Democrats often lack spine, while Republicans lack principles.

It’s interesting that Cenk and Ana have repeatedly described Newsom as a soulless career politician or a corporate robot who will say anything to gain power.

Yet it’s entirely possible that Newsom could be the best candidate in 2028. Progressives like them often propose impractical candidates and unrealistic solutions to the Democratic Party’s problems.

They suggest that someone like Jon Stewart, Shawn Fain, or Shaun O’Brien should be the Democratic presidential nominee, but there’s never been any real indication that any of them are interested in running.

Now they’re claiming that AOC has a real shot at winning the presidency—which is, frankly, ridiculous.

I’m actually surprised that some more mainstream pundits like Chuck Todd and Chris Cillizza have recently said that AOC might very well win the presidency in 2028.

 

Edited Sunday at 06:56 AM by Hardkill

[BlueOak]

AOC is more likeable than both Trump and Newsom but she's a woman, and right now when people are seeking out strong masculine role models, a man wins this election. - Not my bias, I couldn't care less, I am telling you the obvious trend.

Trump is already losing because the economic reality is bad at the moment. Though if we all go to war, traditionally, his polls will spike up for a while.

The democrats are seen as weak, feminine, old and indecisive. - So you need a leader who is strong, masculine, full of energy and decisive. Who gets to that podium and owns it. Who shows the contrast to Trump, a charismatic but aging leader, who is easily led around on ego, and says the first thing that comes into his head (if he can remember it).

We are close to war, we need stability, a cool but firm hand on the reins, who will descalate but not be a doormat or appease - appease - appease, and if it comes to it fight but remain rational and fight to stabilise, hold and cool the situation off, rather than escalate.

[BlueOak]

By design I didn't mention corporate or progressive because the average person won't either.

[Leo Gura]

I think AOC has an "annoying young woman" factor that will not play well.

I personally like her, but I think she's way too easy to demonize as an annoying radical to average voters.

And she is genuinely quite young and inexperienced for that role. Maybe in 10 years she would be ripe for a run.

The fundamental problem TYT progressives have is that they are not mainstream, not popular. TYT lives in an echochamber, sniffing their own farts.

Edited Sunday at 02:03 PM by Leo Gura

[Lyubov]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think AOC has an "annoying young woman" factor that will not play well.

I personally like her, but I think she's way too easy to demonize as an annoying radical to average voters.

And she is genuinely quite young and inexperienced for that role. Maybe in 10 years she would be ripe for a run.

The fundamental problem TYT progressives have is that they are not mainstream, not popular. TYT lives in an echochamber, sniffing their own farts.

Much of what Trump was parroting back in 2015 wasn’t mainstream and he was seen as a total joke by most people. I think bold new ideas and charisma is what the Dems need. I think many of the left wing populists are much more charismatic by virtue. They genuinely want to instill change and are speaking from bold new ideas that may be controversial but that imo is what dems need. A corporate shill / centrist politician I don’t think is the way forward. Dems need to match right wing radicals with their own radical force based in democratic values. 

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I think AOC has an "annoying young woman" factor that will not play well.

I personally like her, but I think she's way too easy to demonize as an annoying radical to average voters.

And she is genuinely quite young and inexperienced for that role. Maybe in 10 years she would be ripe for a run.

The fundamental problem TYT progressives have is that they are not mainstream, not popular. TYT lives in an echochamber, sniffing their own farts.

So, then how did TYT progressives realize in 2016 and 2024 that Trump had a serious chance of winning the presidency during those years?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

Much of what Trump was parroting back in 2015 wasn’t mainstream and he was seen as a total joke by most people.

It's totally different because the shit Trump says hits the reptile brain of 100 million ignorant survival zombies.

You do not have that advantage as a progressive.

Conservatives are marketing bacon, cocaine, and pussy while progressives are marketing celery and oatmeal.

[Hardkill]

56 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's totally different because the shit Trump says hits the reptile brain of 100 million ignorant survival zombies.

You do not have that advantage as a progressive.

Conservatives are marketing bacon, cocaine, and pussy while progressives are marketing celery and oatmeal.

So then, how do we reconcile that with the fact that progressives have been right since 2016 about Democrats not doing enough to market economic populism?

In fact, why have progressives—like AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani—been much better at crafting simple, compelling, and easy-to-understand messages with a clear and bold vision than the more moderate or establishment Democrats?

Edited Sunday at 05:34 PM by Hardkill

[Lyubov]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's totally different because the shit Trump says hits the reptile brain of 100 million ignorant survival zombies.

You do not have that advantage as a progressive.

Conservatives are marketing bacon, cocaine, and pussy while progressives are marketing celery and oatmeal.

Maybe. I just don’t think Dems running as centrists or a status quo agenda will cut it in 2025. I still have a little faith some decency will return and bold ideas are not as impossible as we think. Miracles have happened before. 

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

Conservatives are marketing bacon, cocaine, and pussy while progressives are marketing celery and oatmeal.

You don't prosper with celery and oatmeal

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So then, how do we reconcile that with the fact that progressives have been right since 2016 about Democrats not doing enough to market economic populism?

They haven't been right. Criticizing is much easier than winning elections.

They will be right when they win elections, not call lost elections.

Progressives have been responsible for Trump's victories.

10 hours ago, Hardkill said:

In fact, why have progressives—like AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani—been much better at crafting simple, compelling, and easy-to-understand messages with a clear and bold vision than the more moderate or establishment Democrats?

They haven't. Far more centrists win elections than progressives.

Progressives are just so self-absorbed they don't even notice.

[Hardkill]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They haven't been right. Criticizing is much easier than winning elections.

They will be right when they win elections, not call lost elections.

Progressives have been responsible for Trump's victories.

They haven't. Far more centrists win elections than progressives.

Progressives are just so self-absorbed they don't even notice.

I get your point. You're right that winning matters more than just being morally 'right.' And yes, a lot of progressives have fallen into the trap of being critics rather than coalition builders. But here's my question:

If progressives have struck a nerve with younger voters, working-class frustration, and bold vision, but still struggle to win power, then what exactly do you think they should do differently? Should they water down their vision? Change the messenger? Shift the tone? Or just wait another decade?"

Because if the only answer is “act more like centrists,” then that defeats the whole purpose of running with a bold alternative in the first place, and Democrats may never win major elections again. So what’s the actionable path forward, not just the critique?

[BlueOak]

Masculine.
Leadership.
Qualities.

 

[Something Funny]

4 hours ago, Hardkill said:

If progressives have struck a nerve with younger voters, working-class frustration, and bold vision, but still struggle to win power, then what exactly do you think they should do differently? Should they water down their vision? Change the messenger? Shift the tone? Or just wait another decade?"

They didn't, there are lots of young people who are right wingers.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Hardkill said:

then what exactly do you think they should do differently?

The most important thing they need to do is to expand their worldview beyond their ideological echochamber. They need to be more realistic and understanding about why the majority of voters are not progressive. And they need to stop blaming centrists for everything.

They need to admit that progressivism is a minority position.

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The most important thing they need to do is to expand their worldview beyond their ideological echochamber. They need to be more realistic and understanding about why the majority of voters are not progressive. And they need to stop blaming centrists for everything.

They need to admit that progressivism is a minority position.

If progressives really are such a small influence on everything, why does it matter what they say or do?

Like it or not, the left is the left. Its multiple voices not one singular voice.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

If progressives really are such a small influence on everything, why does it matter what they say or do?

Tell that to them.

They are the ones who act so self-important.

The truth is that progressives are too self-absorbed to admit that they do not matter. This would kill them inside.

[Hatfort]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Tell that to them.

They are the ones who act so self-important.

The truth is that progressives are too self-absorbed to admit that they do not matter. This would kill them inside.

But they do matter. 

Democrats will not win if they don't integrate progressive votes, and for that, they need to concede on some things, not only by word, but with real action. Figures like Mandami are getting success for something. It's different in the UK, but Jeremy Corbyn is successfully creating a new party. Although he won the Labour Party primaries some years ago, the establishment didn't accept this, and managed to kick him out. 

I'm all for Newsom, he has charisma, and can punch back. I'd tell him he should take notes from Mamdami's campaign. AOC would be my VP pick for him, but they need to step down from the Israrel bus, it's a pariah state doing the worst things we've seen this new century.