>

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're overthinking this. Being gay is not the liability asking conservatives that it once was.
Unless you have another reason to think he can't win a swing state?
Newsome will wait for 2028.
Whitmer and Pritzker are sleepers. 
Pete, Kamala, and Beto won’t last past the first few primaries. They just aren’t that popular. Of those, Pete has the best chance. Ideally, he needs to move to a solid blue state and become a House member, Governor, or Senator to first. His resume still isn’t there, and he will need a massive one to overcome homophobia in America. 
Dark horse - Sherrod Brown. He won’t run, but he’s actually a perfect candidate to beat a DeSantis. I think he’d win the whole thing if he ran, but if he won, OH loses a senate seat to the GOP. I’ve also never gotten the feeling that he wants to be President. 
Mark Kelly is an outside option, but I have yet to feel any vibes coming from DNC circles about him being the guy.
Beshear of Kentucky is probably more of a 2028-2032 option. 
There’s always a good chance that someone comes out of nowhere. No one outside of political circles saw Obama coming, and god knows no one saw Trump coming. 
If Biden sits it out, I’m sure Bernie will toss in his hat to make sure the convo stays on progressive topics. >

I'm curious as to why you think Newsom would wait until '28. He's term limited as governor, so he would leave public office and the public eye in 2026. He could attempt to land a cabinet position in early 2027, but he'd almost immediately abandon it to campaign.
He's currently well versed in the main economic issues that matter to Americans (housing and healthcare especially). The Dem slate is not strong enough to push him out, even if Biden wants to run again, and the GOP is in the middle of a fracture that could make the 2026 election a shoe-in for the Dem nominee.
Now is his time. >

He also has a clear contrast in executive policy from DeSantis and the economic success to tout his as the superior approach. California, despite having some of the most restrictive Covid protocols, has had a stronger economic recovery post-pandemic than anywhere else. He’s also not a far left progressive so he doesn’t alienate the fence-sitters. I’d think he’s the strongest non-Biden option out of the theoretical choices. >


He’s also not a far left progressive so he doesn’t alienate the fence-sitters.

That might be true but a fair amount of people hate California because well.... A lot of batshit crazy ideas have come from California politics, more to the point, I think the California assocation would hurt him as a whole. >

The ones that believe that weren’t going to vote for a Democrat anyway. >

Not necessarily. When you see headlines like 5m in reparations each to everyone who can prove their ancestors were slaves... That doesn't help. >

Again a voter that thinks a recommendation by a task force in a City represents the governor wasn’t gonna vote for the Democrat to begin with. >

Not necessarily. It doesn't take being a Republican to think California is too left.
Left in terms of actual policies vs left in terms of reputation of proposed policies are different answers but for better or worse, California is generally pretty left, especially when compares to other states. >

I think it really depends on what kind of candidate the GOP runs. If they run on culture war and California as a boogie man, then Newsom can cruise through it. California is a massive state, massive population, massive economy. It's a southern border state, the destination state for the broad majority of Chinese trade, a major food producing state, the premiere tech state, the other major media state, a state that has studied housing and homeless, and that is on the forefront of education. 
The GOP can't win by attacking Newsom on policy issues while not bringing any policy solutions of their own to the table. >


a state that has studied housing and homeless,

Have they made any meaningful inroads on either?

The GOP can't win by attacking Newsom on policy issues while not bringing any policy solutions of their own to the table.

The sad thing is it seems they can.  White working class have moved to republicans despite them at best offering nothing or actively harming them.  They offer up the culture wars and say working class a lot.  Democrats do some stuff but it seems like there is a disparity between how much they must do to win their vote. >

For the purposes of speculating, I'd say Gretchen Whitmer or Mark Kelly would be viable choices. Both recently won [re]elections pretty handily in swing state-wide elections. Kelly has more of that quiet appeal, while Whitmer has that 'make-republicans-so-mad-they-tried-to-kidnap-me' gleam. Both theoretically could perform well in a national election.
Newsome is thrown out there, but I think he would fall short for the same reason DeSantis would/will. Sure, he's popular in his state; but it's a state that is on the fringe of the political appetite of the rest of the country. I just don't know that that translates into winning on a national scale. >


while Whitmer has that 'make-republicans-so-mad-they-tried-to-kidnap-me' gleam

Ha. While amusing, I don't think it'd be effective in a wider sense.
I also think Newsome would fail for the same reasons DeSantis will do well. California has a plethora of critical issues that even the liberal wing has to acknowledge are critical issues. Most of Florida's critical issues are considered either cost of doing business or features, not bugs, of the GOP platform. It makes Newsome far, far less likely to win over DNC leaning moderates, but DeSantis far, far more likely to swing GOP leaning moderates. I know several people that voted for Biden that think DeSantis would overall be a fairly good economic leader. There's been enough distance from Covid, and for many unfortunately Roe isn't critical from their own selfish views, so their primary concern is pulling out of the economic nosedive. Do I believe DeSantis can pull us out? Fuck no. Do I think he can convince people that he can better than Newsome? Honestly yeah I do. >

DeSantis’s strength is much more cultural and social issues than economic ones. That’s why you see him talking about LGBTQIA issues, race issues, vaccines, masks, wokeness, abortion, etc. that’s where he’s earning his votes. He doesn’t want to talk about how inflation in Florida is the highest in the country or the cost of homeowners insurance. >

My mother in law despises DeSantis and homeowner’s insurance pricing was a big part of what made her leave Florida for the Midwest. Shes always been relatively quiet politically but she will go off about DeSantis, it’s awesome >

Andy Beshear is overwhelmingly popular as far as Democratic governors go and he hails from Kentucky. >

Beshear is in the same boat as Phil Scott, Larry Hogan, and Charlie Baker. The four of them were consistently ranked as the top five most popular governors in the country. Hogan, Baker, and Scott all won reelection in landslides despite running in deep-blue states, and come November, Beshear is more likely than not to win a second term, too.
But all of them are so out of touch with the party base that there's no way in hell they'd even come close to winning a primary. The general election? Maybe. Hell, any of them might even remake the modern battleground map as we know it. But even if they were to run against the worst Dems/GOPers imaginable, they still wouldn't win the nomination. >

Beshear is not the Democratic equivalent to Scott, Hogan, or Baker on the Republican side. First off all those republican governors vocally opposed Trump while Beshear embraces Biden.
On the issues, Beshear is a mainline almost progressive Democrat on abortion, health care, climate change, unions, LGBTQIA rights, racial issues, drug legalization, immigration, criminal Justice reform, and education. He’s a slight moderate on gun control compared to progressives though.
With those deep blue state GOP governors they’d have so many non-starters in the primaries. They support trans rights, they believe in climate change, they support BLM, they’ve enacted “sanctuary” laws on immigration, they support forms of gun control. They’d be DOA. >

John Bel Edwards is arguably a way better comparison, yes. But yet, I still doubt that Andy Beshear would gain any traction outside of Kentucky. Ideology aside, Beshear is bland as white bread, has zero personality whatsoever, and I'm unsure that there's a natural constituency for him as a Democratic presidential primary candidate. >

NC Governor Roy Cooper should run. He won NC twice in the same two elections that NC voted for Trump - that's indicative of strong centrist appeal, and that's what the Dems need to win. >

Presidential elections are a whole different beast.  He'd not get far in a presidential primary.  Whoever runs against DeSantis will need energy, charisma, good debate skills to shut him down and be nimble in their campaign.  
Ideally they'd already have started the precursor to their campaigns to get their name out there.  DeSantis has been doing this for some time now.  So has Newsom. >

DeSantis is low energy and has the charisma of a wilted cactus. There's no real need to worry about DeSantis now that Trump is in. If I were Ron I'd hide until Trump is gone because he is going to get fucking murdered.  Have you ever seen Ron speak or answer even a basic question? He's awful on camera. 
We need someone who can hang with Trump's one-liners. So in essence I do agree with you there that we need another orator like Obama to motivate people. >

Mark Kelly.
If you took all the qualities of the good guy TV president and distilled them into a person, Kelly is what would come out of the tap.  At a spritely 58, he's (relatively) young.  He's a charismatic vet, carrier pilot, astronaut, and swing-state senator who happens to be married to Gabby Giffords.  Besides all his qualities, he also has very strong name recognition and comes with practically no baggage.
Harris is not well liked.
Stacy Abrams is coming off a loss.
Beto is now sadly a perrenial loser.  Dude's career is effectively over.
Newsom just recently had to hold off a recall.
Mayor Pete, no matter how awesome and well qualified, is gay.
What can people say about Mark Kelly? >


Newsom just recently had to hold off a recall.

He actually crushed it and that bolstered the idea he could be a Biden replacement. >

“Make America into San Francisco” seems like a winning campaign slogan.
The attack ads write themselves basically >

I would much rather America be like SF than like literally any flyover city in the country, thank you very much. >

I mean you have to win flyover to win the nation. 
Unless you want to secede (also good luck getting those farmers to support you). >

Also, it’s not just flyover country that doesn’t want to live in sf. I live in New York City.
SF is the land of $1.8 million for one toilet that takes 3+ years to build (not making this up - google it lol). Then there’s the broken pubic services, pervasive feces, homelessness, open air drug markets, addiction, enormous spending on said homelessness, taxes, fleeing businesses, fixed housing supply, etc etc etc
Tons of people I know in San Francisco don’t want to live in San Francisco. You’re deluding yourself if you think many people outside of the Bay Area want to live in a place like that >

I wonder if the people you know are all tech industry. That market priced out folks that could afford it before. Then people either ended up homeless or over in oakland. I'm not even sure what I'm really defending here, but you can definitely find homelessness and drugs anywhere. California ain't cheap, and I think the nation as a whole has a long way to go on homelessness and addiction. I haven't been down to the bay in a while, but I do recall those public toilets (if they're the same ones) missing the mark. Had to pee and waited forever... there was a dude with his bicycle in there that had likely been doing drugs or sleeping. But yeah, most businesses won't let people use their bathrooms and more could certainly be done. >

The single worst thing about San Francisco to my mind is the cartoonishly hellish red tape that prevents development or construction of any kind. The most trivial projects are subject to years and years and years of review and public comment. This is how you end up with a $1.2 million dollar 3+ year project to build a single toilet
This sort of corruption also makes it impossible to build desperately needed new housing.
To the extent SF residents prefer things to remain this way, they’re getting precisely what they deserve. I feel sympathy for everyone else though >

This makes sense. I mean... I'm not completely against proper planning, but as someone trying to figure out how much bs i need to do to legally sell a single piece of handmade clothing, it's a wonder that anyone in this country gets anything done. (Thanks to the folks on th3bstreets of Berkeley that bought some stuff for me years ago. Lol) >

I don’t only have a Presidential pick but also her VP: Whitmer Warnock 2024!
Let’s put it this way: in 2020, Democrats won the House popular vote by 3.1%. Biden won the state of Michigan that year by 2.8%. He has since, to some degree, become less popular than when he was elected. In 2022, Republicans won the House popular vote by 2.8%. Whitmer however won her re-election by 10.6%. So Whitmer did ~8 points better than Biden did when Biden was more popular than he is now, despite a national environment ~6 points worse for Democrats.
Now, does that mean Whitmer is somewhere north of 14 points more popular than Biden nationally? No, but it says a lot that in the only state where voters have a somewhat decent idea of who Whitmer is, she has performed much better than Biden. 
You may say that Michigan isn’t indicative of the rest of the country, and I’d disagree. But either way, under the electoral college, the rest of the country doesn’t matter so much. All that really matters is 5-10 states with a somewhat plausible chance of going either way in the next election, and Michigan is one of those states. This is why Newsome is DOA: California is irrelevant, it’ll go blue anyway no matter who is on the ticket, but the swing states will be easily convinced that the governor of the most visibly liberal state in the union is not for them. He also has simply never had to run for office in a competitive state; he’s not battle-tested.
But that’s not all: Michigan is also politically and demographically similar to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, two other competitive states, with Wisconsin being the all-important tipping-point state in each of the last two presidential elections. These three states tend to vote as a block; they have voted blue in every Presidential election from 92 on, with the exception of 2016, when all three went for Trump, with their total electoral college points larger than the difference in who won the election. It seems likely that a message that strongly resonates with the voters of Michigan will also strongly resonate with the voters of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If one side wins these 3 states, the other side will have to win pretty much every other competitive state, which is very unlikely.
Warnock has a similar logic, though he actually underperformed a bit relative to Biden in Georgia in 2020. But he was the only Democrat to win statewide in Georgia in 2022, and the last couple of years has shown that he clearly has a message that resonates there. Georgia is another very competitive state that, if Democrats end up with it in their win column, it’ll be really tough for them to lose. >

It will unfortunately be Biden, but Mark Kelly is a likeable senator from a swing state, husband of Gabby Gifford, astronaut, navy pilot, charismatic, etc. The man was built to run for President and would be an ideal choice to beat Trump and co.
Biden is too old. >

I could imagine Biden, if he was unsure about running, discreetly inviting would be candidates to have a modern version of a smoke filled room discussion. I don't know how competitive the various Democrats are, and how willing they are to fight and undermine the efforts to keep Trump or his allies out of power, but I assume they'd work in conjunction, and try to not fight too much.
Among the "below 70" crowd, I got a sense that Governor Whitmer of Michigan might take a crack at the presidency. Cory Booker already tried, and might try again. Mark Kelly I can see too. Pete Buttigieg might try again, but certainly not if Biden is still running.
I don't expect Yang to run, but I think he'll try to nudge someone to include UBI and electoral reform issues to get the endorsement of his Forward Party (which is really more of a caucus). >

I think the smoke filled room move would be to have Harris step down and have Biden pick a running mate.  I wouldn't mind Mark Kelly, and I think he would improve Biden's chances of winning, I feel like Harris hurts him. >

I can't imagine the backlash from members of the party with a Biden/Kelly ticket. Having Pres/VP as both old white men seems anathema to the base. >

You underestimate just how much people loathe Kamala. >

Do I? 
I think partisans hate her a lot more than the median voter. 
Do I think she can win? No. 
But she’s not much worse than your average politician. >

The Sacramento press corps hated Kamala for a long time— two very liberal political reporters told me she would lie to their face. Her affair with the much older Willie Brown when she was young wasn’t looked on favorably either (he was legally married). >

If I recall, Biden ran in 2020 because there isn't a real leader in the Democratic party. I don't think that's changed. 
Newsom probably edges most people out as a favorite, but I agree with others that he'll likely wait until 2028.
I feel like Booker was on a fast track then went quiet after 2020.
Would love to see Joe Kennedy get back at it. I think he still has a lot to offer. >

First, Biden is going to run, so this is all hypothetical.
Unless somebody passes game-changing voting rights protections on the federal level, I think the old rules of US politics will hold true for at least another generation. To be electable to the POTUS, you need to be a straight, old, white, dude. You can be a goofy old white dude (Biden, Bush), an angry old white dude (Trump, Nixon), or a charismatic old white dude (Clinton, Reagan, Carter), but you can't be a woman, or a person of color, or a queer, or a non-Christian.
Obama was the exception, not the rule, made possible only because of a cocktail of external factors that cannot be recreated in the near future. He was a once-in-a-generation orator, charismatic, a gifted politician, etc. But also, in 2008 the overseas wars were not going well, and people on both sides wanted radical change: away from Bush, and the moderate corporatists that Bush (and Hillary, and Romney) represented.
For Dems, Obama was simply the best candidate and should be POTUS, but for some racist Republicans that also crossed the aisle, Obama was a way to get back at their ex- by getting dicked down by a hung black guy. They still loved Bush and the GOP, but they needed the GOP to be better. But then Obama got elected again - he was supposed to be a one-term fling - and the next four years were some hardcore rebound into full-on KKK territory: hence Trump.
So, POC, women, and gays are unelectable in America as POTUS, in my view, without federal voting reform. The entire country is gerrymandered to fuck and back, popular polling doesn't matter, the electoral college is intrinsically biased - and most crucially - none of that is going to change anytime soon. That alone eliminates a lot of the Dem field from last primary who would otherwise have name recognition, campaign infrastructure, and momentum in their favor.
Bernie is a straight, old, white, dude, but he's too old now (also, he's Jewish, the secret checkbox). Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar are women (also Whitmer) - any could potentially win a Dem primary - but none could win the POTUS. Hillary was honestly the best shot for a female POTUS maybe ever, and that's because Nobody denies that she's packing a big dick (two if you count Bill as first husband, they would be London Bridging Putin as we speak), but her sizeable boon, is also her curse, her political horse-cock is emasculating for everyone short of Ron Jeremy.
Buttigieg is similarly out, he could easily win the Dem primary, I would even say he's the Best positioned candidate to do so right now. But he's gay, so he won't win the general election. Dems are ready for that in the primary, even a majority of Americans by popular vote are, but the Electoral College and the gerrymandering it represents are not ready for a gay POTUS.
The Democratic Party knows all of the above, which is why the primary system is \~rigged to ensure a viable candidate for the general election is selected. Bernie voters will hate to hear that, but Bernie is a Socialist Jew, and a viable candidate needs to at least muddy the water of independents and swing moderates. It's just reality that anti-Communism McCarthyism and anti-semitism are both still factors in independent/republican American politics.
So who is left in our hypothetical 2024 primary that has a viable shot of winning in the general (because otherwise the party won't back them)? Kelly and Newsom really seem like the best options, they'd probably disappear early in the primary field but emerge later on when the other candidates start disqualifying themselves (ex. Beto), and then the realists and pundits and party operators would rally behind one of them, and flip the lead in their favor in the final month or two.
Either would be a strong general election candidate, stronger than they appear right now. You could buttress their apparent weaknesses with some cabinet taps, including VP choice, and they'd have time to means test their positions, and both would have broad appeal and a sea of money behind them. >

I'm not here to agree or disagree, nor do I have anything useful to add to the topic at hand. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the colorful way you wrote this. Thank you for the laughs, even though I now have to go scrub the image of a Clinton-Putin-Clinton London Bridge out of my mind. >

Thanks! If it's any consolation, after writing that sentence there was a part of me that strongly considered summoning the dark powers of Photoshop to bring that image to life and release it, like a CBRN weapon, into the internet wilds.
Where presumably it would grow and multiply and wipe out all the native memes. A Goatse or Lemon Party for the modern era.
But I refrained, for the good of all humankind. >

The mental image is good enough. Do you write much? If you ever want to do a political comedy piece, I'd sub to your Substack Yvaelle. >

I'm writing a science fiction trilogy, first one is done but waiting to finish all three because that's how the Amazon algorithm works nowadays. But thanks for the encouragement! >

Mark Kelly or Raphael Warnock from the Senate.
JB Pritzker, Gaving Newsom, Jared Polis, Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear from the Governorships. >

Unfortunately, if Warnock leaves the Senate, then Kemp appoints the replacement, and would be a Republican. >

They'd have a special election, just like when Warnock was elected originally. >

After a while, yes
But for several months, there'd be a GOP senator. >

I think Gretchen could win both the nomination and then defeat whatever piece of shit the GOP trots out there. >

My opinion is if Biden is not the nominee, no matter what the reason, no other Democrat could win in 2024.
Not a dig at the available field of candidates. I just think the optics of “The last guy the Dems nominated could not even last 8 years, why would we trust this pick?” would be too much of a factor.
Whether he decides to step down from running, dies before the election, loses in a competitive, etc. Any reason I can think of it feels like the optics would be too bad for the fence-sitters. >


no other Democrat could win in 2024. 

You think Trump would win against Newsom? >

Yeah, I do. I don’t think a governor from California gets much of a bump in the swing states.
Biden won the state he was born in, PA, by less than 2 percent. >

Considering the 2022 midterms there’s no way that Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania would vote for Trump in 2024. Swing state Dem voters will turn out against Trump, they don’t give a fuck what state the Dem candidate is from. >

Biden has to run if Trump, or Desantis, or any of the intolerable outcomes are possible. >

I know he doesnt have the national appeal (yet) that he needs, but I cant advocate for Jared Polis **more**.
As a progressive candidate who swore to battle homeless and wealth disparity as well as the GOP's rampant attempts to alienate the common civilian from his fellows, he has been putting in SERIOUS work. 
Even hamstrung by a conservative batshit (structurally speaking at least) system, he hasnt deviated from his set goals and has been getting shit done.
Another thing to note; he is insanely good at winning over voters from traditonal republican backgrounds. His crossover appeal might even be the biggest factor in this.
So i'd definitely say Jared 4 Prez or w/e. >

John Fetterman may be a sad what-if in US history. 
Extremely likeable and relateable Democract that could turn some lower class whites back to the party. Executive experience in a key swing state. His massive size makes the phrase "Fetterman is weak on ____ " feel less impactful. >

Politics is about optics more than anything. Rural Americans clearly like a strong-man type in the Whitehouse.
Can you imagine him in a summit with Putin ? The memes alone could win him votes. >

It seems crazy to look for alternatives to a sitting President that's done a lot more than anyone thought he could do when he took office. >

Age is the obvious issue. He’s doing fine,  but a lot can happen in 2 years or 6 years if people are concerned about him finishing my his term.  If he has a medical issue suddenly, you don’t want to  have to come up with someone on the spot who the public hasn’t had a chance to consider. Look at the Pennsylvania senate race where a candidate not even that old had a stroke and almost lost because of it. With Biden those odds are much higher something could shake peoples confidence. It just seems foolish not to start prepping a replacement. The GOP certainly has a deeper bench because a few of their governors have been national politicking at the expense of their state constituents, but if Trump bows out, there are a couple guys who could step into the void without losing much ground. On the other side, you can see from this thread that no one can point to a solid alternative of Biden steps down and the general public needs some warming up for national races. We saw how much damage can be done with a Trump presidency. The guy got to tip the Supreme Court. I don’t think it’s sane to just wager that everything on chance and hope Biden stays healthy and competent at his age. >

Why do Dems keep acting like he needs to be replaced? Are we trying to lose in 2024?
Biden has accomplished an insane amount of good for this country in record speed and with uncompromising counterparts of the right.
But ok yea let’s replace him and come off as weak af. So the right wing media machine can run stupid messaging like Biden was such a failure that the Dems had to replace him. 
It’s so god damn dumb it’s making me pull hair out. >

I dunno man, I just don't want to live in a country with an 86-year old president in 2028... >

How about a country with no democracy and king trump or king Desantis? Maybe you’d prefer that?
Because those are the stakes. Our democracy is in peril. 
Even if the stakes weren’t that high, why complain about an 80+ year old that’s getting shit done at a breakneck pace? >

"Our democracy is in peril." in every election I have voted in (since ~1990) >

We’re people violently trying to overthrow the peaceful transition of power from one president to the next back then too? 
I didn’t read that in the history books but maybe you know more than everyone else… >

Lukewarm, centrist politicians like Biden won’t save us from that fyi. They’re part of the reason we’re here at all. >

yeah but your buddy bernie will right >

Seriously? Comedian Jon Stewart if paired with an actual politician with real experience. >

gavin newsom is my bet, maaaaybe mayor pete. but he's homosexual... and i'm not sure how that affects his would be chances. >


maaaaybe mayor pete. but he's homosexual...

Buttigieg is very unpopular outside of a very narrow demographic - namely white, affluent, moderates liberals. His chances are bad but it's not because he's gay. >

Pete is pretty negatively affected by being gay, let's not pretend some very important Dem demographics like Hispanics and African Americans do not have huge issues with being homophobic. >

He’s also just another Clintonite. You can repackage them in whatever covering you want to, people are still gonna sniff it out. It’s like Dems learned the wrong lesson from Obama 08. >

Can you tell me what it means to be a Clintonite? Honest question >

Progressive on social issues, neoliberal on economics, hawkish on foreign policy. >

I like Polis, but we can't have a gay president until 2084 according to the Seer, Groeningdamus. >

“Seer, Groeningdamus” low key sounds like another alternate ego for George Santos >

No one, because no one will challenge an incumbent, and even if they did challenge the President, they won't win the primary. Even if they win, they'll be too damaged to win the general election. >

Sounding less and less like a democracy. >

Well, it ain't perfect. 
If you don't like it, get 50%+ to vote for a change in the Primary. >

I engage with lobby’s like that. In 50 years it hasn’t gone much of anywhere with all the advertising money drowning out such initiatives. >

Kamala will run but nobody but nobody likes her, so she'll not win.
Newsom is very unliked outside of the region of California that keeps him in power, but I could see New York liking him.
Polis desperately wants to run, though I don't see him as ever getting any kind of solid base. >

I'd recommend Amy Klobuchar or Andy Beshear. It really should be a senator or governor from the Midwest, and not Gretchen Whitmer, my impression of her anyway is that she went overboard and arbitrary with the covid restrictions. >

100% this. It needs to be a Moderate with appeal across the aisle. The Midwest is incredibly important to defend . >

Sherrod Brown would be the perfect candidate.  He has great appeal in Ohio, a red state.  He has solid credentials with working class voters without getting caught up in “woke” politics.  He is a solid leader of the finance committee.  He doesn’t have the name recognition of Harris or Buttigieg, but that might not be a bad thing.  Jared polis is a no go because I don’t think Americans are quite ready for a gay president (I’m just being honest).  Whitmer rubbed many people the wrong way with her aggressive attitude towards coronavirus.  She probably turned many of the right leaning independents off.  Same with Newsome.  Also, Newsome has the “woke” Hollywood crowd behind him.  This won’t play well in middle America.  Kamala Harris is basically a shadow figure.  You never see nor hear from her.  I think she’s basically out in 2024 and 2028.  Maybe a gubernatorial run in California at some point can resurrect her career.  I don’t think JB pritzker and his money plays well with rank and file democrats.  I could be wrong though.  
Sherrod Brown has a reelection campaign coming in 2024. I think the democrats should talk him into giving up his seat and running.  Biden is too old. >

I don't think Michelle Obama wants to be president, but she should seriously consider stepping up even if she doesn't want to do it and saving the country from Trump or DeSantis. >

No, absolutely not. She has no political experience outside of being first Lady and she didn't enjoy living in the White House >

To state the obvious, the Dems need someone who can maintain their current base's interest while also picking up some votes in those swing states (Wisconsin, for example). I don't think any of the current top tier Dems can do so on their own. They'd really need another strong pushback against Trump or hope that DeSantis (if he is the heir apparent) gets the same pushback vote. Otherwise, I don't think that there's much a Dem can do to win in 2024 one way or the other. >

I’m less worried about them retaining voters (I don’t think Trump or DeSantis get the suburban reversion people think) and more worried about black turnout. 
There are a lot of black voters that theoretically agree with Republicans on LGBTQ issues and communism but aren’t going to vote for them: they might just not show up. 
That would be disastrous in places like Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia. >

If DeSantis is the GOP nominee, Black voters will turn up as he is overtly antagonistic towards them (see the latest imbroglio over the African American studies AP test). If it's Trump, well, that's a different story, as he has made some inroads with Black male voters.
That said, the Black vote is pretty dependable and mostly consistent. It wasn't the lack of a Black vote that resulted in Trump's 2016 victory, for example; it was the (unexpected?) shift of the white suburban female vote to Trump that was. Ultimately, I think it'll be that vote that plays a role in 2024, as well. >

All I can say is, the better the selection, the more vocal the GOP will be against it, and people posing as Democrats, etc.  I expect it to only get worse, as the GOP doubles and triples down on current methods. >

Cory Booker is very impressive but standard debate settings don't show off his best attributes as they come off as cookie-cutter and responsive.  His intelligence and empathy are deep and if he could get proper exposure (a big DNC speech or something like that) it could spark something. >

I'm getting 1991 vibes.  Everyone was so sure that Bush 1 was a lock that all the expected Democratic candidates took a step back.  Bill Clinton was comparatively unknown governor at the time, but he decided what the heck.  Some Democrat needs to review what happened then and take the plunge. >

Bill Clinton wasn't running against an incumbent Democratic president. >


Given that the vast majority of Democrats want someone else to run

This is complete horseshit and everyone needs to stop repeating this lie. >

It's a bit tricky to interpret this poll imo, because no majority of democrats will grant approval to a single candidate.  
On the General election stage, most voters didn't want Clinton to win, but she's won the most votes of anyone in history, save Obama.  Similarly, one could easily make the argument that Biden has never had the support and confidence of a majority of voters, but was still preferred over Trump.
Point being, if you use majority support as a metric for eligibility, no one is worthy of running, especially in our politically fractured climate.  Instead, a lot of it is comparisons rather than approval that should matter.  Should, but Clinton beat Bernie, and Trump beat Clinton, so, overall, these types of narratives should be taken with a massive grain of salt, especially in the universe where Trump comes out of nowhere to win. >

If Biden doesn’t run, GOP nominee wins by a comfortable margin. The Democrats, to me, don’t have a strong candidate with a legitimate shot at winning imo. The only way a Democrat would win, if Biden doesn’t run, is if people for the Democrat simply to prevent whoever the GOP nominee is (it’ll be Trump or DeSantis imo) from winning. >

I personally think Democrats could run a cardboard box and beat most of the Republicans bench with how unpopular the GOP is nationally at the moment. Republicans are going to lose on abortion alone, better yet once they start playing chicken with the debt ceiling. 
I think you really underestimate the bench Dems are working with. Mark Kelly or Whitmer are primed for a Presidential run. Then they have newly appointed governors like Shapiro or Wes Moore who will be big names after serving a full term. >

I’m not so sure. I can think of quite a few people I know that will vote R because inflation went up under Biden. No need for nuance or explanations of the tax cuts that led to that. It’s as simple as “things are more expensive now, I think a different president will make it go back to normal” >

I like the continuity and stability we finally enjoy after the Trump shit show. We need someone getting stuff done even if he is old and boring, How about Adam Schiff in 2028? >

It is beyond me how anyone likes Mayor Pete. He is basically just a male Kamala. He can come up with good sound bites when dopey Fox hosts interview him but he is just a vapid corporate puppet who has no ideology of his own.
Fuck Gavin Newsome, he is too slick.
I’d like to see Katie Porter in the primary. She probably won’t win but she will cause havoc. >

Katie Porter has passed one bill in Congress. She got a Post Office renamed.
She's literally just one bill ahead of George Santos. >

On one hand, you have a competent progressive capable of articulating positions and issues. On the other, you have a professional criminal. Why compare these 2? >

Ficus for President - 2024
Seriously though, any breathing democrat.
Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Mark Kelly are my top three picks that I both like and I believe would have a viable run at the top office. >

Buttigieg could mayyybe win the primary but he'd have no chance of winning any swing states in the general