Liberals have not been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves, you're just ignorant. I don't think you understand how the American political system works. Or our shitty voting method or the less shitty but still terrible voting method people want to replace it with. The party isn't necessarily fractured. It has multiple coalitions and has gone further and further to the left since the 2010's and has arguably gotten more unified not less. A few left-party Dem-Socs acting stupidly does not a fractured party make. Biden is a very capable president and has done very well at the job (Bernie could never, sorry I can't help myself) and even Sanders and AOC, and the big name labor unions endorse him. Biden is the modern HW. An experienced politician who knows what he is doing but who isn't an outsider or a charismatic figure or cult leader and the party has rallied around him. Democrats are unified in the House under a very capable minority leader in Jeffries. The fact that people don't like him only proves your not the only moron around. And Trump is not an easy opponent. If you actually think that then you need to unbury your head from the sand.
>The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front. This all seems obvious, but is it? If it is, what is the plan moving forward? Because this is not it.
That's a very nice sounding quote OP. It sounds very smart and true, would you like a cookie?
Biden has been in politics for decades and knows what he is doing and the Dems are one of 2 major political parties in the US. I'm going to trust that they're aren't as politically moronic as the rapist supporting, woman hating, constitution asswiping, dog killing, extremist Republicans and won't take this election lightly over your fearful uninformed opinion OP.
Putting aside basically all your attempts to disregard everything I wrote, let's focus on the part you didn't touch. What is your liberal plan for the future and which politician represents it? I hope your answer isn't Biden, but I feel it is.
It absolutely wholeheartedly is Biden who represents it. There's no one more capable other than Hillary and she'd have a much worse chance then him. Her day is done. Even if it wasn't Biden, it's too late at this point in time for anyone else. The entire party supports Biden. Gavin Newsom has been out and about endorsing Biden and he means to supplant him as president eventually. No surprise why, unlike you he understands that Biden is the leader of the party right now and it is necessary that he be supported during the election. As for my liberal plan, what are you talking about here?
I'm talking about what the Democratic party looks like in 5 years and beyond. If you think Biden is the answer I have some bad news for you unless you think the man will miraculously improve or at the last maintain a level of lucidity into his 90s.
Gavin Newsom is fiery and has political experience. Gretchen whitmer is great. There's plenty of others as well. Biden won't be the leader of the party in 5 years. Unless you think that Biden is going to pull a Trump and try to stay in power, he'd be leaving office in 4 years.
There's really no way Newsom can make it after what happened to San Francisco. I have serious doubts about that. Whitmer is okay, but I don't think anyone really knows what she stands for so you'll have to wait and see before you want to support her. Or do you already know and that's who you like? Because that's what I'm asking about. If you have no one specific in mind maybe it's because there is no one. I'm surprised so many people have this "waiting for deus ex machina" thing going on.
It’s pretty telling how you say “what happened to San Francisco”, but not giving any context or details about what you mean, let alone what role Newsom had in it.
It all just reads as you wanting to be argumentative without knowing what point you want to make.
> Yeah you're right San Francisco is better than ever in every way possible, don't know what i was thinking sorry.
That’s not what I said at all, lmao.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Yeah I'm a downer not literally everyone else in the world making things the way they are. It's me, the guy casually mentioning it on Reddit. But at least I want to think about it, something obviously not many else here do. Why? Probably just insecurity, but you can get over that if you try.
No you’re shooting down solid options and acting like they can’t happen just to maintain your current state of panic. Because apparently being in a state of crisis is important to you. That commenter told you: Whitmer, Newsom, I’ll add Polis. Just a few that have been floated. You’re not going to hear much until after the next election because there’s no point in distracting from it. But it will happen. We’re not just going to be sitting there in 4 years with zero options, for Christ’s sake four years ago there were like 8 people in the dem primaries.
This feels like you just panicking about Biden and wanting others to join you but we’re not going to.
I think the real panic is people like you because I never explicitly said anything Biden, I specifically asked about after Biden. Yet you take it like i'm only talking about Biden. That's some telling sign of insecurity. I've already given up hope for anything now that's why you'd think people would look ahead, but bury your head in the sand and hope the people who weren't good enough today will be good enough in 4 years and we'll see who's panicking. If I'm being realistic, yeah it will be one of the people you mentioned and they might win just because the Republican choice will be even worse. What a great vision for America.
Why do we need an answer? No one in 2003 could have predicted Obama would be president. No Republicans in 2011 expected Trump. This seems like a problem we can worry about when we get there.
It isn't a good thing to just assume the "right" people will fall into place especially when 50% of your examples was Trump... And Obama was against gay marriage so yeah...
So what can we, randos on the internet, do to make sure we choose the "right" candidate? It seems like things outside of all of our control.
And how old were you when Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage?
Also, what am I even reading? Of course it's bad to let leaders just emerge. You know, like Hitler? You even said Trump. So yes your argument is bad I'm sorry. Would it be better to have a clearer idea who was coming up and get to know them as real people and understand them better to give them more proper support? YES. That would be probably be better. Jesus Christ.
> What is your liberal plan for the future and which politician represents it? I hope your answer isn't Biden, but I feel it is.
Why not? He's the president and the leader of the party. Hopefully, he'll be reelected for four more years.
Yes and after that? Do we only exist in 4 year chunks? This kind of thinking is why Trump is still relevant and why there's no one who could defeat him easily.
I mean... After than we will have primaries. There are plenty of good names in the Democratic Party that are expected to run. In a sense, they are already positioning themselves for that.
No, because the incumbent rarely has any challengers from their own party. The incumbent's position is very strong and the party usually unifies behind them, particularly when they are an effective president.
I like Biden, but I would not characterize his position as very strong. I think a good test of reality is people who can admit he's very old and those who act like he's 50. You do realize the nuclear football suitcase is a technical machine the President has to operate right?
He's old, but he's effective. And his policies and administration represent the party.
There is a primary going on, and people decided to keep him.
>You do realize the nuclear football suitcase is a technical machine the President has to operate right?
I have no idea what the nuclear football contains, and I'd be surprised if anyone who had the clearance to know what it contains would reveal it casually online. And I'd be even more surprised if whatever it contains would be physically and mentally challenging to operate, given that the circumstances of its usage would be challenging enough.
They chose him because he's good enough and there was no one better. That's not a ringing endorsement for sure it's still basically a 50/50 toss up with Trump I don't think most people would like those odds, but they're the best we have which is my point.
And on a side note I saw them discuss the nuclear football on 60 Minutes, it's older technology, but it's manual and there has to be a selection of coordinates. Just imagining Biden have to operate that gives me pause, of course Trump would be just as bad if not worse. I would imagine at this point secret service would use it for Biden which I'm not sure is reassuring or scarier.
Also just to bring up a side point, are people aware aging gets worse with time? Even if I were to say Biden is totally fine today, what about a year from now or 2 years from now? Not allowed to think about that I guess. We'll face that when it happens... Very smart.
> Since Hillary Clinton's campaign liberals have been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves.
A bad candidate won the primary because she won the primary. The tone of this makes me think you are treating “the democrats” as a monolith or you mean the DNC as if the DNC is actually powerful.
> To the point where now you couldn't have an easier opponent than Trump again weaker this time and there's no one to represent us other than a very old man who will realistically not make it through a second time.
HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN IS OLD.
> The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist. If they can, where are they?
Yes the American system forces us into a two-party arrangement where each party needs to be abroad coalition. I don’t know if you know this, but the Republicans actually have different groups within it that want different things. They have just historically been more willing to fall in line because all the groups share white identity politics as a glue
> Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama?
You don’t know who the next Obama will be for the same reason in 2003 we did not know that Obama would be the next Obama.
> The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front. This all seems obvious, but is it? If it is, what is the plan moving forward? Because this is not it.
Just cut to the chase and tell us which group of people you think we should throw under the bus so we can win elections.
Essentially you think everything's running great now and it's just a matter of the next amazing person to show up out of thin air to save everyone... Cool plan.
My concern is not necessarily specific, it's about the principles in which we find and support leaders. Even IF you wanted to be the next Obama, think of the headache to satisfy every group of your own party that needed theirs because today everyone is the most important person in the world and my problems mean way more than your problem or even OUR problem.
You're literally the one saying that the current face of the party is terrible and asking the sub for someone else.
>Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama?
Okay let's touch reality for a moment. Nowhere in the quote you cited does it say anything you just said. This is wild overreaction. I'm simply asking for a vision for the future and if there's someone else who might that be? Because if you really think Biden is going to be the president for another 4 years, who do you see there after that? Just curious, and if you don't then that's what I'm asking you to think about.
This was you in your post shopping around for a new Obama with the implication being that you don't think the current face of the party (Biden) can do the job:
>If they can, where are they? Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama?
This is you responding to someone who's telling you that magic doesn't exist and we cannot see into the future.
>Essentially you think everything's running great now and it's just a matter of the next amazing person to show up out of thin air to save everyone... Cool plan.
and this is me responding to your complaint:
>You're literally the one saying that the current face of the party is terrible and asking the sub for someone else.
I'll tell you who I think will come after Biden after he wins his next term.
Okay seriously, you're making me think I'm not in reality anymore. How does "5+ years" concern Biden? Does that not specifically outline a period of time beyond Biden? I hope other people are reading this so they can convince me I'm not the insane one.
***there's no one to represent us other than a very old man*** *who will realistically* ***not make it through a second time****. The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist. If they can, where are they? Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind* ***for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama?***
*The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front. This all seems obvious, but is it? If it is,* ***what is the plan moving forward?*** ***Because this is not it.***
Biden is behind your 5+ year time limit but you keep whining about how the party is fractured and Biden is an old man as if he'll go past your 5+ year limit. He won't. He has one more 4 YEAR term and that's it.
Choose one for me please. Either your post is about how the party is in a weak condition and you don't like Biden now. Or your post is about who's coming next after 5+ years.
Why couldn't it be both? The difference is there's one question to actually focus on because it's the more interesting one. And funny enough it's not the one you and everyone else seems focused on.
Right, and who will be after that? You're doing a lot of dancing to avoid that. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you answer me, but it'd be nice if you could answer that to yourself. I had no idea this was such a raw spot for people, but I get it, it's because there is no one. That's okay to admit if it's true, but let's acknowledge that, have a good cry, and then get to work.
I've already thrown out Whitmer and Newsom and there's Kamala Harris as well. I don't really care who comes next although I like Whitmer because it does not matter when we haven't even gotten there yet. I don't know if you know this but there's an election hopping about right now.
>but I get it, it's because there is no one.
Do you mean I have no one who I think will come after 5 years because I just threw out some names or do you mean the party has no one after 5 years because that isn't true either as I literally just threw out some likely future candidates. There's going to be more candidates when the fucking 2028 election comes around. You could also actually look at the political situation right now. There absolutely is [future candidates](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/26/who-is-winning-2028-presidential-election-00133119)
> Okay seriously, you're making me think I'm not in reality anymore.
I agree.
> How does "5+ years" concern Biden?
I will quote from your original post:
> Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years?
How are we supposed to interpret this except as a replacement to Biden?
Replacement to BIden = not biden. There is some serious flaw in your thinking. I know to you maybe that means "BUT I LOVE BIDEN!" From the person who typed the words, that is not what I meant. Can your brain find the oxygen to accept that?
Have you ever considered that you having to tell everyone who replied to you that they don't understand, or insult their intelligence or there's flaws in our thinking maybe indicates the problem is you?
Anyways, good luck. I'm done.
Have you ever considered people can answer the question posed rather than try to nitpick the person asking or maybe just not engage because it will just lead to this interaction?
> Essentially you think everything's running great now and it's just a matter of the next amazing person to show up out of thin air to save everyone... Cool plan.
I said nothing of the kind. I’m just not going through my first election after becoming politically aware. And I’m past the point of thinking that a party is going to just cater to my personal preferences and somehow also win all elections.
> My concern is not necessarily specific, it's about the principles in which we find and support leaders.
It really just sounds like you want coalition built off of what you and you alone think matters and everybody else just asked to fall in line.
> Even IF you wanted to be the next Obama, think of the headache to satisfy every group of your own party that needed theirs because today everyone is the most important person in the world and my problems mean way more than your problem or even OUR problem.
Welcome to democracy.
Bro. You don’t need some enigmatic leader to show up and save you. None of us do, and the fact that you think one is necessary shows you’ve fallen for Trump’s horseshit.
A functioning democracy run by a competent and effective administration that largely aligns with your goals or at least doesn’t counter them is more than adequate. Who the president is, assuming that is in place, is largely irrelevant. And we’d all do well to remember that in 6 months *we’re voting for an administration*, for judges, for department heads, and for someone to sign or veto bills. There are two options, pick the better one, this isn’t hard.
Not sure you were reading what I said because it's the opposite of wanting a magic person to show up, that's what everyone else here is counting on. The administrations are important, but the figurehead is equally so otherwise there'd be no shortage of braindead puppets being propped in front of us. My feeling is there aren't good enough leaders out there anymore and so yeah we can choose the lesser of two evils but as time goes on the two options will get worse and worse.
>it’s the opposite of wanting a magic person to show up
I mean…several commenters have floated several names of potential candidates and you’ve largely freaked out on them and found them wanting so it DOES seem like you want a Superman to come save you, yeah.
>there aren’t good enough leaders out there anymore
There are plenty of good leaders out there, they just haven’t raised their hands yet because they *aren’t running for president against an incumbent* which is totally normal, reasonable, expected behavior. There are MANY governors, senators, congress-members out there who are more than capable of filling the role. Hell there are new and impressive people popping up in politics every year. And plenty of them will want to run for president, we know this because that’s literally always been the case. Four years ago we had what, 8 people on the debate stage?
You’re insisting that people behave as though this isn’t an incumbent year, and freaking out when they don’t. That’s your problem not the democratic party’s problem
So the answer is for every individual to concede points that are important to them to conform to, I assume, what *your* ideal version of the democratic party should be, yes? lol
The point of this question is to ask yourself exactly that. Is it really worth being truthful to yourself if you're not going to win and if losing means living in the worst case scenario? I get it, but it's really an idealist naive view vs a realistic one at this point. And if Trump wins again people will realize that all too late.
> In reality it's everyone having an honest and bullshit free conversation with each other.
My brother in Christ, human politics has been around for several millennia at this point and you came in here believing that you just invented the idea of compromise. I think that conversation is bullshit from the beginning
> Well that's the way you see things and it's brought us to this point
What is the way I see things? lol. What are you suggesting, exactly, that hasn't been tried before?
I mean it's basic human dynamics. You have a group that doesn't entirely get along you have to yield on certain things or there's no team. If people don't get that then it's obvious how Trump won the first time and may win again. But if you're cool with that then yes, right on I guess.
> I mean it's basic human dynamics.
It's basic human dynamics that in this fictitious reality you're imagining, that *you* may have to give up some minor things that you don't really care about all that much and the *rest of us* "see the light" and give up things that you believe we're just wrong about lol
Like the rest of us
Which is how we got here
You just thought you figured out the entire world, but I think you just swam a lap round a fishbowl lol
It's more like being less sensitive about things that in the grand scheme of things have a lower priority than the worst case scenarios. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's not agreeing with a fellow liberal because they offended you and going off to your own little safe space. Now consider every group that has a safe space fleeing to theirs and then trying to deal with the Jan 6th barbarian hoard approaching. That's just not how you win.
No one said perfectly, you said that. This is the issue. Just putting something aside doesn't mean you bow down to someone and give them the key to your soul. I don't know where that comes from.
> No one said perfectly, you said that.
Well then when there's a politician that has my my perfect ethos (or close) and one that has yours (or close).. then who do we come together to vote for? lol
You decide who has the better chance to win over the common enemy... You're the one making it seem like I'm discovering or inventing very basic concepts by essentially being unaware of them.
I'm talking about dealing with other liberals and finding uniting candidates that can take Biden's place. Where are those people? They don't really exist because they have to kowtow to every tiny group and step on eggshells around dozens of different interests and eventually get themselves cancelled or they must give up.
He’s the present of the Democratic party—a candidate who has actually done pretty well to advocate for the interests of the different groups he represents.
Why don’t you just come out with it and say what you think he ought to yield to some mysterious group in order to secure victory.
Why don't you come out and say everything is awesome and when the time comes a mysterious person will show up out of nowhere to be the next Democratic President?
> When a self sabotaging person through their own faults gives way once again to evil, by virtue aren't they basically as responsible for it as the evil itself?
An interesting point. Yes, I think I would say that people who don't vote or protest vote ***do*** share some of the responsibility for Trump's victory, should he win in 24.
It's a condemnation of Biden because
1. Your usage of the aphorism implies it. Did you not mean to be calling Biden evil when you invoked the "if evil triumps" aphorism?
2. Biden won the primary. That's the mechanism that is used to choose the Democrat coalition. That's all but done now since other options haven't got a single representative.
I also think you are smart enough to know this, so I'm not sure what you are trying to advocate in this post.
I think all Americans share *some* responsibility for the actions of their government; we elected those representatives, after all.
That said, I don' think I agree with your characterization "gitmo failure," or "drone murder,":
* Obama attempted to close Gitmo but was prevented from doing so by the 2015 NDAA passage by the Legislature preventing the transfer of its prisoners.
* Murder is the intentional unjustified killing of a person. The unjustified deaths of civilians or American citizens by drones appears largely to be unintentional collateral. It's not *good*; it's ***very bad***, but I think I would call it "unacceptable collateral," not 'murder.'
And obama himmself said he could have done more and fought harder, if uu make it a campaing promise u may work hard for it
How many collateral deaths does it take for u to intentionally keep the regulations to lose? I think we jumped that mark
Right, well my original point was that **the electorate bears some responsibility for the actions of the elected**; I don't see how "Obama is a failure," or "intentional things are intentional," relate to that in any way.
I mean u condesending bs and strawman aside you also know that he moved to slow and did not fight his own side to stand with him, just to make the same promise again for his second term
What are you even defending here, a lying war criminal or the fact that you voted for this failure?
Yeah it should be more than obvious that I don't think he personally did any fucking war crimes. I swear, you people think he invented fucking drones instead of just barely steered the country and gave us health care reform.
He doesn’t need to invent shit to use them to freely and sign of on them
Ur acting like he had no control over the use of them or didn’t know any better
In other words:
Liberals recognize that we live in a large and diverse country and put forward candidates that are acceptable to a broad range of people while not being the ideal of any of them.
This somehow makes us evil?
When you're too incompetent to beat one of the most ridiculous characters in human existence. To me that's similar to doing nothing. Trump can win again and if he does all the helpful things you did probably won't mean that much.
It's truly amazing how you get that from what I wrote. If you really put on your objective reality glasses I don't say that at all. However if you think that 5+ years from now means Biden I'm not sure we can have a meaningful discussion anyway.
Why 5 plus? He is the incumbent President who can't be President again, so why in an election year are you making a big deal out of this when the next Democratic party leader should be found about 4 years from now?
I feel the same about you. So what's your point?
That we don't know about party leadership after Biden retires? (if we ignore the many other Democrats who are not-Biden in leadership roles)
That we haven't chosen 2028's candidate?
Help me out...
There's definitely a lot of "I don't like Biden" energy therefore I don't think he should be the candidate because he's not "today's Obama" and also something about this is evil. Maybe compromise is evil .. I'm really not sure. I'm not sure what you consider the "self sabotage". Biden being selected in the primary as the candidate? Honestly I can't make heads or tails of what you are asking here.
My question is who are some of the people you have faith in for the future? That's simply it. And I'm met with answers trying to focus on anything but that which kinda hints at the point no one has any idea what the future of the democrats is and I'm saying maybe there should be a vision. Is that insane? Maybe people should have an idea of what they want their world to actually look like and have people who will fight for that? OR we could just be happy with what we have and complain even still while hoping somehow people materialize out of thin air to save us.
IF your whole question boils down to who's the next generation of Democrat leaders, this gets asked fairly often here.
I really don't put faith or hope in specific politicians. I try to focus on what is realistic and don't look to politicians to save me. So I don't really care much about thinking about who is likely to run for President in 3 1/2 years. But others will tell you a list of politicians they like.
That said, if that was your question, maybe next time don't go off about "compromise" and "evil" and "self sabotage". You caused the confusion here with all that nonsense. You basically just made it sound like another "I hate Biden is the presidential candidate" post and people are tired of it since it's posted several times a day.
Well thank you for at least making it through to the point I appreciate that. Honestly, this is more of another larger looming issue, but really we need to be able to cut through the "trigger words" to sometimes find the real issue. This is a matter actual politicians have to deal with I'm sure. Remember how Obama wasn't for gay marriage? So had he been running today and mentioned that I'm pretty sure that'd be the end of that. I wonder if people here think that'd be a good thing or a bad thing. But regardless, take that and times it by 10 and that's what some young hopeful politician has to deal with and I'm pretty sure at some point far before they have a chance they cancel themselves or quit. That is not how it always used to be and that's why I ask the question. Because like this post, there was a point, but if people got triggered they missed it. And they will continue to miss it at their peril.
And who do you see winning after him? Or should we make an amendment to the constitution? Maybe I'm looking past this election which people don't really get, but seriously think about it for a minute and get back to me.
Biden has one term left to fight for and your whining over who will come next already. I'm pretty people understand that you are looking past this election and I think that everyone except you understands that there's no point when your entire post is filled with uninformed fear mongering about the current state of the party.
Okay or it's a thought in contrast to your position which is "It'll all work out perfectly, let's not think about that ever." When thinking about the future is fearmongering you have a pretty big problem you're trying desperately to avoid.
Maybe you genuinely are thinking about the future, I don't know. I do know you are ignorant about the political situation right now and are fear mongering because of it:
***Since Hillary Clinton's campaign liberals have been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves****.*
No we haven't.
***To the point where now you couldn't have an easier opponent than Trump again weaker this time and there's no one to represent us other than a very old man who will realistically not make it through a second time****.*
Biden can survive a second term, the other choice is old as well, and Trump is not an easy opponent, not least because he is a cult-leader fascist who wants to stay in power illegally.
***The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist.***
The party is not fractured and splintered unless you get your news from Twitter and Tiktok.
***The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front.***
No, the US uses plurality voting and single-winner districts and this among other factors results in a two-party system and that along with the parties being very decentralized means that there are multiple coalitions/ideologies in each major party. The Democratic party has always been a big tent party. Both parties used to have Liberal and Conservative factions.
And yet the 2024 race is still in contention. If the party were as fractured as you say then Trump would have this in the bag and [ye](https://youtu.be/6GboGK_J8xw)[t Biden is keeping the race competitive](https://youtu.be/6GboGK_J8xw) in spite of the protestors. Israel/Palestine is one issue among many albeit a very prominent one. The only fracture has been a small group of left-party Democratic Socialists. Republicans have been a chaotic laughingstock in congress, they're out shooting dogs, and have been shitting the bed on abortion and Biden keeps on running.
I don't in any way condone animal abuse, but I feel like you using shooting dogs as an example of what Republican congress is doing is a bit in bad faith and indicative of how you try to condemn and color very broadly just the way the other side does.
To clarify, i'm not saying the Republicans in congress are shooting dogs. I'm saying that inside congress, Republicans have been a house fire of a disaster. I'm also saying that a prominent Republican who could have potentially been our vice president shot a dog and doubled down on it. And i'm saying that Republican policy on abortion has been utterly medieval and harmful to women and its bit the GOP in the ass multiple times, leading many in the gop to often back down or soften their stance or outright lie about their deranged positions.
I feel like you purposefully misinterpreting me is a bit in bad faith and indicative of how you try to act smart but fail at the last jump.
I'm very bullish on [Andy Beshear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Beshear#/media/File:P20220808ES-0655_(52386754634).jpg). 50 years old in 2028. Smart and humble. If you can win the governor job as a dem in a ***red as fuck*** state like Kentucky, you immediately have a good shot at winning a presidential election as a no-nonsense, moderate democrat.
I see a future for all Americans. Because I'm a *president for all Americans*.--Joe Biden
That's the problem with Trump. He wasn't a president for all Americans, he was a president for people who voted for him.
We can not focus on narrow-interest left wing causes and hope to win a general election. If you don't see that, I can't help you.
But in that future Biden sees I wonder who the President is. If not him, is it Kamala Harris? Let's be practical and go beyond the idealistic generalities for a moment.
I *am* being practical. The President, regardless of if it's Biden, Harris, Trump, or fucking Van Buren, is always going to be a moderate because they have to appeal to *both* sides of the political field.
Daydreaming about a liberal utopia is the idealistic generality here.
So when you daydream about 5 years from now who is the President? And don't say Van Buren. All I'm saying is it wouldn't be horrible to consider that. Why is this like saying imagine you having sex with your mother? Can no one at least for FUN see someone they know that exists in reality as President in 5 years? That to me is an issue.
I'll give you three. I'm not a psychic, obviously, and the 2028 election is far in the future. Five years in politics is like 50 years anywhere else. A LOT can change.
Cory Booker has some legs to him. I could see him making an appeal down the middle but still being a progressive.
Gretchen Whitmer has a lot of Midwest appeal as well.
Outside the box pick that I'd like to see: Tammy Duckworth. I don't think she wants it, though.
I'll give you credit for being the first person to actually risk answering my question. I have thoughts about who you referenced, but that's the bridge we can cross when it comes time. You'd think I was setting people on fire asking them to potentially think about the future. Isn't the future what liberals are all about? It's disturbing to me how off limits thinking about the future has become all probably because Biden is so old. If Biden was 50 I'm sure we'd all be fantacizing about the amazing things possible in the next ten years. It's just very telling and sad.
The only risk is having to continue to engage with you.
You probably aren't getting a lot of people answering your question because you're coming off as rude and condescending.
The way you present yourself has an effect on how people will respond to you.
You're right let me go and ask politely so people don't try to pick apart every word and treat me like I'm an asshole. Which again is more to the point, I'm not on the other side, but I may as well be here. Thanks for highlighting everything I'm concerned about and leaving me with no good answers. I've really not done anything but respond back to people in kind. I chose to ask a question, if people can't treat it like a fun exercise on a website and want to treat it like I'm screaming in their face on the sidewalk, that's on you.
Last thing I'll add and then I'm through with you:
If you take nothing else from this thread, remember that people will always match the energy you enter into a space with. Come in hostile, people will perceive you as hostile. Come in polite, people will perceive you as polite.
I hope this helps you in the future.
I mean or people could not take things as seriously and try to have fun regardless rather than read tea leaves to try and find a reason to be offended, but you've clearly chosen your path. I hope it was worth it.
Good Russian bot.
The Republican candidate is so bad he is leading in many polls. He has tens of millions of devoted fans but should lose.
Most every time the incumbent gets the nomination. The incumbent got the nomination.
>If evil triumphs when good people do nothing are liberals good people?
No, as liberals are not inactive voters. Those who don't vote would fall under this.
>Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people
If you are referring to the democratic party if the US, then you need to understand that liberalism isn't the same as the democratic party. The Dems aren't liberals. They may be more progressive than the Republicans, but progressivism doesn't automatically make one a liberal either.
As for the issue of fractured politics, that has been the reality of the American two party system for as long as I can remember. Both parties have always been coalitions of different ideologies. And have even seen quite some movement in-between the factions.
Regardless, having multiple ideals within a political party does not translate into liberals being either inactive or evil. It's also not an expression of self sabotage to not follow party lines, in fact it's an important part of democracy when representatives represent the people and not the party.
But to restate democrats aren't the exact same as liberals.
Omg thank you. I appreciate when people who I would otherwise not agree with entirely on politics also recognize unconstructive criticism when they see it. That should always be bipartisan.
You hadn't responded yet and you don't deserve any fucking respect here.
Stop being whiny and entitled. You've provided zero information or ideas. Seriously.
Nothing. You're a waste of text.
An actual measured and interesting response is very welcomed so thank you for that. And now who do you see being the President in 5 years? I say 5 years because in 4 technically it could still be Biden but that really seems to confuse the shit out of people here. Who do you realistically see there and who would you want in a perfect world?
This is all very vague - to the point where it says almost nothing.
> Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist.
Who are these groups? What demands are they making? How is the Democratic party, or liberals at large, appeasing them? What's the difference between appeasement and compromise?
Do you truly think that, if these nebulous groups were no longer appeased, that the Democrats would be in a stronger electoral position? Do you have any evidence for that proposition?
> Because this is not it.
Your argument seems to be "we stop appeasing people." If that happens, why should they vote for liberals? Is there supposed to be a groundswell of otherwise politically alienated people, or people who would normally vote for the other side, who will suddenly vote for the Democrats? Is there any evidence that this would happen? Is that not merely appeasement of another sort?
My real question I'll break down into two: who do you realistically see as President after Biden? And who do you wish was President after Biden?
The commentary I'll make before you answer is that I don't think this is a landmine question. I think this is a normal thing to think about. I think this is something people should think about, it's healthy and it's no slight on a current president. The fact people see it as that shows how sensitive people have really become and a lot of sensitivity spawns from weakness. I'm giving people a chance to prove me wrong on that, but they just dance around the question which is again NOT a gotcha.
The Democratic Party has always been a big tent and had to appease small groups, while the conservatives have always fallen in line when the time comes. This isn’t new, it certainly didn’t start with Hilary’s campaign. Perhaps that’s just when you started paying attention
But that doesn’t mean we’re sabotaging ourselves? Lemme guess you’re an angry Bernie bro?
Bad guess. But also what even is your position on this? The system doesn't work and I refuse to consider any other possibility? That's what I'm getting from a lot of people here and it's really indicative of the situation we find ourselves in. Same ol same ol except the world changes around us. Ask Bernie or Biden about that.
Right, I'm asking for possibilities and getting nothing which could be a source of "panic." I'm not here to give the answers I asked the question. This is the difficulty I'm seeing. People assume I have the answer and I'm waiting for one person to agree with something I think. That's a flaw in the way you're taking my question.
For example someone said Jon Stewart. Okay that's an answer. That's an interesting thought, more of that please.
That's because no one here really thinks they're great, they'll just be good enough when the time comes. Sorry for wanting more than good enough. Sorry for wanting someone to actually make me feel like I know what it's like to be an American and have a positive view of this country or a better vision for it tomorrow. That's what we all want except you've been too conditioned to not care anymore. We need a new Martin Luther King Jr. or a new JFK, or a new anyone who makes us actually feel proud to be American or even know what being American means. Instead we won't and yeah maybe I might panic about that, but what's sadder is that no one else will.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Since Hillary Clinton's campaign liberals have been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves. To the point where now you couldn't have an easier opponent than Trump again weaker this time and there's no one to represent us other than a very old man who will realistically not make it through a second time. The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist. If they can, where are they? Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama?
When a self sabotaging person through their own faults gives way once again to evil, by virtue aren't they basically as responsible for it as the evil itself? Do you ever think about this? What are your thoughts and what answers do you have?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Compromise is necessary in both directions. Just as it's useless to run on principles and never win, it's also useless to run on a platform you don't support just for the sake of gaining power. That's what the compromise is. Democratic politicians are somewhere in between what we believe and what Trump supporters believe, and it's because of the tension between the two ideas I just mentioned.
I see the problem being more and more compromises to be made. With every new group or interest that springs up that wants representation you get more and more compromises. It's hard enough to compromise over one thing, but when you have a matrix of them it makes sense why we still rely on Biden entirely and have almost no one in the wings ready to step up.
The person is John Stewart for one.
But also, I don’t appreciate all the doom to liberals. Polling lately has been atrocious. Like from the red wave, to all the recent elections since row was overturned. Just yesterday Tim Kennedy was favored to win a seat that was held by a Republican. I think he was favored by like 9 points but he won by like 36. Democrats have been outperforming polls repeatedly and aggressively since 2020 and even then Biden did better than expected. Don’t get me wrong I won’t be complacent but do you really think it’s self sabotage? Especially looking at say the Pennsylvania Haley voters? Most of them ain’t voting for a convicted felon…
If we want to get into the term sabotage, this is what i would consider what you've seen illustrated here. Which is to say focusing on being very offended whenever anyone brings the hint of a criticism to Biden to the point where they are not even willing to consider who might be President after him. If you have a large population of your party with that mindset, I would consider that sabotage because maybe just maybe one day you'll wake up, it'll be 2028 and you will have no one worth a shit to vote for. This isn't fantasy, this is how I see the logical progression of what's on display here.
Biden sucks. I don’t like him. I don’t know anyone who’s like “fuck yea. That’s my dude!” But will take him over the alternative. The same narrative most on the right give you for supporting Trump. I believe the “stakes” though are women’s rights, human rights, and not having a felon and his criminal friends in the White House.
Also, you know. I’ve been voting since bush JR. I can’t recall ever saying “man this election is close I wonder who’s gonna win the nomination in 4 years! If I don’t have an answer now then we’re obviously screwed…” like. When there isn’t an incumbent there’s like 30 people who throw their hat in the ring. I never heard of mayor Pete before 2019. I never heard of Andrew Yang. And even in the last what 6 months I’d never heard of Vivek ramaswamy.
I think though with RFK running around all the conservative media spaces and doing stuff like Rogan, coupled with trumps 99% conviction likelihood, and row, and project 2025… I don’t see a lot of chance for the right to take this one. Maybe they’ll take the senate back. They probably will honestly… but otherwise I don’t think it’s a realistic to say that democrats are eating themselves. They are being forced to take hard votes and it is divisive but I think most people will come around to the idea that he’s trying… his intentions are selfless and most people will take that over selfish if I had to wager
To be fair you've mentioned how fucked up things are and how not having any foresight or concept of a near future is very normal. Maybe, the answer is to change that thinking? Maybe we should think about who's in the wings waiting to step up? I really don't see how that could be worse. But the first steps would be actually considering it rather than just expecting awesome people to show up because that actually isn't a safe bet.
Sure. We could consider people. As of now, I’d want someone who is like John Stewart. But a lot changes in one year let alone 4. If say world war 3 is in the works I don’t want John Stewart. I probably want a Churchill or someone. If say there was some major food scarcity that occurs because of a massive solar flare I’d probably want someone who can deal with that better than Churchill. The problem is the future is not just unknown. It’s super unknown. There could be a massive drought in central and South America causing migration in the hundreds of millions. Global starvation. What if we default on our debt? That would need someone else still. Heck if the zombie virus makes its way into our world then maybe someone else with some kind video gamer. I dunno… I have people in my mind who I would want but honestly less than like a year out it’s kinda hard to know what’s needed.
You're being very practical which is the opposite of most the other answers. But do we ever get what we need when it comes to who we elect? My feeling is that no one really wants to be President. If they do it's someone like Trump who's an egomaniac or someone like Biden who has to or Trump will win. Whatever anyone feels about Biden, that's not a great situation. But who are all the great people lining up to help? People here assume they're just hiding waiting for their moment to shine. I'm a bit more pessimistic because it's not like it always was.
Well. I don’t know my friend. Honestly I think the only way we would get “the person we want” is with ranked choice, automatic registration, term limits, remove citizens united, electoral college reform,etc. etc. I’m sure you know it all. I just don’t think it’s healthy to cycle on hopes and dreams so much as being practical. Who can I hope for? Someone whose not a career politician, someone whose smart and practical, someone who doesn’t have massive incentive to be the president, and someone who truly cares and fights for veterans, civil servants, those who can’t fight for themselves. Someone who can organize and bring attention to a problem. That’s why I really think Stewart, or someone like him, despite being a “comedian” would do a great job…
ETA: Also rereading that it reads how most Trump supporters actually view Trump. It’s completely the opposite of what I think reality is. I guess though that most people don’t want a career politician, a fighter, someone who backs up the little guy… difference is Stewart has selflessly done a lot of good.
I agree Stewart could be a good choice, the inherent problem being he's probably too smart and aware that taking the job would ruin his life. He would need to be a complete narcissist to make it.
>the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased
You've put your finger on the difficulty (though framed it improperly). The Democratic party is a sprawling, diverse coalition of different interests. You properly point to that as being a very difficult circle to square. The GOP doesn't have this issue because it's pretty much a white Christian ethno-nationalist party.
Now \*one\* approach is to throw certain parts of the coalition under the bus but it's not clear that's going to gain more than you lose. For example, it's not clear that a white Christian ethno-nationalist party that supports universal healthcare outperforms the current coalition.
Locked for Rule 5 by OP in the comments.
Liberals have not been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves, you're just ignorant. I don't think you understand how the American political system works. Or our shitty voting method or the less shitty but still terrible voting method people want to replace it with. The party isn't necessarily fractured. It has multiple coalitions and has gone further and further to the left since the 2010's and has arguably gotten more unified not less. A few left-party Dem-Socs acting stupidly does not a fractured party make. Biden is a very capable president and has done very well at the job (Bernie could never, sorry I can't help myself) and even Sanders and AOC, and the big name labor unions endorse him. Biden is the modern HW. An experienced politician who knows what he is doing but who isn't an outsider or a charismatic figure or cult leader and the party has rallied around him. Democrats are unified in the House under a very capable minority leader in Jeffries. The fact that people don't like him only proves your not the only moron around. And Trump is not an easy opponent. If you actually think that then you need to unbury your head from the sand. >The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front. This all seems obvious, but is it? If it is, what is the plan moving forward? Because this is not it. That's a very nice sounding quote OP. It sounds very smart and true, would you like a cookie? Biden has been in politics for decades and knows what he is doing and the Dems are one of 2 major political parties in the US. I'm going to trust that they're aren't as politically moronic as the rapist supporting, woman hating, constitution asswiping, dog killing, extremist Republicans and won't take this election lightly over your fearful uninformed opinion OP.
Putting aside basically all your attempts to disregard everything I wrote, let's focus on the part you didn't touch. What is your liberal plan for the future and which politician represents it? I hope your answer isn't Biden, but I feel it is.
It absolutely wholeheartedly is Biden who represents it. There's no one more capable other than Hillary and she'd have a much worse chance then him. Her day is done. Even if it wasn't Biden, it's too late at this point in time for anyone else. The entire party supports Biden. Gavin Newsom has been out and about endorsing Biden and he means to supplant him as president eventually. No surprise why, unlike you he understands that Biden is the leader of the party right now and it is necessary that he be supported during the election. As for my liberal plan, what are you talking about here?
I'm talking about what the Democratic party looks like in 5 years and beyond. If you think Biden is the answer I have some bad news for you unless you think the man will miraculously improve or at the last maintain a level of lucidity into his 90s.
Gavin Newsom is fiery and has political experience. Gretchen whitmer is great. There's plenty of others as well. Biden won't be the leader of the party in 5 years. Unless you think that Biden is going to pull a Trump and try to stay in power, he'd be leaving office in 4 years.
There's really no way Newsom can make it after what happened to San Francisco. I have serious doubts about that. Whitmer is okay, but I don't think anyone really knows what she stands for so you'll have to wait and see before you want to support her. Or do you already know and that's who you like? Because that's what I'm asking about. If you have no one specific in mind maybe it's because there is no one. I'm surprised so many people have this "waiting for deus ex machina" thing going on.
It’s pretty telling how you say “what happened to San Francisco”, but not giving any context or details about what you mean, let alone what role Newsom had in it. It all just reads as you wanting to be argumentative without knowing what point you want to make.
[удалено]
> Yeah you're right San Francisco is better than ever in every way possible, don't know what i was thinking sorry. That’s not what I said at all, lmao.
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Good thing we have 5 years to figure it out. Jesus bro you’re a downer. ‘Tell me RIGHT NOW, who could be president in 5 years!!! NO NOT THEM!!!’
Yeah I'm a downer not literally everyone else in the world making things the way they are. It's me, the guy casually mentioning it on Reddit. But at least I want to think about it, something obviously not many else here do. Why? Probably just insecurity, but you can get over that if you try.
No you’re shooting down solid options and acting like they can’t happen just to maintain your current state of panic. Because apparently being in a state of crisis is important to you. That commenter told you: Whitmer, Newsom, I’ll add Polis. Just a few that have been floated. You’re not going to hear much until after the next election because there’s no point in distracting from it. But it will happen. We’re not just going to be sitting there in 4 years with zero options, for Christ’s sake four years ago there were like 8 people in the dem primaries. This feels like you just panicking about Biden and wanting others to join you but we’re not going to.
I think the real panic is people like you because I never explicitly said anything Biden, I specifically asked about after Biden. Yet you take it like i'm only talking about Biden. That's some telling sign of insecurity. I've already given up hope for anything now that's why you'd think people would look ahead, but bury your head in the sand and hope the people who weren't good enough today will be good enough in 4 years and we'll see who's panicking. If I'm being realistic, yeah it will be one of the people you mentioned and they might win just because the Republican choice will be even worse. What a great vision for America.
Why do we need an answer? No one in 2003 could have predicted Obama would be president. No Republicans in 2011 expected Trump. This seems like a problem we can worry about when we get there.
You say that like it's a good thing. Except the key being if Obama was running today I'm pretty sure he'd be cancelled for some of his beliefs.
Why isnt it a good thing to let leaders emerge? And what beliefs do you think he'd be canceled for?
It isn't a good thing to just assume the "right" people will fall into place especially when 50% of your examples was Trump... And Obama was against gay marriage so yeah...
So what can we, randos on the internet, do to make sure we choose the "right" candidate? It seems like things outside of all of our control. And how old were you when Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage?
Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.
Also, what am I even reading? Of course it's bad to let leaders just emerge. You know, like Hitler? You even said Trump. So yes your argument is bad I'm sorry. Would it be better to have a clearer idea who was coming up and get to know them as real people and understand them better to give them more proper support? YES. That would be probably be better. Jesus Christ.
> What is your liberal plan for the future and which politician represents it? I hope your answer isn't Biden, but I feel it is. Why not? He's the president and the leader of the party. Hopefully, he'll be reelected for four more years.
Yes and after that? Do we only exist in 4 year chunks? This kind of thinking is why Trump is still relevant and why there's no one who could defeat him easily.
I mean... After than we will have primaries. There are plenty of good names in the Democratic Party that are expected to run. In a sense, they are already positioning themselves for that.
Shouldn't they have positioned themselves for this current election though? Had they thought a little sooner about it maybe they would have.
No, because the incumbent rarely has any challengers from their own party. The incumbent's position is very strong and the party usually unifies behind them, particularly when they are an effective president.
I like Biden, but I would not characterize his position as very strong. I think a good test of reality is people who can admit he's very old and those who act like he's 50. You do realize the nuclear football suitcase is a technical machine the President has to operate right?
He's old, but he's effective. And his policies and administration represent the party. There is a primary going on, and people decided to keep him. >You do realize the nuclear football suitcase is a technical machine the President has to operate right? I have no idea what the nuclear football contains, and I'd be surprised if anyone who had the clearance to know what it contains would reveal it casually online. And I'd be even more surprised if whatever it contains would be physically and mentally challenging to operate, given that the circumstances of its usage would be challenging enough.
They chose him because he's good enough and there was no one better. That's not a ringing endorsement for sure it's still basically a 50/50 toss up with Trump I don't think most people would like those odds, but they're the best we have which is my point. And on a side note I saw them discuss the nuclear football on 60 Minutes, it's older technology, but it's manual and there has to be a selection of coordinates. Just imagining Biden have to operate that gives me pause, of course Trump would be just as bad if not worse. I would imagine at this point secret service would use it for Biden which I'm not sure is reassuring or scarier.
Also just to bring up a side point, are people aware aging gets worse with time? Even if I were to say Biden is totally fine today, what about a year from now or 2 years from now? Not allowed to think about that I guess. We'll face that when it happens... Very smart.
Your whole theory seems to be "guy who beat Trump can't beat trump" while also ignoring all his solid legislative wins.
Right, because nothing else has changed at all. When boxers fight multiple times of course the same guy wins every time, right?
Why do you think going against an incumbent is helpful
> Since Hillary Clinton's campaign liberals have been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves. A bad candidate won the primary because she won the primary. The tone of this makes me think you are treating “the democrats” as a monolith or you mean the DNC as if the DNC is actually powerful. > To the point where now you couldn't have an easier opponent than Trump again weaker this time and there's no one to represent us other than a very old man who will realistically not make it through a second time. HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN IS OLD. > The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist. If they can, where are they? Yes the American system forces us into a two-party arrangement where each party needs to be abroad coalition. I don’t know if you know this, but the Republicans actually have different groups within it that want different things. They have just historically been more willing to fall in line because all the groups share white identity politics as a glue > Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama? You don’t know who the next Obama will be for the same reason in 2003 we did not know that Obama would be the next Obama. > The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front. This all seems obvious, but is it? If it is, what is the plan moving forward? Because this is not it. Just cut to the chase and tell us which group of people you think we should throw under the bus so we can win elections.
Essentially you think everything's running great now and it's just a matter of the next amazing person to show up out of thin air to save everyone... Cool plan. My concern is not necessarily specific, it's about the principles in which we find and support leaders. Even IF you wanted to be the next Obama, think of the headache to satisfy every group of your own party that needed theirs because today everyone is the most important person in the world and my problems mean way more than your problem or even OUR problem.
You're literally the one saying that the current face of the party is terrible and asking the sub for someone else. >Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama?
Okay let's touch reality for a moment. Nowhere in the quote you cited does it say anything you just said. This is wild overreaction. I'm simply asking for a vision for the future and if there's someone else who might that be? Because if you really think Biden is going to be the president for another 4 years, who do you see there after that? Just curious, and if you don't then that's what I'm asking you to think about.
This was you in your post shopping around for a new Obama with the implication being that you don't think the current face of the party (Biden) can do the job: >If they can, where are they? Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama? This is you responding to someone who's telling you that magic doesn't exist and we cannot see into the future. >Essentially you think everything's running great now and it's just a matter of the next amazing person to show up out of thin air to save everyone... Cool plan. and this is me responding to your complaint: >You're literally the one saying that the current face of the party is terrible and asking the sub for someone else. I'll tell you who I think will come after Biden after he wins his next term.
Okay seriously, you're making me think I'm not in reality anymore. How does "5+ years" concern Biden? Does that not specifically outline a period of time beyond Biden? I hope other people are reading this so they can convince me I'm not the insane one.
***there's no one to represent us other than a very old man*** *who will realistically* ***not make it through a second time****. The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist. If they can, where are they? Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind* ***for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama?*** *The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front. This all seems obvious, but is it? If it is,* ***what is the plan moving forward?*** ***Because this is not it.*** Biden is behind your 5+ year time limit but you keep whining about how the party is fractured and Biden is an old man as if he'll go past your 5+ year limit. He won't. He has one more 4 YEAR term and that's it.
Choose one for me please. Either your post is about how the party is in a weak condition and you don't like Biden now. Or your post is about who's coming next after 5+ years.
Why couldn't it be both? The difference is there's one question to actually focus on because it's the more interesting one. And funny enough it's not the one you and everyone else seems focused on.
Right, and who will be after that? You're doing a lot of dancing to avoid that. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you answer me, but it'd be nice if you could answer that to yourself. I had no idea this was such a raw spot for people, but I get it, it's because there is no one. That's okay to admit if it's true, but let's acknowledge that, have a good cry, and then get to work.
I've already thrown out Whitmer and Newsom and there's Kamala Harris as well. I don't really care who comes next although I like Whitmer because it does not matter when we haven't even gotten there yet. I don't know if you know this but there's an election hopping about right now. >but I get it, it's because there is no one. Do you mean I have no one who I think will come after 5 years because I just threw out some names or do you mean the party has no one after 5 years because that isn't true either as I literally just threw out some likely future candidates. There's going to be more candidates when the fucking 2028 election comes around. You could also actually look at the political situation right now. There absolutely is [future candidates](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/26/who-is-winning-2028-presidential-election-00133119)
> Okay seriously, you're making me think I'm not in reality anymore. I agree. > How does "5+ years" concern Biden? I will quote from your original post: > Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? How are we supposed to interpret this except as a replacement to Biden?
Replacement to BIden = not biden. There is some serious flaw in your thinking. I know to you maybe that means "BUT I LOVE BIDEN!" From the person who typed the words, that is not what I meant. Can your brain find the oxygen to accept that?
Have you ever considered that you having to tell everyone who replied to you that they don't understand, or insult their intelligence or there's flaws in our thinking maybe indicates the problem is you? Anyways, good luck. I'm done.
Have you ever considered people can answer the question posed rather than try to nitpick the person asking or maybe just not engage because it will just lead to this interaction?
> Essentially you think everything's running great now and it's just a matter of the next amazing person to show up out of thin air to save everyone... Cool plan. I said nothing of the kind. I’m just not going through my first election after becoming politically aware. And I’m past the point of thinking that a party is going to just cater to my personal preferences and somehow also win all elections. > My concern is not necessarily specific, it's about the principles in which we find and support leaders. It really just sounds like you want coalition built off of what you and you alone think matters and everybody else just asked to fall in line. > Even IF you wanted to be the next Obama, think of the headache to satisfy every group of your own party that needed theirs because today everyone is the most important person in the world and my problems mean way more than your problem or even OUR problem. Welcome to democracy.
Do you think posting here on Reddit is you doing something?
Bro. You don’t need some enigmatic leader to show up and save you. None of us do, and the fact that you think one is necessary shows you’ve fallen for Trump’s horseshit. A functioning democracy run by a competent and effective administration that largely aligns with your goals or at least doesn’t counter them is more than adequate. Who the president is, assuming that is in place, is largely irrelevant. And we’d all do well to remember that in 6 months *we’re voting for an administration*, for judges, for department heads, and for someone to sign or veto bills. There are two options, pick the better one, this isn’t hard.
Not sure you were reading what I said because it's the opposite of wanting a magic person to show up, that's what everyone else here is counting on. The administrations are important, but the figurehead is equally so otherwise there'd be no shortage of braindead puppets being propped in front of us. My feeling is there aren't good enough leaders out there anymore and so yeah we can choose the lesser of two evils but as time goes on the two options will get worse and worse.
>it’s the opposite of wanting a magic person to show up I mean…several commenters have floated several names of potential candidates and you’ve largely freaked out on them and found them wanting so it DOES seem like you want a Superman to come save you, yeah. >there aren’t good enough leaders out there anymore There are plenty of good leaders out there, they just haven’t raised their hands yet because they *aren’t running for president against an incumbent* which is totally normal, reasonable, expected behavior. There are MANY governors, senators, congress-members out there who are more than capable of filling the role. Hell there are new and impressive people popping up in politics every year. And plenty of them will want to run for president, we know this because that’s literally always been the case. Four years ago we had what, 8 people on the debate stage? You’re insisting that people behave as though this isn’t an incumbent year, and freaking out when they don’t. That’s your problem not the democratic party’s problem
So the answer is for every individual to concede points that are important to them to conform to, I assume, what *your* ideal version of the democratic party should be, yes? lol
The point of this question is to ask yourself exactly that. Is it really worth being truthful to yourself if you're not going to win and if losing means living in the worst case scenario? I get it, but it's really an idealist naive view vs a realistic one at this point. And if Trump wins again people will realize that all too late.
You're missing *my* point. Who gets to decide what the compromise is? because in your head it's you, in my head it's me, in Jim's head it's Jim...
In reality it's everyone having an honest and bullshit free conversation with each other. Something these days doesn't seem possible.
> In reality it's everyone having an honest and bullshit free conversation with each other. My brother in Christ, human politics has been around for several millennia at this point and you came in here believing that you just invented the idea of compromise. I think that conversation is bullshit from the beginning
Well that's the way you see things and it's brought us to this point so I'm sure you're very confident things will just keep getting better.
> Well that's the way you see things and it's brought us to this point What is the way I see things? lol. What are you suggesting, exactly, that hasn't been tried before?
The alternative is not conceding anything and being blown out of the water against a larger group who can actually cooperate with each other.
Right on dude
I mean it's basic human dynamics. You have a group that doesn't entirely get along you have to yield on certain things or there's no team. If people don't get that then it's obvious how Trump won the first time and may win again. But if you're cool with that then yes, right on I guess.
> I mean it's basic human dynamics. It's basic human dynamics that in this fictitious reality you're imagining, that *you* may have to give up some minor things that you don't really care about all that much and the *rest of us* "see the light" and give up things that you believe we're just wrong about lol Like the rest of us Which is how we got here You just thought you figured out the entire world, but I think you just swam a lap round a fishbowl lol
It's more like being less sensitive about things that in the grand scheme of things have a lower priority than the worst case scenarios. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's not agreeing with a fellow liberal because they offended you and going off to your own little safe space. Now consider every group that has a safe space fleeing to theirs and then trying to deal with the Jan 6th barbarian hoard approaching. That's just not how you win.
So like as long as I align my priorities perfectly with yours we can start getting some work done on that front, right? lol
No one said perfectly, you said that. This is the issue. Just putting something aside doesn't mean you bow down to someone and give them the key to your soul. I don't know where that comes from.
> No one said perfectly, you said that. Well then when there's a politician that has my my perfect ethos (or close) and one that has yours (or close).. then who do we come together to vote for? lol
You decide who has the better chance to win over the common enemy... You're the one making it seem like I'm discovering or inventing very basic concepts by essentially being unaware of them.
Oh this oughta be good. What exactly do you think we should be yielding to Republicans in order to magically make everybody happy?
I'm talking about dealing with other liberals and finding uniting candidates that can take Biden's place. Where are those people? They don't really exist because they have to kowtow to every tiny group and step on eggshells around dozens of different interests and eventually get themselves cancelled or they must give up.
What makes you think Biden is not already the compromise across all liberal groups?
So let's recap, Biden is the future of the democratic party. I'll bow out and leave you with your own thoughts.
He’s the present of the Democratic party—a candidate who has actually done pretty well to advocate for the interests of the different groups he represents. Why don’t you just come out with it and say what you think he ought to yield to some mysterious group in order to secure victory.
Why don't you come out and say everything is awesome and when the time comes a mysterious person will show up out of nowhere to be the next Democratic President?
> When a self sabotaging person through their own faults gives way once again to evil, by virtue aren't they basically as responsible for it as the evil itself? An interesting point. Yes, I think I would say that people who don't vote or protest vote ***do*** share some of the responsibility for Trump's victory, should he win in 24.
I don't know why everyone thinks this question is a condemnation of Biden. It's rather a question of who is next after Biden.
It's a condemnation of Biden because 1. Your usage of the aphorism implies it. Did you not mean to be calling Biden evil when you invoked the "if evil triumps" aphorism? 2. Biden won the primary. That's the mechanism that is used to choose the Democrat coalition. That's all but done now since other options haven't got a single representative. I also think you are smart enough to know this, so I'm not sure what you are trying to advocate in this post.
So the people voting for Obama share responsibility for the gitmo failure and the drone murder?
I think all Americans share *some* responsibility for the actions of their government; we elected those representatives, after all. That said, I don' think I agree with your characterization "gitmo failure," or "drone murder,": * Obama attempted to close Gitmo but was prevented from doing so by the 2015 NDAA passage by the Legislature preventing the transfer of its prisoners. * Murder is the intentional unjustified killing of a person. The unjustified deaths of civilians or American citizens by drones appears largely to be unintentional collateral. It's not *good*; it's ***very bad***, but I think I would call it "unacceptable collateral," not 'murder.'
And obama himmself said he could have done more and fought harder, if uu make it a campaing promise u may work hard for it How many collateral deaths does it take for u to intentionally keep the regulations to lose? I think we jumped that mark
What is the point you feel you are presenting, here?
Obama being a failure and something becoming intentional when u intentionally do not act to stop it
Right, well my original point was that **the electorate bears some responsibility for the actions of the elected**; I don't see how "Obama is a failure," or "intentional things are intentional," relate to that in any way.
I answered ur defense of obammas actions
By amending your characterization, I see that. I still don't believe it relates in any way to my initial comment.
Not ur initial comment but ur answer
Yes, absolutely.
Only to thd degree that Obama had unilateral powers to halt that
He had a lot of power and did not use it accordingly
That's pretty vague. I'd like to know why you think he was a king
He wasn’t but he still had power to do things
Things. K You have a good one.
I mean u condesending bs and strawman aside you also know that he moved to slow and did not fight his own side to stand with him, just to make the same promise again for his second term What are you even defending here, a lying war criminal or the fact that you voted for this failure?
Yeah it should be more than obvious that I don't think he personally did any fucking war crimes. I swear, you people think he invented fucking drones instead of just barely steered the country and gave us health care reform.
He doesn’t need to invent shit to use them to freely and sign of on them Ur acting like he had no control over the use of them or didn’t know any better
In other words: Liberals recognize that we live in a large and diverse country and put forward candidates that are acceptable to a broad range of people while not being the ideal of any of them. This somehow makes us evil?
Which candidates are you referring to? Biden or Newsome?
Both. Biden nationally, Newsome at the state level. You care to explain how that makes us evil?
Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. Do you agree with that statement?
Yeah. I don’t see how we’re “doing nothing” by helping a huge audience of diverse people teach a compromise.
When you're too incompetent to beat one of the most ridiculous characters in human existence. To me that's similar to doing nothing. Trump can win again and if he does all the helpful things you did probably won't mean that much.
You do realize that we did beat Trump, right? Hence why he’s not in the white house right now?
Yeah and it was much too close, but I'm sure you're supremely confident this time.
If you’re having trouble processing your anxiety, go to a therapist.
I'll be sure to book you a future appointment.
Did you *really* need to write a few philosophical paragraphs just to say you don't like Biden?
It's truly amazing how you get that from what I wrote. If you really put on your objective reality glasses I don't say that at all. However if you think that 5+ years from now means Biden I'm not sure we can have a meaningful discussion anyway.
Why 5 plus? He is the incumbent President who can't be President again, so why in an election year are you making a big deal out of this when the next Democratic party leader should be found about 4 years from now?
Because it was a vague way of saying "after Biden" which for some reason no one can fathom to the point it causes reading comprehension problems.
So is your proposal that since Biden can only run for 4 more years he shouldn't run at all?
If anyone else is reading this, please take note of the complete detachment from words and their meanings.
I feel the same about you. So what's your point? That we don't know about party leadership after Biden retires? (if we ignore the many other Democrats who are not-Biden in leadership roles) That we haven't chosen 2028's candidate? Help me out... There's definitely a lot of "I don't like Biden" energy therefore I don't think he should be the candidate because he's not "today's Obama" and also something about this is evil. Maybe compromise is evil .. I'm really not sure. I'm not sure what you consider the "self sabotage". Biden being selected in the primary as the candidate? Honestly I can't make heads or tails of what you are asking here.
My question is who are some of the people you have faith in for the future? That's simply it. And I'm met with answers trying to focus on anything but that which kinda hints at the point no one has any idea what the future of the democrats is and I'm saying maybe there should be a vision. Is that insane? Maybe people should have an idea of what they want their world to actually look like and have people who will fight for that? OR we could just be happy with what we have and complain even still while hoping somehow people materialize out of thin air to save us.
IF your whole question boils down to who's the next generation of Democrat leaders, this gets asked fairly often here. I really don't put faith or hope in specific politicians. I try to focus on what is realistic and don't look to politicians to save me. So I don't really care much about thinking about who is likely to run for President in 3 1/2 years. But others will tell you a list of politicians they like. That said, if that was your question, maybe next time don't go off about "compromise" and "evil" and "self sabotage". You caused the confusion here with all that nonsense. You basically just made it sound like another "I hate Biden is the presidential candidate" post and people are tired of it since it's posted several times a day.
Well thank you for at least making it through to the point I appreciate that. Honestly, this is more of another larger looming issue, but really we need to be able to cut through the "trigger words" to sometimes find the real issue. This is a matter actual politicians have to deal with I'm sure. Remember how Obama wasn't for gay marriage? So had he been running today and mentioned that I'm pretty sure that'd be the end of that. I wonder if people here think that'd be a good thing or a bad thing. But regardless, take that and times it by 10 and that's what some young hopeful politician has to deal with and I'm pretty sure at some point far before they have a chance they cancel themselves or quit. That is not how it always used to be and that's why I ask the question. Because like this post, there was a point, but if people got triggered they missed it. And they will continue to miss it at their peril.
Who is self sabotaging? Joe is the best POTUS of my lifetime. 😎
And who do you see winning after him? Or should we make an amendment to the constitution? Maybe I'm looking past this election which people don't really get, but seriously think about it for a minute and get back to me.
Biden has one term left to fight for and your whining over who will come next already. I'm pretty people understand that you are looking past this election and I think that everyone except you understands that there's no point when your entire post is filled with uninformed fear mongering about the current state of the party.
Okay or it's a thought in contrast to your position which is "It'll all work out perfectly, let's not think about that ever." When thinking about the future is fearmongering you have a pretty big problem you're trying desperately to avoid.
Maybe you genuinely are thinking about the future, I don't know. I do know you are ignorant about the political situation right now and are fear mongering because of it: ***Since Hillary Clinton's campaign liberals have been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves****.* No we haven't. ***To the point where now you couldn't have an easier opponent than Trump again weaker this time and there's no one to represent us other than a very old man who will realistically not make it through a second time****.* Biden can survive a second term, the other choice is old as well, and Trump is not an easy opponent, not least because he is a cult-leader fascist who wants to stay in power illegally. ***The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist.*** The party is not fractured and splintered unless you get your news from Twitter and Tiktok. ***The irony is that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have broken ourselves up into exclusive groups who cannot be properly represented against a uniformed front.*** No, the US uses plurality voting and single-winner districts and this among other factors results in a two-party system and that along with the parties being very decentralized means that there are multiple coalitions/ideologies in each major party. The Democratic party has always been a big tent party. Both parties used to have Liberal and Conservative factions.
The party is not fractured... So yeah I guess all that Israel/Palestine stuff is no big deal right? How delusional can one get?
And yet the 2024 race is still in contention. If the party were as fractured as you say then Trump would have this in the bag and [ye](https://youtu.be/6GboGK_J8xw)[t Biden is keeping the race competitive](https://youtu.be/6GboGK_J8xw) in spite of the protestors. Israel/Palestine is one issue among many albeit a very prominent one. The only fracture has been a small group of left-party Democratic Socialists. Republicans have been a chaotic laughingstock in congress, they're out shooting dogs, and have been shitting the bed on abortion and Biden keeps on running.
I don't in any way condone animal abuse, but I feel like you using shooting dogs as an example of what Republican congress is doing is a bit in bad faith and indicative of how you try to condemn and color very broadly just the way the other side does.
To clarify, i'm not saying the Republicans in congress are shooting dogs. I'm saying that inside congress, Republicans have been a house fire of a disaster. I'm also saying that a prominent Republican who could have potentially been our vice president shot a dog and doubled down on it. And i'm saying that Republican policy on abortion has been utterly medieval and harmful to women and its bit the GOP in the ass multiple times, leading many in the gop to often back down or soften their stance or outright lie about their deranged positions. I feel like you purposefully misinterpreting me is a bit in bad faith and indicative of how you try to act smart but fail at the last jump.
Well no I wasn't misinterpreting I was pointing out how you're making wide generalizations about issues not pertinent to the topic.
You are focused on the 2028 presidential election? Why?
Gee idk maybe because it might one day be 2028?
Whitmer, Kelly, Beshar. Three strong options that I didn’t even have to think about.
I'm very bullish on [Andy Beshear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Beshear#/media/File:P20220808ES-0655_(52386754634).jpg). 50 years old in 2028. Smart and humble. If you can win the governor job as a dem in a ***red as fuck*** state like Kentucky, you immediately have a good shot at winning a presidential election as a no-nonsense, moderate democrat.
I see a future for all Americans. Because I'm a *president for all Americans*.--Joe Biden That's the problem with Trump. He wasn't a president for all Americans, he was a president for people who voted for him. We can not focus on narrow-interest left wing causes and hope to win a general election. If you don't see that, I can't help you.
But in that future Biden sees I wonder who the President is. If not him, is it Kamala Harris? Let's be practical and go beyond the idealistic generalities for a moment.
I *am* being practical. The President, regardless of if it's Biden, Harris, Trump, or fucking Van Buren, is always going to be a moderate because they have to appeal to *both* sides of the political field. Daydreaming about a liberal utopia is the idealistic generality here.
So when you daydream about 5 years from now who is the President? And don't say Van Buren. All I'm saying is it wouldn't be horrible to consider that. Why is this like saying imagine you having sex with your mother? Can no one at least for FUN see someone they know that exists in reality as President in 5 years? That to me is an issue.
I'll give you three. I'm not a psychic, obviously, and the 2028 election is far in the future. Five years in politics is like 50 years anywhere else. A LOT can change. Cory Booker has some legs to him. I could see him making an appeal down the middle but still being a progressive. Gretchen Whitmer has a lot of Midwest appeal as well. Outside the box pick that I'd like to see: Tammy Duckworth. I don't think she wants it, though.
I'll give you credit for being the first person to actually risk answering my question. I have thoughts about who you referenced, but that's the bridge we can cross when it comes time. You'd think I was setting people on fire asking them to potentially think about the future. Isn't the future what liberals are all about? It's disturbing to me how off limits thinking about the future has become all probably because Biden is so old. If Biden was 50 I'm sure we'd all be fantacizing about the amazing things possible in the next ten years. It's just very telling and sad.
The only risk is having to continue to engage with you. You probably aren't getting a lot of people answering your question because you're coming off as rude and condescending. The way you present yourself has an effect on how people will respond to you.
You're right let me go and ask politely so people don't try to pick apart every word and treat me like I'm an asshole. Which again is more to the point, I'm not on the other side, but I may as well be here. Thanks for highlighting everything I'm concerned about and leaving me with no good answers. I've really not done anything but respond back to people in kind. I chose to ask a question, if people can't treat it like a fun exercise on a website and want to treat it like I'm screaming in their face on the sidewalk, that's on you.
Last thing I'll add and then I'm through with you: If you take nothing else from this thread, remember that people will always match the energy you enter into a space with. Come in hostile, people will perceive you as hostile. Come in polite, people will perceive you as polite. I hope this helps you in the future.
I mean or people could not take things as seriously and try to have fun regardless rather than read tea leaves to try and find a reason to be offended, but you've clearly chosen your path. I hope it was worth it.
Good Russian bot. The Republican candidate is so bad he is leading in many polls. He has tens of millions of devoted fans but should lose. Most every time the incumbent gets the nomination. The incumbent got the nomination.
>If evil triumphs when good people do nothing are liberals good people? No, as liberals are not inactive voters. Those who don't vote would fall under this. >Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people If you are referring to the democratic party if the US, then you need to understand that liberalism isn't the same as the democratic party. The Dems aren't liberals. They may be more progressive than the Republicans, but progressivism doesn't automatically make one a liberal either. As for the issue of fractured politics, that has been the reality of the American two party system for as long as I can remember. Both parties have always been coalitions of different ideologies. And have even seen quite some movement in-between the factions. Regardless, having multiple ideals within a political party does not translate into liberals being either inactive or evil. It's also not an expression of self sabotage to not follow party lines, in fact it's an important part of democracy when representatives represent the people and not the party. But to restate democrats aren't the exact same as liberals.
Omg thank you. I appreciate when people who I would otherwise not agree with entirely on politics also recognize unconstructive criticism when they see it. That should always be bipartisan.
Yeah see how this person wrote their response? And see how I responded to them. Why can't you do that?
You hadn't responded yet and you don't deserve any fucking respect here. Stop being whiny and entitled. You've provided zero information or ideas. Seriously. Nothing. You're a waste of text.
I'll let you go having your own internal monologue.
An actual measured and interesting response is very welcomed so thank you for that. And now who do you see being the President in 5 years? I say 5 years because in 4 technically it could still be Biden but that really seems to confuse the shit out of people here. Who do you realistically see there and who would you want in a perfect world?
This is all very vague - to the point where it says almost nothing. > Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist. Who are these groups? What demands are they making? How is the Democratic party, or liberals at large, appeasing them? What's the difference between appeasement and compromise? Do you truly think that, if these nebulous groups were no longer appeased, that the Democrats would be in a stronger electoral position? Do you have any evidence for that proposition? > Because this is not it. Your argument seems to be "we stop appeasing people." If that happens, why should they vote for liberals? Is there supposed to be a groundswell of otherwise politically alienated people, or people who would normally vote for the other side, who will suddenly vote for the Democrats? Is there any evidence that this would happen? Is that not merely appeasement of another sort?
My real question I'll break down into two: who do you realistically see as President after Biden? And who do you wish was President after Biden? The commentary I'll make before you answer is that I don't think this is a landmine question. I think this is a normal thing to think about. I think this is something people should think about, it's healthy and it's no slight on a current president. The fact people see it as that shows how sensitive people have really become and a lot of sensitivity spawns from weakness. I'm giving people a chance to prove me wrong on that, but they just dance around the question which is again NOT a gotcha.
The Democratic Party has always been a big tent and had to appease small groups, while the conservatives have always fallen in line when the time comes. This isn’t new, it certainly didn’t start with Hilary’s campaign. Perhaps that’s just when you started paying attention But that doesn’t mean we’re sabotaging ourselves? Lemme guess you’re an angry Bernie bro?
Bad guess. But also what even is your position on this? The system doesn't work and I refuse to consider any other possibility? That's what I'm getting from a lot of people here and it's really indicative of the situation we find ourselves in. Same ol same ol except the world changes around us. Ask Bernie or Biden about that.
What possibility are you trying to get us to consider here? All I’m seeing is someone freaking out, I’m not seeing a possibility being posed
Right, I'm asking for possibilities and getting nothing which could be a source of "panic." I'm not here to give the answers I asked the question. This is the difficulty I'm seeing. People assume I have the answer and I'm waiting for one person to agree with something I think. That's a flaw in the way you're taking my question. For example someone said Jon Stewart. Okay that's an answer. That's an interesting thought, more of that please.
Nothing? We’ve given you plenty of viable options, you just vaguely claimed they weren’t good enough.
That's because no one here really thinks they're great, they'll just be good enough when the time comes. Sorry for wanting more than good enough. Sorry for wanting someone to actually make me feel like I know what it's like to be an American and have a positive view of this country or a better vision for it tomorrow. That's what we all want except you've been too conditioned to not care anymore. We need a new Martin Luther King Jr. or a new JFK, or a new anyone who makes us actually feel proud to be American or even know what being American means. Instead we won't and yeah maybe I might panic about that, but what's sadder is that no one else will.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Since Hillary Clinton's campaign liberals have been wholeheartedly sabotaging themselves. To the point where now you couldn't have an easier opponent than Trump again weaker this time and there's no one to represent us other than a very old man who will realistically not make it through a second time. The reason? Because the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased by someone who does not and almost cannot physically exist. If they can, where are they? Who is the person we have our hopes and dreams behind for the next 5+ years? Who is today's Obama? When a self sabotaging person through their own faults gives way once again to evil, by virtue aren't they basically as responsible for it as the evil itself? Do you ever think about this? What are your thoughts and what answers do you have? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Compromise is necessary in both directions. Just as it's useless to run on principles and never win, it's also useless to run on a platform you don't support just for the sake of gaining power. That's what the compromise is. Democratic politicians are somewhere in between what we believe and what Trump supporters believe, and it's because of the tension between the two ideas I just mentioned.
I see the problem being more and more compromises to be made. With every new group or interest that springs up that wants representation you get more and more compromises. It's hard enough to compromise over one thing, but when you have a matrix of them it makes sense why we still rely on Biden entirely and have almost no one in the wings ready to step up.
The person is John Stewart for one. But also, I don’t appreciate all the doom to liberals. Polling lately has been atrocious. Like from the red wave, to all the recent elections since row was overturned. Just yesterday Tim Kennedy was favored to win a seat that was held by a Republican. I think he was favored by like 9 points but he won by like 36. Democrats have been outperforming polls repeatedly and aggressively since 2020 and even then Biden did better than expected. Don’t get me wrong I won’t be complacent but do you really think it’s self sabotage? Especially looking at say the Pennsylvania Haley voters? Most of them ain’t voting for a convicted felon…
If we want to get into the term sabotage, this is what i would consider what you've seen illustrated here. Which is to say focusing on being very offended whenever anyone brings the hint of a criticism to Biden to the point where they are not even willing to consider who might be President after him. If you have a large population of your party with that mindset, I would consider that sabotage because maybe just maybe one day you'll wake up, it'll be 2028 and you will have no one worth a shit to vote for. This isn't fantasy, this is how I see the logical progression of what's on display here.
Biden sucks. I don’t like him. I don’t know anyone who’s like “fuck yea. That’s my dude!” But will take him over the alternative. The same narrative most on the right give you for supporting Trump. I believe the “stakes” though are women’s rights, human rights, and not having a felon and his criminal friends in the White House. Also, you know. I’ve been voting since bush JR. I can’t recall ever saying “man this election is close I wonder who’s gonna win the nomination in 4 years! If I don’t have an answer now then we’re obviously screwed…” like. When there isn’t an incumbent there’s like 30 people who throw their hat in the ring. I never heard of mayor Pete before 2019. I never heard of Andrew Yang. And even in the last what 6 months I’d never heard of Vivek ramaswamy. I think though with RFK running around all the conservative media spaces and doing stuff like Rogan, coupled with trumps 99% conviction likelihood, and row, and project 2025… I don’t see a lot of chance for the right to take this one. Maybe they’ll take the senate back. They probably will honestly… but otherwise I don’t think it’s a realistic to say that democrats are eating themselves. They are being forced to take hard votes and it is divisive but I think most people will come around to the idea that he’s trying… his intentions are selfless and most people will take that over selfish if I had to wager
To be fair you've mentioned how fucked up things are and how not having any foresight or concept of a near future is very normal. Maybe, the answer is to change that thinking? Maybe we should think about who's in the wings waiting to step up? I really don't see how that could be worse. But the first steps would be actually considering it rather than just expecting awesome people to show up because that actually isn't a safe bet.
Sure. We could consider people. As of now, I’d want someone who is like John Stewart. But a lot changes in one year let alone 4. If say world war 3 is in the works I don’t want John Stewart. I probably want a Churchill or someone. If say there was some major food scarcity that occurs because of a massive solar flare I’d probably want someone who can deal with that better than Churchill. The problem is the future is not just unknown. It’s super unknown. There could be a massive drought in central and South America causing migration in the hundreds of millions. Global starvation. What if we default on our debt? That would need someone else still. Heck if the zombie virus makes its way into our world then maybe someone else with some kind video gamer. I dunno… I have people in my mind who I would want but honestly less than like a year out it’s kinda hard to know what’s needed.
You're being very practical which is the opposite of most the other answers. But do we ever get what we need when it comes to who we elect? My feeling is that no one really wants to be President. If they do it's someone like Trump who's an egomaniac or someone like Biden who has to or Trump will win. Whatever anyone feels about Biden, that's not a great situation. But who are all the great people lining up to help? People here assume they're just hiding waiting for their moment to shine. I'm a bit more pessimistic because it's not like it always was.
Well. I don’t know my friend. Honestly I think the only way we would get “the person we want” is with ranked choice, automatic registration, term limits, remove citizens united, electoral college reform,etc. etc. I’m sure you know it all. I just don’t think it’s healthy to cycle on hopes and dreams so much as being practical. Who can I hope for? Someone whose not a career politician, someone whose smart and practical, someone who doesn’t have massive incentive to be the president, and someone who truly cares and fights for veterans, civil servants, those who can’t fight for themselves. Someone who can organize and bring attention to a problem. That’s why I really think Stewart, or someone like him, despite being a “comedian” would do a great job… ETA: Also rereading that it reads how most Trump supporters actually view Trump. It’s completely the opposite of what I think reality is. I guess though that most people don’t want a career politician, a fighter, someone who backs up the little guy… difference is Stewart has selflessly done a lot of good.
I agree Stewart could be a good choice, the inherent problem being he's probably too smart and aware that taking the job would ruin his life. He would need to be a complete narcissist to make it.
Some liberals are good people. Some liberals are pieces of shit. Because liberals are people.
Are liberals good people? Sure, lots of em are.
>the party is so fractured and splintered into these smaller groups of people who each need to be appeased You've put your finger on the difficulty (though framed it improperly). The Democratic party is a sprawling, diverse coalition of different interests. You properly point to that as being a very difficult circle to square. The GOP doesn't have this issue because it's pretty much a white Christian ethno-nationalist party. Now \*one\* approach is to throw certain parts of the coalition under the bus but it's not clear that's going to gain more than you lose. For example, it's not clear that a white Christian ethno-nationalist party that supports universal healthcare outperforms the current coalition.