Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
A lot of unfavored Republicans won Senate races in 2016 and 2024 because of the downballot effect, choosing a weaker POTUS candidate to save one Senate seat is like sacrificing your Queen and both Rooks to save one Knight.
Meanwhile, off topic here but we don’t have threads for anywhere but the US, Europe and Canada (which is pretty sad), Bolsonaro junior lost to Lula. I guess the stakes were among the highest for humanity, as he probably would have followed in Jair footsteps and burn (the remaining) half of the Amazon forest.
The other good news is that towing your campaign to Trump is starting to under preform compared to the polls rather than over preform. The more toxic he becomes to other candidates globally will directly lower his influence, which is a win for humanity.
On October 26 2026 23:42 Billyboy wrote: I could see Talarico getting a big push towards the White House if he is able to do the once thought impossible, and take a senate seat in Texas. Leaning into his fight with Musk is keeping in the national news. And he also is siphoning some ex Republicans, or current republicans that hate MAGA, see George w bush’s brother.
If he takes a Texas Senate seat, he should sit on that seat for the duration and do stuff. He can think about the white house in 6? years.
Anything else would be both dishonest and stupid.
I suspect most of the people who voted for him would be happy to see him go on to a WAY more powerful position where he can enact way more of the policy and change he campaigned for. I also believe the same as LS that it could help flip additional seats. And it is just pretty common in the US for people to swap to better opportunities mid term when it’s available.
On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that?
Obama wasn't instantly replaced with a Republican like Talerico would be for one. It's obviously stupid, but I could cut some slack on the "dishonest" part.
On October 24 2026 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote: @ Jankisa:
On October 23 2026 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 23 2026 03:35 Jankisa wrote:
On October 23 2026 00:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 23 2026 00:13 Jankisa wrote: [quote]
You've been reading my posts long enough to know who they are, first you spoiler them out and then you pretend like you don't know who I am talking about.
That is both dishonest and shitty.
They literally aren't there, and I didn't want to assume, which is why I asked.
I would guess AOC, but beyond that I don't know. If there's agreement among everyone like there is on Buttigieg on someone more progressive than Buttigieg I'd like to see it.
Let's say AOC is one of them, you please enlighten me who would pass your purity testing, hopefully someone who might stand a chance.
I acknowledge, and have previously, that AOC is a very long shot, Bernie goes into the same category due to age, I'd also love someone like Liz Warren, Lina Khan, hell, even if we are doing wish list Al Franken and Jon Stewart would be on the wish list.
Now, put your anti-electoralism aside and tell me if anyone who is eligible to run would be worthy of your vote.
Bernie, AOC, and Lina Khan, could earn my vote (setting aside that my vote is obviated by the system and is functionally aesthetic, like DPB voting in a primary).
If people here agreed and actually wanted to do the work for any of them to win in 2028, I'd be willing to work toward that.
Was that not a workable answer for you?
It's fine, however, to me, and I might be the weird one, going into pros and cons of candidates as I did 3-4 times already since we started talking (occasionally) about 2028 candidates, trying to understand and game out their potential positions and shifts from what they are now is a much more interesting way to engage this topic then "I'd be willing to work toward that".
Doesn't really push the discussion forward, if you know what I mean.
I'm glad you would be on board, unfortunately out of these 3, 1 is not going to run, 1 is too old to run and 3rd has the fact that she's a latina woman going against her, so she faces an uphill battle.
I still think she could do it, especially if the support behind her is reluctant and not enthusiastic because everyone is trying to do their own calculations.
Anyone not addicted to engaging oBlade types at length is "weird" around here.
I disagree that it doesn't push the conversation forward. It seems like we've established AOC is the only candidate more progressive than Buttigieg that is actually on the table and that it would take a massive organized effort and a lot of work (comparable to 2016 Bernie) to get her there.
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president?
And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"?
I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg.
Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism.
GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world?
I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her?
To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems.
On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that?
I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico.
AOC is the best I got for that all things considered.
If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me?
Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board.
On October 26 2026 05:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Demonstrating your inconsistency when you say that not wanting mail from the government should be a good enough reason not to receive mail from the government. You're right that serving jury duty and paying property taxes are legal obligations, and voting is not, so maybe you should be more careful before making a broad statement that incorporates some things that are mandatory and some things that are optional.
You have to pay property taxes. You have to do jury duty (to a point).
You do not have to have a driver's license, or a passport card.
Therefore, if I don't want the government to send me a passport card in the mail, they won't. Notice people don't die of Republican oppression when the government doesn't automatically (?) send them driver's licenses and passport cards they didn't request. This has nothing to do with sending them regularly vs. sending them once. You cannot send the first voter IDs automagically because they don't exist to begin with. You are stuck on "government sends" because of this OCD shutdown you do of pretending not to understand the point, and getting tunnel vision on one or two words. I do not want the government to create something, a sensitive ID, that I don't want to exist, without me asking for them to make it, and send it to me, without me asking for them to send it, with me having had no part in its creation ("automatically"), and on top of that through first-class mail. This entire discussion is me responding to a question you predicated on an impossibility. I do not receive IDs through first-class mail. I do not get my driver's license, my birth certificate, my passport card, my real ID, through first-class mail. Because I do not want them in the mail and do not request them. You can if you want, it's your own business. In the event I have to send or get my passports, they're always tracked/guaranteed/certified.
Similarly, with the free voter ID option, I do not have to receive a mandatory unsolicited ID in order not to disenfranchise an imbecile somewhere. The imbecile can figure out a way to apply for and request their free ID, like voters can do in Georgia and Texas. Their system is good. Your idea wasn't.
It sounds like you're very passionate about not wanting a sensitive ID created when you don't think it's necessary. Now, try to have the empathy to realize this exactly applies to eligible voters who have been legally voting without any issues whatsoever, who suddenly might become disenfranchised without the creation of a new sensitive ID that isn't necessary.
Correct, it isn't necessary, it's optional. If they don't want to vote, they don't have to get it.
Except we're talking about the eligible people that do want to vote, which is why this is disenfranchisement. That's the entire problem with this new, irrelevant "necessity". There's no reason to have it, and the more conditions you add, the more potential voters you push away. None of this matters if you're only considering people who aren't going to vote anyway, or if you're going to shrug off the situation with "well then they just won't vote anymore". That's not okay.
Let me put on my empathy cap and put myself in this ID-less person's shoes. I have no bank account because I have no photo ID. I can't buy cigarettes or alcohol or a gun, I'm not in the army, God knows how I signed any contract, and I don't want to learn how to drive, and I don't want to get a passport to be able to leave the country. Wow - I'm grateful the state offers the option of a free photo ID for me to be able to vote. And I'm doubly glad the state secures elections in this way by putting the same requirements on everyone - SOME kind of a choice of various IDs (so it's not additional, people with driver's licenses just already took the steps that are equally necessary for everyone).
The fact that you think there are a bunch of eligible voters who are functionally indistinguishable from ineligible/shouldn't-voters is its own interesting confession about integrity.
The difference already exists: being legally registered/able to vote or not being legally registered/able to vote. That's the functional difference because the function is voting. The government already receives this answer, and it's worked fine so far, as is. There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud, so there's no reason to add anything else to the process.
On October 26 2026 20:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: But I guess if you call them "imbeciles", you can pretend like you don't know that voters who don't have driver's licenses disproportionately live in cities (they're less likely to drive), voters who don't have passports are disproportionately poor (they're less likely to travel out of the country), and voters whose current name doesn't match their birth certificate name are disproportionately women (they're more likely to change their last name after being married).
A married person with no ID and a new last name can get a birth certificate and marriage license copy, and then get a free ID. Can even get help if there's a problem with the above, and that's important because you need ID for lots of stuff.
If those prerequisite documents were also free, then it would be something new to consider, but unfortunately they cost money.
On October 26 2026 20:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: All three of these demographics tend to vote for Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, and despite there being zero evidence of widespread voter fraud, Republicans are pushing for these Democrat-leaning groups to jump through additional, unnecessary hoops for the (fake) sake of election integrity.
Thank you for posting this; I didn't know that Republicans were actually more disenfranchised in some of these cases. Since my position against voter disenfranchisement isn't partisan, I still maintain that we shouldn't be requiring more hoops for voters to jump through (whether those hoops end up hurting Democrats or Republicans more).
On October 24 2026 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote: @ Jankisa:
On October 23 2026 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 23 2026 03:35 Jankisa wrote:
On October 23 2026 00:17 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] They literally aren't there, and I didn't want to assume, which is why I asked.
I would guess AOC, but beyond that I don't know. If there's agreement among everyone like there is on Buttigieg on someone more progressive than Buttigieg I'd like to see it.
Let's say AOC is one of them, you please enlighten me who would pass your purity testing, hopefully someone who might stand a chance.
I acknowledge, and have previously, that AOC is a very long shot, Bernie goes into the same category due to age, I'd also love someone like Liz Warren, Lina Khan, hell, even if we are doing wish list Al Franken and Jon Stewart would be on the wish list.
Now, put your anti-electoralism aside and tell me if anyone who is eligible to run would be worthy of your vote.
Bernie, AOC, and Lina Khan, could earn my vote (setting aside that my vote is obviated by the system and is functionally aesthetic, like DPB voting in a primary).
If people here agreed and actually wanted to do the work for any of them to win in 2028, I'd be willing to work toward that.
Was that not a workable answer for you?
It's fine, however, to me, and I might be the weird one, going into pros and cons of candidates as I did 3-4 times already since we started talking (occasionally) about 2028 candidates, trying to understand and game out their potential positions and shifts from what they are now is a much more interesting way to engage this topic then "I'd be willing to work toward that".
Doesn't really push the discussion forward, if you know what I mean.
I'm glad you would be on board, unfortunately out of these 3, 1 is not going to run, 1 is too old to run and 3rd has the fact that she's a latina woman going against her, so she faces an uphill battle.
I still think she could do it, especially if the support behind her is reluctant and not enthusiastic because everyone is trying to do their own calculations.
Anyone not addicted to engaging oBlade types at length is "weird" around here.
I disagree that it doesn't push the conversation forward. It seems like we've established AOC is the only candidate more progressive than Buttigieg that is actually on the table and that it would take a massive organized effort and a lot of work (comparable to 2016 Bernie) to get her there.
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president?
And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"?
I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg.
Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism.
GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world?
I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her?
To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems.
On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that?
I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico.
AOC is the best I got for that all things considered.
If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me?
Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board.
In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil?
On October 24 2026 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote: @ Jankisa:
On October 23 2026 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 23 2026 03:35 Jankisa wrote: [quote]
Let's say AOC is one of them, you please enlighten me who would pass your purity testing, hopefully someone who might stand a chance.
I acknowledge, and have previously, that AOC is a very long shot, Bernie goes into the same category due to age, I'd also love someone like Liz Warren, Lina Khan, hell, even if we are doing wish list Al Franken and Jon Stewart would be on the wish list.
Now, put your anti-electoralism aside and tell me if anyone who is eligible to run would be worthy of your vote.
Bernie, AOC, and Lina Khan, could earn my vote (setting aside that my vote is obviated by the system and is functionally aesthetic, like DPB voting in a primary).
If people here agreed and actually wanted to do the work for any of them to win in 2028, I'd be willing to work toward that.
Was that not a workable answer for you?
It's fine, however, to me, and I might be the weird one, going into pros and cons of candidates as I did 3-4 times already since we started talking (occasionally) about 2028 candidates, trying to understand and game out their potential positions and shifts from what they are now is a much more interesting way to engage this topic then "I'd be willing to work toward that".
Doesn't really push the discussion forward, if you know what I mean.
I'm glad you would be on board, unfortunately out of these 3, 1 is not going to run, 1 is too old to run and 3rd has the fact that she's a latina woman going against her, so she faces an uphill battle.
I still think she could do it, especially if the support behind her is reluctant and not enthusiastic because everyone is trying to do their own calculations.
Anyone not addicted to engaging oBlade types at length is "weird" around here.
I disagree that it doesn't push the conversation forward. It seems like we've established AOC is the only candidate more progressive than Buttigieg that is actually on the table and that it would take a massive organized effort and a lot of work (comparable to 2016 Bernie) to get her there.
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president?
And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"?
I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg.
Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism.
GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world?
I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her?
To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems.
On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that?
I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico.
AOC is the best I got for that all things considered.
If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me?
Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board.
In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil?
That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best.
On October 24 2026 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote: @ Jankisa:
On October 23 2026 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Bernie, AOC, and Lina Khan, could earn my vote (setting aside that my vote is obviated by the system and is functionally aesthetic, like DPB voting in a primary).
If people here agreed and actually wanted to do the work for any of them to win in 2028, I'd be willing to work toward that.
Was that not a workable answer for you?
It's fine, however, to me, and I might be the weird one, going into pros and cons of candidates as I did 3-4 times already since we started talking (occasionally) about 2028 candidates, trying to understand and game out their potential positions and shifts from what they are now is a much more interesting way to engage this topic then "I'd be willing to work toward that".
Doesn't really push the discussion forward, if you know what I mean.
I'm glad you would be on board, unfortunately out of these 3, 1 is not going to run, 1 is too old to run and 3rd has the fact that she's a latina woman going against her, so she faces an uphill battle.
I still think she could do it, especially if the support behind her is reluctant and not enthusiastic because everyone is trying to do their own calculations.
Anyone not addicted to engaging oBlade types at length is "weird" around here.
I disagree that it doesn't push the conversation forward. It seems like we've established AOC is the only candidate more progressive than Buttigieg that is actually on the table and that it would take a massive organized effort and a lot of work (comparable to 2016 Bernie) to get her there.
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president?
And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"?
I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg.
Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism.
GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world?
I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her?
To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems.
On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that?
I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico.
AOC is the best I got for that all things considered.
If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me?
Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board.
In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil?
That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best.
Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren?
On October 24 2026 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote: @ Jankisa: [quote]
Was that not a workable answer for you?
It's fine, however, to me, and I might be the weird one, going into pros and cons of candidates as I did 3-4 times already since we started talking (occasionally) about 2028 candidates, trying to understand and game out their potential positions and shifts from what they are now is a much more interesting way to engage this topic then "I'd be willing to work toward that".
Doesn't really push the discussion forward, if you know what I mean.
I'm glad you would be on board, unfortunately out of these 3, 1 is not going to run, 1 is too old to run and 3rd has the fact that she's a latina woman going against her, so she faces an uphill battle.
I still think she could do it, especially if the support behind her is reluctant and not enthusiastic because everyone is trying to do their own calculations.
Anyone not addicted to engaging oBlade types at length is "weird" around here.
I disagree that it doesn't push the conversation forward. It seems like we've established AOC is the only candidate more progressive than Buttigieg that is actually on the table and that it would take a massive organized effort and a lot of work (comparable to 2016 Bernie) to get her there.
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president?
And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"?
I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg.
Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism.
GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world?
I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her?
To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems.
On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that?
I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico.
AOC is the best I got for that all things considered.
If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me?
Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board.
In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil?
That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best.
Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren?
Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency.
It's fine, however, to me, and I might be the weird one, going into pros and cons of candidates as I did 3-4 times already since we started talking (occasionally) about 2028 candidates, trying to understand and game out their potential positions and shifts from what they are now is a much more interesting way to engage this topic then "I'd be willing to work toward that".
Doesn't really push the discussion forward, if you know what I mean.
I'm glad you would be on board, unfortunately out of these 3, 1 is not going to run, 1 is too old to run and 3rd has the fact that she's a latina woman going against her, so she faces an uphill battle.
I still think she could do it, especially if the support behind her is reluctant and not enthusiastic because everyone is trying to do their own calculations.
Anyone not addicted to engaging oBlade types at length is "weird" around here.
I disagree that it doesn't push the conversation forward. It seems like we've established AOC is the only candidate more progressive than Buttigieg that is actually on the table and that it would take a massive organized effort and a lot of work (comparable to 2016 Bernie) to get her there.
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president?
And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"?
I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg.
Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism.
GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world?
I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her?
To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems.
On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that?
I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico.
AOC is the best I got for that all things considered.
If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me?
Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board.
In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil?
That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best.
Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren?
Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency.
Remember that time Trump said that some of the Neonazis/Klansmen at the "Unite the Right" rally in 2017 where Heather Heyer was murdered were "very fine people" and right-wing news outlets gaslit people into thinking it was out of context?
One day Trump will be dead, but the stink of K-pop salutes and leaked groupchats on the Republican Party won't wash away for a generation or more.
On October 26 2026 05:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Demonstrating your inconsistency when you say that not wanting mail from the government should be a good enough reason not to receive mail from the government. You're right that serving jury duty and paying property taxes are legal obligations, and voting is not, so maybe you should be more careful before making a broad statement that incorporates some things that are mandatory and some things that are optional.
You have to pay property taxes. You have to do jury duty (to a point).
You do not have to have a driver's license, or a passport card.
Therefore, if I don't want the government to send me a passport card in the mail, they won't. Notice people don't die of Republican oppression when the government doesn't automatically (?) send them driver's licenses and passport cards they didn't request. This has nothing to do with sending them regularly vs. sending them once. You cannot send the first voter IDs automagically because they don't exist to begin with. You are stuck on "government sends" because of this OCD shutdown you do of pretending not to understand the point, and getting tunnel vision on one or two words. I do not want the government to create something, a sensitive ID, that I don't want to exist, without me asking for them to make it, and send it to me, without me asking for them to send it, with me having had no part in its creation ("automatically"), and on top of that through first-class mail. This entire discussion is me responding to a question you predicated on an impossibility. I do not receive IDs through first-class mail. I do not get my driver's license, my birth certificate, my passport card, my real ID, through first-class mail. Because I do not want them in the mail and do not request them. You can if you want, it's your own business. In the event I have to send or get my passports, they're always tracked/guaranteed/certified.
Similarly, with the free voter ID option, I do not have to receive a mandatory unsolicited ID in order not to disenfranchise an imbecile somewhere. The imbecile can figure out a way to apply for and request their free ID, like voters can do in Georgia and Texas. Their system is good. Your idea wasn't.
It sounds like you're very passionate about not wanting a sensitive ID created when you don't think it's necessary. Now, try to have the empathy to realize this exactly applies to eligible voters who have been legally voting without any issues whatsoever, who suddenly might become disenfranchised without the creation of a new sensitive ID that isn't necessary.
Correct, it isn't necessary, it's optional. If they don't want to vote, they don't have to get it.
Except we're talking about the eligible people that do want to vote, which is why this is disenfranchisement. That's the entire problem with this new, irrelevant "necessity". There's no reason to have it, and the more conditions you add, the more potential voters you push away. None of this matters if you're only considering people who aren't going to vote anyway, or if you're going to shrug off the situation with "well then they just won't vote anymore". That's not okay.
It's Completely Okay. If someone doesn't want to vote because they don't get an ID that anyone can get, it's no different than someone who doesn't want to vote because they can't be assed to register to begin with. They are not blocked from voting.
The reason to have it is it makes elections more secure. Obviously. So you don't get results that are flipped, voided, or have to be redone, like the 2020 Paterson, NJ city council election, 2023 Caddo Parish, LA sheriff election, 2023 Bridgeport, CT mayoral primary, or most egregiously the 2018 North Carolina 9th district House seat. Absolutely not rocket science.
Let me put on my empathy cap and put myself in this ID-less person's shoes. I have no bank account because I have no photo ID. I can't buy cigarettes or alcohol or a gun, I'm not in the army, God knows how I signed any contract, and I don't want to learn how to drive, and I don't want to get a passport to be able to leave the country. Wow - I'm grateful the state offers the option of a free photo ID for me to be able to vote. And I'm doubly glad the state secures elections in this way by putting the same requirements on everyone - SOME kind of a choice of various IDs (so it's not additional, people with driver's licenses just already took the steps that are equally necessary for everyone).
The fact that you think there are a bunch of eligible voters who are functionally indistinguishable from ineligible/shouldn't-voters is its own interesting confession about integrity.
The difference already exists: being legally registered/able to vote or not being legally registered/able to vote. That's the functional difference because the function is voting. The government already receives this answer, and it's worked fine so far, as is. There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud, so there's no reason to add anything else to the process.
You think a system of "Check this box to register to vote if you are eligible to vote" produces the set of people who are legally able to vote. No room for improvement. I got it buddy. Your shtick about Blumpf telling everyone to cheat like hell was never a sincere concern.
Look, dogs shouldn't be able to register to vote, and vote. Until you're on board with this, your opinion is performative. You don't need "widespread" fraud. When you have systems that allow fraud, you create culture of band-aid litigation. If you just have a secure system, nobody ever has a pretense to complain that X or Y is "muh illegitimate president." When someone votes for someone else, it very quickly becomes impossible to undo. Even if you can get your own ballot counted. You can't get the fraudulent one out, the count is tainted. Same when someone's dog votes. Therefore there are two angles, stop dogs from registering (proof of citizenship) and stop dogs from voting (make them bring photo IDs that will inevitably throw a red flag).
On October 26 2026 20:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: But I guess if you call them "imbeciles", you can pretend like you don't know that voters who don't have driver's licenses disproportionately live in cities (they're less likely to drive), voters who don't have passports are disproportionately poor (they're less likely to travel out of the country), and voters whose current name doesn't match their birth certificate name are disproportionately women (they're more likely to change their last name after being married).
A married person with no ID and a new last name can get a birth certificate and marriage license copy, and then get a free ID. Can even get help if there's a problem with the above, and that's important because you need ID for lots of stuff.
If those prerequisite documents were also free, then it would be something new to consider, but unfortunately they cost money.
Fortunately SCOTUS says those couple bucks don't matter.
On October 26 2026 20:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: All three of these demographics tend to vote for Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, and despite there being zero evidence of widespread voter fraud, Republicans are pushing for these Democrat-leaning groups to jump through additional, unnecessary hoops for the (fake) sake of election integrity.
Thank you for posting this; I didn't know that Republicans were actually more disenfranchised in some of these cases. Since my position against voter disenfranchisement isn't partisan, I still maintain that we shouldn't be requiring more hoops for voters to jump through (whether those hoops end up hurting Democrats or Republicans more).
Your fallacy is thinking that having to do something is disenfranchising. It isn't, because anyone can do it. If it were disenfranchising, by that logic, requiring people to register to vote disenfranchises them because more people might vote if they could just do it without having to register. It doesn't. Because they can just register. Voter ID? They can just get the ID, which you have a marvelous way for the government to create and send for free that your post is still too narrow to contain.
oBlade listing a bunch of redid elections that have nothing to do with voter ID (including one in Lousiana that does have a strict voter ID law) and implying dogs can register to vote really makes you wonder if he's taking the piss, on drugs, or just think y'all are dumber than he is.
EPT
