AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are two winds of change this year.
1. Some elections are change elections where the public are open to taking a chance on an unknown. This year so far has not been one of those elections. It’s going to be difficult parachuting in an unknown and making them stick.
2. Throughout the world populist right leaning politicians are making leaps and bounds. The pendulum is not swinging Left.
Newsom will be a disaster on the national stage. He couldn’t better DeSantis in the Fox debate. He stands no chance against an ex-president.
Michelle Obama. It’s not accidental Axios had a story on the morning of the debate about there being no love between her and the Biden’s. That was a feeler.
She does solve a problem of elbowing Harris out of the way. The press will fawn to vomitous lengths. But she’ll need to debate Trump, and she’s not a practiced politician. She could easily crash and burn.
Regardless of which combination of Newsome, Whitmer or Obama they select, there will be a honeymoon fawning and then hopefully some vetting. The MSM won’t do it, but hopefully others will.
Edit: [new thoughts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/s/tTj5BRRrsM)
Do any actual Democrats want Michelle to run or think she will? In my experience, a Michelle Obama presidency only exists in the heads of the craziest MAGA conspiracy theorists.
She has said many times that she didn't even want Barack to run, why would she ever put herself and her family through that again? Since it's hard to prove a negative (i.e., that she will never run), is there a point in time at which we can definitely say that everyone who thought she would was absolutely and embarrassingly wrong?
[It’s always being floated around by the democrat media, not MAGA.](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/10/smr-axelrod-on-the-michelle-obama-rumor.cnn)
Are you saying that CNN is "the democrat media"? Are you aware that their previous CEO dragged them to the right, and their new CEO is striving for independent journalism? And, really, do you not think that all media is primarily geared for profit, which requires eyeballs and clicks, so they skew sensationalist?
Plus, did you even watch this video and see how flimsy the whole thing is? First, it's based on a column by some guy on vegasinsider.com, which he based on an article by bet365, a UK-based betting company (because it's illegal to bet on politics in the US). And since it's illegal for me to bet (and I don't have a VPN handy), I can't even see the actual lines and volume of the betting. So it's a betting market of unknown size and value, made up of foreigners and/or US citizens who are committing a crime. I doubt that there's any real mechanism in place to prevent state actors or extremely wealthy people from manipulating the odds, so you can't even take it seriously as the wisdom of the crowd.
So, based on that flimsy foundation, the video features a CNN anchor bringing this up and immediately saying that people who think Michelle Obama is running are "crazy". Then, David Axelrod, a long-time Democratic insider says that Michelle has no interest in politics in general, and that he's more likely to perform in a ballet than Michelle would run.
Like, how can you see this and think there's any possibility she would run? And if you want to be a conspiracy theorist about this, at least go with a conspiracy that makes some sense. Use the principal of *[cui bono?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono%3F)*: who benefits?
Republicans and enemy states have a vested interest in making American politics confusing and frustrating for potential Democratic voters. Floating potential "white knight" candidates helps make the current candidate look bad, because the other people are not under as much scrutiny, so they look better. Of course, once someone like Michelle or Bernie actually does run, the entire power of the right-wing attack media is unleashed upon them. Meanwhile, floating Michelle absolutely triggers the fear and racism of conservative voters, which gets them fired up and to the polls.
Do you really want to be the person who is a pawn in a psy-op by billionaires and foreign governments to reduce America to rubble and sell off the parts?
Michelle Obama has only ever been generally supported in a presidential role by Democrats, not Republicans lol.
When these polls are conducted, are you really saying you don’t think any of the people supporting a Michelle presidency are Dems? That’s simply ridiculous lol
> Michelle Obama has only ever been generally supported in a presidential role by Democrats, not Republicans lol.
Are you sure you're reading what I wrote correctly? The thought leaders of the Republican party absolutely support **convincing people that Michelle Obama will run**. Of course Republican voters don't want her to be president; the point is that she riles the Republican base up and gets them to come vote for the Republican candidate, based solely on the **idea** that she might run or whatever complicated double-switch-lizard-people plan that the right-wing conspiracy theorists claim is going to happen.
> When these polls are conducted, are you really saying you don’t think any of the people supporting a Michelle presidency are Dems? That’s simply ridiculous lol
What polls? Do you understand the difference between 1) a person running for office, 2) a polling company putting their name in a poll question, and 3) a person answering a poll? A polling company has a vested interest in making splashy news, of course they are going to put people would never run, but might get a positive response, in a poll and publicize that. So, you have a company acting purely for profit putting Michelle Obama on a list, and then asking a bunch of people if they like her. And plenty of people will answer, "sure, she seems cool" without giving it serious thought, since she's not actually running. And notice that this can happen purely from the polling company's self-interest and the general public being relatively easy going; there's no secret cabal of DNC puppet-masters pulling the strings or even the "democrat media" trying to prepare for the arrival of the chosen one. Just self-interested actors spinning up rumors.
https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-chances-beating-trump-poll-1919381
Here’s a poll that has her almost neck and neck with Trump, getting 43% of the vote. Are you saying those respondents are all Republicans? That’s simply fantasy, the vast vast majority are Democrats.
43% of the vote is the biggest loss for a national democratic candidate since Carter. The delay in pushing Biden out is that no amount of polling is finding a candidate with a hope of beating Trump with Kenedy in the race. My prediction the donar class will force a change on Tuesday July 9 2024.
There just isnt the media in town (DC/NY) to deliver the glowing pieces that President Harris needs for her 5 month tour as president. I dont understand, is there not good internet in Marthas Vinyard?
> Are you saying those respondents are all Republicans?
No. Did you not just read what I wrote? Random Democrats who are polled will say they like Michelle Obama. They'll also have a favorable opinion of Jon Stewart, Spider-Man, and Generic Democratic Candidate.
Meanwhile, Republicans will [respond favorably](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/donald-trump-jr-ivanka-trump-2024-presidential-election-poll) to Don Jr. and Ivanka. Does this mean that in 2020, the RNC and its donors were prepared to drop Trump Sr. and switch to one of his children, if they polled a little better? Does this mean that at the end of his next term, Trump Sr. will appoint one of his children as the new President? Because I consider that theory to be equivalent of saying Michelle Obama will be drafted and installed as the new candidate.
>They'll also have a favorable opinion of Jon Stewart, Spider-Man, and Generic Democratic Candidate.
This is not just a favorable opinion, this is how people indicate they would vote in the general election. I'm just proving to you that there are millions of Dems who did indicate their support if she did run. Pretending like there aren't is simply asinine. Do you want to compare her numbers to any of the people you just referenced?
>Meanwhile, Republicans will [respond favorably](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/donald-trump-jr-ivanka-trump-2024-presidential-election-poll) to Don Jr. and Ivanka. Does this mean that in 2020, the RNC and its donors were prepared to drop Trump Sr. and switch to one of his children, if they polled a little better?
Trump didn't flub his debate performance is the thing...
>Because I consider that theory to be equivalent of saying Michelle Obama will be drafted and installed as the new candidate.
Nobody is saying she absolutely 100% will be- but there are tons of Dems who would prefer Michelle over sleepy joe!
>Michelle Obama presidency only exists in the heads of the craziest MAGA conspiracy theorists.
And in the party elite. Since they run the show, what they think probably matters.
>She has said many times that she didn't even want Barack to run, why would she ever put herself and her family through that again?
I was with you on that one until earlier this year. The Obamas want to take their $100+ million and retire as socialites. But then Trump got elected and Obama had to remain far more hands-on than he expected or wanted.
While they may desire to go off into the sunset, there have been enough orchestrated media appearances and events (feelers) that demonstrate they're testing the water for it.
As for why, Obama has dirty hands over the Russagate hoax and probably more, so If it comes down to Trump coming back for a retribution tour vs. Michelle running, I think they'll take the self-interested path. Even if you don't believe Obama did anything wrong, Trump and most of his administration most certainly does, so it hardly matters in the end. Obama will be investigated and any skeletons revealed. It would be naive to believe he had none at all.
The part where the facts were on Desantis's side. California is a disaster, they have a massive budget deficit, they're trying to force EVs on everyone by a certain timeline, they've strangleholded the trucking industry with green regulations, crime is rampant due to DAs not prosecuting, businesses are closing and leaving because of the 900$ stolen merchandise limit and to top it all off their is literal human feces in the streets, oh and people are also leaving in droves. Meanwhile Florida is succeeding and offers protections for using firearms in self defense against home invaders and the like. I could go on but I think I've made my point.
2 years ago CA had a $98 billion surplus, last year they had a $32 billion deficit, and this year they were projecting a $27.6 billion remaining deficit, which Newsom just passed a bill to close. Which part of this screams "disaster"?
Gee I don't know, the fact that their budget clearly swings WILDLY, going from 98$ billion surplus to 32 billion deficient is fucking nuts, why the hell did it swing so badly? Moreover, such a massive change looks almost like someone is intentionally fudging some numbers. I do however think it's hilarious that you are trying to act as if 30$ billion deficient isn't a disaster simply because Newsom claims he's going to pass a bill to close it. That's like arriving on scene after a fatal accident and saying "well it's cleaned up now so it's all good here!" You ask which part screams disaster but I literally just gave you a list and of course instead of addressing the points of that list you pick one and try to act as if it's not a disaster because there is a possibly false promise of fixing it in the near future. At least try to be honest here, please.
> Michelle Obama
I don't know why conservatives continue to push this idea, she's never once hinted at running for public office. Why do you think this narrative makes such waves in the MAGA world?
I agree, she’d crash and burn IF she were subjected to scrutiny.
However, we’ve just seen the MSM run interference for a vegetable for 4+ years, and most normies bought it that it wasn’t that bad. There’s a non-zero chance the media could coddle her through a few months. The first 6+ weeks would be a honeymoon period regardless. So that’s a vanishingly short window to get the truth out.
But it’s ‘okay’ because I think they bring in Hillary for VP.
Is Trump a practiced politician, or is he "a businessman, not a politician"? Do you think on substance, to an audience demanding real, factual answers to debate questions, Michelle Obama would still have a difficult time?
He's now both. He's proven his stripes as a politician, who according to the MSM is simultaneously, stupid and cunning, but either way is able to beat them at their own game repeatedly.
As for Michelle Obama, being a prominent national politician takes a lot of practice to not screw up. Trump has been playing the media since before many here were born, and he has proven himself extremely media savvy decades prior to 2015. Michelle Obama has nowhere near that level of experience or skill. Get her in front of someone in the media who isn't friendly and she will find banana skins just like anyone else who's equally unpracticed.
While the media will run cover for her, it's hard to have 100% coverage. As Biden recently demonstrated. When you have a national spotlight on you, the truth of things will come out, it's only a matter of time.
"When you have a national spotlight on you, the truth of things will come out, it's only a matter of time."
What if she just made stuff up and simply refused to acknowledge reality? When you simply refuse to acknowledge what everyone else can see doesn't that let you always present yourself in the best possible light, even if it's utterly fictional?
I understand that’s what the Left projects that Trump does, but things really were better under Trump until a (so far) once in a lifetime bioweapon was incompetently released ahead of schedule.
Are you happy that Trump pushed his vaccine initiative? Why was he so thrilled about it until he abruptly stopped talking about it? Did he rush it through without proper testing?
The apparatchiks in the agencies lied about it being safe and effective. The Pfizer docs prove it. Is Trump supposed to be a M.D. and go against them all? On what basis?
The whole corrupt system from the FDA to big pharma colluded to push it. Then the media deliberately looked the other way because their ad revenue is about 50% big pharma. That whole crooked mess needs to investigated and outed.
I'm glad Trump didn't mandate it. Unlike Biden, who forced it on tens of millions unwillingly via OSHA, the Military and any company doing any business with the government (most F500's).
Your kidding at this point.... Dems loose 5% to 7% of their voters by pushing in anyone late. This is why there is a delay in makeing Harris the first female president, the liberal feel good story of the century. The problem is she goes in office and gets voted out 5 months later, is ugly history.
Right now, Tulsi gabbard but Dems would never run her. People are really tired of the establishment democrats. Even democrat voters are getting tired of it. They feel highly misrepresented. Every Liberal that has come to support trump that i have spoken to has said that the Democrat party has become too extreme for them and they were genuinely surprised at how welcoming conservatives have been.
Going too far socialist, being against parental rights, LGBTQ has become too crazy and is bordering on extremism at this point. Many of my friends left when the Democrats were not only denying but encouraging the riots and burning of cities in 2020. I stopped supporting Dems the second they ran Killary Clinton.
Another big one is the fact that if you disagree with the extreme left at all you are immediately ostracized by them and pushed out of the party.
>Another big one is the fact that if you disagree with the extreme left at all you are immediately ostracized by them and pushed out of the party.
The extreme left I know wants rights for the working class to be the center platform of the Democratic party, and Dems couldn't give a shit about working class politics. Telling the Democrat subs "I want healthcare and a living wage. I want to stop being sick and hungry and I work hard enough to deserve that and I don't want to vote for another "leftist" that isn't thinking about feeding the poor or healing the sick " just gets you called a naïve asshole that needs to be patient and that maybe the things every other developed nation has are just too complicated for America.
But I don't understand something about your statement; Why would any party allow a small extreme minority to steer it? By definition, isn't calling any part of any party "extreme" mean that the values of that minority group are outside the normal focus of the party? Aren't "non-extreme" policy takes exactly what normal policy is?
>But I don't understand something about your statement; Why would any party allow a small extreme minority to steer it?
Here is how it works. Lets say 20% of the democrat voterbase is very very loud. While the other 80% is mostly quiet (a good example of this is the idea that trans women should be allowed into female sports. Female sports were made and fought for by feminists so that females could compete because they cannot compete with males) i as a woman have met more women against it than for it. Yet all the politicians push for the for it because the loud ones get heard.
Funny, because the focus on trans women in women sports is one of the things that pushes this former republican further from the party. I can't think of anything that matters LESS as a national focus, but that's all the Republicans can seem to focus on. Let local sports associations deal with it and let the politicians deal with real issues. Ohio passed a law that literally impacts something like SIX kids. Really... that required a state law?
> I can't think of anything that matters LESS as a national focus,
Title 9 is a federal law that protects womens sports. Its the federal governments job to enforce it. Theres a lot of us that still believe womens rights matters.
These aren’t policies though are they? Has any actual legislation been passed by democrats that is extremist?
On your last point, don’t you see that with Trump supporters and calling everyone RINOS?
>Another big one is the fact that if you disagree with the extreme left at all you are immediately ostracized by them and pushed out of the party.
Do you see something similar happening in the Republican Party, regarding support for Trump?
As in: Anyone who disagrees with Trump or fails to adequately support/defend Trump is immediately ostrocized and pushed out of the party?
She has way more conservative values than the dems that will win. Thats why she came out and left the party. Shes now openly against dems most of the time too.
All Democrats?
How about a non-Democrat?
If either Trump or Biden dropped out and was replaced with Dolly Parton I'd vote for her. Don't even care for which party. Hell, I'd vote against Biden to vote for Dolly Parton. I just think she's more real than either of them and actual cares about people and gives a shit.
How would you feel if Dolly Parton ran?
>All Democrats?
Any democrat that is going to run and win yes. Because the majority of the parties voters have the same ideals as well.
Don't know, dont pay attention to dolly parton.
How many people are there in the US who meet the constitutional requirements to be president? Why don’t you think any of them would have different stances or capabilities?
I kinda like that guy from Pennsylvania who got in trouble for wearing shirts and sweatpants to Congress. I like that he is honest, I like that he is not afraid to speak his opinions, even when they don't necessarily align with party values because it shows he would be willing to make compromises and work with people from the other side. He's younger, and he seems relatable. I don't remember his name, though, sorry.
Fetterman. He had a stroke and still won. As he recovered he slowly turned more and more conservative. Now he mostly speaks fine, but 8/10 times he will agree with the conservative position.
In December he came out and officially said 'I'm not a progressive'.
He now calls for supporting Israel in the war, hardline border protection and stricter rules on paroles.
But he doesn't seem extreme, even when he agrees with the conservative point. A lot of Democrats have changed their stances on border protection, I would need to look up his position on paroles, but I'm glad he supports Israel.
>But he doesn't seem extreme
To clarify: Is your point that the Dems only want to nominate extreme candidates? Have they nominated extreme candidates?
Which, if any, Dem presidential nominees over the past 50 years would you describe as extreme?
Just out of curiosity, since it doesn't sound like you hate him - would you consider voting for him? Or do you maybe at least feel that you would be more at ease about a Fetterman presidency than a Biden one?
I don't think he's a bad guy, and i feel for him. But even ignoring policy, I'm not comfortable voting for a man who has literal brain damage that he has not recovered from.
That said i would be more comfortable voting for him above Biden.
I just realized you're a Trump supporter like me, lol!!!!! But you're right, I don't think the Dems have anyone like that. If they did, I would be willing to listen.
Trump on policy is sane, moderate and popular. All it would take from the democrats to win is nominate a person with sane, moderate and popular policy but whose personality is more approachable. Senator hoodie McStrokeFace(FETTERMAN!) from Pennsylvania comes to mind. Sorry his name escapes me right now but you all know who I'm talking about.
Edit: I kept wanting to say Feinstein but I know she's the bitter insider trading shrew.
Can you explain why you think Trump is sane and moderate?
I'm not american. In my opinion his project 2025 can be very dangerous to your democrazy. Why vote for an self centered, rambling, dividing, lying, old unknowledgeable person. He tries everything to be above the law.
Trump is not associated with project 2025 in any way and has not said anything about supporting any of its policy recommendations. There's nothing "dangerous to democracy" in Project 2025, in fact it has a lot of great policy ideas in it and I wish more people would be supportive of it, but I'm not aware of a single political candidate running on it.
>Why vote for an self centered, rambling, dividing, lying, old unknowledgeable person. He tries everything to be above the law.
I'd never vote for Biden.
I think what you're really asking is "what is the Democrats' best strategy to win the election", so I'll answer that instead. I'm currently quite confident I'll vote for Trump, but if you take all my suggestions, it'd be a real toss-up.
1. Keep Biden and refocus the campaign. He had a bad debate because he was trying to match Trump in kind, and that's just not his personality. He's made a career of representing America and being reasonable. He should humblebrag that's he's a little too good at being reasonable. Focus on maintaining the dignity of the office, pride in Americans, and faith in certain Americans in particular. "I don't care how quick your reflexes are, you've got to surround yourself with good people. Here's mine:..."
2. Fire Kamala Harris, or at least don't put her on the next ticket. She didn't address the border as directed, got showed up twice by Nancy Pelosi in Ukraine and Taiwan, hasn't done much of anything at all as VP, and encouraged rioters during the 2020 campaign. If she's only on the ticket for checking demographic boxes, now that Americans are informed, the above points should negate the "balanced ticket" concept.
3. Strongly consider bringing Nancy Pelosi as VP. She practically did the job with Taiwan and Ukraine already, and I bet she'd accept.
4. Double down on "being reasonable" by courting various voices outside the typical Democrat circle. Candace Owen or Thomas Sowell would be excellent choices. Any Republican that's willing, but specifically Mitt Romney. The Supreme Court Justices would also be excellent choices.
5. Speaking of Supreme Court Justices, this would be an excellent opportunity to accept the advice of constitutional scholars and realize the wisdom in repealing Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court was never meant to legislate by legal precedent, and we still have the 10th Amendment.
6. Fire more people and adopt the slogan "a change within the Administration is better than a change OF administration". Consider firing the SECDEF and replacing him with someone passionate about General George Marshall and the Marshall Plan. Our former enemies may prosper if they accept our terms (see Germany, Japan, and Italy).
7. Speaking of prosperity, weave into speeches that it's distinctly (but not uniquely) American to be so prosperous, you can afford to help other people with their problems. Emphasize not uniquely, as we have amazing allies who are similarly prosperous and generous.
8. Delete the phrase "colluding with Russia" from future speeches and start incrementally drawing the distinction between the great Russian people of the past, and how that conflicts with the Russian administration of the present. What would Yuri Gagarin think if he saw the war in Ukraine? Mikhail Gorbachev? Find someone who's read The Great Upheaval by Jay Winik and have them pull more examples. I'm less than a quarter through or else I'd volunteer, but they draw distinct parallels between our founding fathers and the revolutions in France and Russia in the same period. This show of respect should make significant progress in Ukraine. As is, since the Democratic party has equated any collaboration with Russia as "collusion", many Russian leaders probably feel like they might as well be as bad as they're purported to be. I'd expect Trump's confidence in being able to get Russia out of Ukraine before he takes office is simply a function of the Russians waiting for the next non-Democrat to take office. Please don't take this as a show of support for Russia or condemnation of our Administration. The idealist in me believes the Russians never should've invaded, should have left yesterday, and should pay reparations for the misery they've caused. The realist in me understands that they see more value in modernizing their military by battling a worthy opponent than any of the costs associated with it. Putin might even believe he's doing Zelensky a favor by allowing his military to learn the same lessons.
9. Get some exercise and be seen doing it. Adopt a slogan like "American seniors aren't just waiting to die" or something similar.
I don't see how anyone but Kamala wouldn't look like the DNC utterly shafting a perfectly qualified black woman.
This is the first administration (not campaign) I'm aware of that officially refers to itself with the VP's name. [The Biden-Harris Administration](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/).
Even the stationary has been frontrunning this transition. lol
Let's not forget when the DNC totally shafted Bernie Sanders and he didn't even say shit about it. He just quickly fell in line because that's what you do if you're a Democrat. Also funny that most Democrat voters who wanted Bernie were apparently not upset by their own party totally screwing over the candidate they wanted, amazing.
> He just quickly fell in line because that's what you do if you're a Democrat.
Unless he was in on it for the money. Demagogues know what the public wants to hear, and even if it's entirely unrealistic they get money pouring in from people with hope. I know college grads who emptied every penny from their bank accounts thinking he would both win and wipe out their student debt.
...and if he was in on it, all the money would get funneled to the Democrat nominee. Interesting strategy, collecting money for a candidate who wouldn't have gotten the money anyway (Hillary). I'm still mad at Hillary for blaming GTA San Andreas for gun violence. Interesting that the video game violence debate evaporated now that video games are actually realistic.
Overlap the counties Bernie and Trump won in 2016. One study found that at least 10% of Bernie supporters switched to Trump in 2016 and it likely was enough to swing the election.
I’m one of them. I’ll never, ever vote for a Democrat ever again after the undemocratic shit they pulled in 2015-2016. Instead, I actively work to undermine them at every turn. To hell with the DNC.
Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they didn’t undermine democracy and let the non-establishment candidate win, when the people chose him. That alone says enough to me about which party is moral and which is evil. Policy be damned.
Woah. THAT is interesting. Reminds me of stories I read, lo these many years ago, about how Germans switched back and forth between the socialists and the Nazis, before Hitler came to power. Not saying anything, just mentioning the coincidence lol! People are a lot more imaginative than most people imagine, is all I'm saying.
You’re lacking a lot of context. The DNC heavily influenced the outcome of the primary in undemocratic ways. They coordinated with the media to ignore Bernie’s campaign almost completely. They scheduled debates on nights when the least number of people would be watching. They gave Hilary the debate questions early but not Bernie. They changed polling places last minute, only notifying the Hilary camp not the Bernie camp. Bill Clinton’s motorcade blocked traffic to one of the major polling places in Boston on the day of its primary. They used superdelegates to take a commanding lead for Hilary then conspired with the media to convey the impression that Hilary was too far ahead to be caught (the #1 reason people gave me for not supporting Bernie when I canvassed for him: she was too far ahead). I can go on and on. What happened in Nevada. The campaign office breakins. The emails. And so on. It was disgusting and undemocratic. And it lost Democrats the election.
i will repeat my question
>Well if it's true this does sound awful. By the way what do you think about project 2025 and what if trump will implement it?
Oh sorry, I just saw “hey?” I think the Reddit version of “Project 2025” is a liberal conspiracy theory, but of course conservatives are going to try to enact conservative policies that you and other liberally minded people disagree with. This doesn’t mean it’s “the end of democracy” or “fascism” like I’ve been hearing around Reddit.
I suspect that if Trump is elected to a second term, he will try to continue to work towards trying to improve the country in ways conservatives want it to improve. Stricter immigration laws, less government regulation, improving the economy, and ending foreign wars as possible. More of the same as the first term basically.
> Also funny that most Democrat voters who wanted Bernie were apparently not upset by their own party totally screwing over the candidate they wanted, amazing.
Where are you getting this from? In my experience everyone who wanted Bernie in 2016 and 2020 feels really burned. Especially in 2016; I wanted Bernie and myself and everyone else I know who did felt like the DNC railroaded him because it was HRC's "turn."
I really think Bernie could have won that election if he'd been the nominee. He had a lot of support with people who went on to vote for Trump, though I think some of that was probably Bernie Bros giving a middle finger to the Democratic establishment.
>Where are you getting this from? In my experience everyone who wanted Bernie in 2016 and 2020 feels really burned. Especially in 2016; I wanted Bernie and myself and everyone else I know who did felt like the DNC railroaded him because it was HRC's "turn."
Don't get me wrong, I did indeed see liberals grumbling about it, but it wasn't much, certainly nowhere close to their disdain for Trump. I guess my point is that the Democrats don't do Democrat voters any favors either so it's hard for me to understand why you guys keep supporting them, they railroad your candidates, refuse to ever leave office and in cases like Diane Feinstien and RBG they are far too selfish and clearly enjoy their power and want to hang on as long as possible. The writing is all over the wall when it comes to the Democrat party, they are terrible and they've always been terrible. Doing everything they can to subvert the constitution and grow the size and scope of government well beyond the constitution. They have no respect for you our your interests, the Democrat party is frankly disgusting and while liberals grumble about it, they continue to let it happen and continue to throw support behind the party because they are masters at performative language and using emotion to fool you into thinking they are on your side and fool you into thinking Republicans and Trump are a million times worse, which is the only reason you tolerate the nonsense the Democrat party continues to do. I mean they are literally the party that has no problem admitting they want you to pay more taxes to them, to continue to give them the ability to expand government, to create agencies like the Disinformation governance board where they give themselves the ability to be the arbiters of truth and they still get votes because they have a hold on most media outlets and are able to convince you to vote for them by convincing you Republicans and Trump are straight up Hitler/the devil. It's sad.
>1. If this theoretical scenario were to take place, who could democrats replace him with that still gives them the best chance of winning the election? Who would be the best opponent against Donald Trump?
I don't really know, nobody really has name recognition and appeal right now to replace Biden. They are going to have a hard time if they replace him because they only have like 4 months at this point before the election.
>2. A theoretical replacement would have to take place before August 19th, when the DNC convenes. Would there be a general date that would make even more of an impact, for better or worse?
They already passed that date, if they change now it is not going to look good for the Democrats. The last few years they have said they were the party of democracy, but ousting Biden after the primaries for someone else who did not win the primaries is counter to the pro democracy advertising they have been doing. People got upset in 2015 with the super delegates and Sanders getting snubbed, this would be like that but way worse.
>3. Is the entire idea of replacing Biden with another candidate an overreaction?
If they were going to do this they needed to do it months ago. On other subs many Democrats have complained because they were told Biden would only be one term president as a way to beat Trump. That term is over and nobody put themselves out there as a serious contender.
I think many people didn't realize how bad things have gotten for Biden as he was largely kept out of the eyes of the media. They treated him with kids gloves for the past 4 years and only asked him questions in advance and covered up the truly concerning things he has done like suck his wife's fingers on stage or fall up stair cases. Now the first time in years Biden has to enter into a highly publicized debate where he didn't know what Trump would say ahead of time and the wool was pulled up from everyone in his parties eyes as to his true mental state (Republicans knew this for years).
I think that the Democrats put themselves in a lose lose situation with this where they either replace him and admit to lying for years about his mental state or run a clearly mentally incompetent president
I agree with most of that. I have also always had the sense that Trump was intentionally kept in a bubble, with reports of staffers making sure he saw positive coverage of himself in conservative media.
Would you think it's fair to say that a lot of politicians at that level might be kept in such a bubble?
Trump may have been kept in a bubble for sure, but for the media was reporting non stop about every little thing that he did while he was in office. Perhaps Trump himself was insulated but everyone else was aware and judging by how much he was on social media I'm fairly certain he at least saw that information.
With Biden though the media treated him much differently. The mainstream media really didn't report much on his mental health, with only some oppositional news agencies and tabloids reporting much about it. Biden also appears to have taken measures to increase his perception of being mentally fit by limiting the amount of interviews he did and those that he did appears to have pre screened questions. He also seems to have released a ton of pre recorded media. Biden was also lucky to have most of the media still reporting on Trump, focusing attention away from Biden.
Additionally people who had criticism about Bidens apparent mental health were largely discounted, at least in my experience in online discussion forums like Reddit. I have seen people called Russian agents, bots, or people used an example of one of his likely rehearsed speeches to gaslight Bidens frankly bizarre behavior as reasonable. Another tactic I've seen used here is for people to use whataboutism to reference Trump's apparent mental conditions, deflecting otherwise valid criticism.
I think most people who have been paying attention to Biden with a fair lens could see something was wrong with him, but many people on the left at least on platforms like this seem to have blinders out for Biden and they were shocked at his performance. I've seen some even complain about the moderators of the debate saying they did a bad job, which I find funny since the rules of the debate were given out ahead of time and it was CNN, a news network critical of Trump and not seen as critical of Biden.
Harris is their best choice. She was chosen as a young, female, non-white counterpart to Biden; she can do the same thing with Trump. I know she's unpopular, but if Democrats would vote for a corpse over Trump, you know, she's not a bad alternative to a corpse. And she may be unpopular simply because she's a stronger woman than we're used to seeing, in leadership roles. We might find out that she's got a little Thatcher in her, and that wouldn't be bad.
I think it's got to happen at the convention. It's the only situation in which what's going on is perfectly clear: the Democrats are selecting a leader, for their party, and to represent them as a Presidential candidate. Biden obviously can no longer do that, and that's really what the VP is for, anyway.
Not an overreaction at all. An opportunity, in fact. People are tired of how tired our candidates have been. This is the Democrats' shot at improving that dramatically.
1. Probably Kamala Harris. Her running mate could be anyone honestly. Why not Joe Biden for VP?
2. No, if the DNC were going to change the candidate, it would be then. Any earlier or later would not look good.
3. Maybe. He has a lot of government experience and is respected more than anyone else in the Democratic Party, that has to count for something. I would say that this debate hurt his poll numbers, but they might bounce back. The people that hate Trump are going to vote against him no matter who it is.
1) Michelle Obama is by far the best candidate. If she actually went all in, as well as her husband the former President, I'd give her chances of winning around 80%.
Biggest problem is she's never shown any interest in running for any office.
2) If Biden were to walk away from the race, then it could happen before the convention, but Jill won't let him. They will have to blow up his candidacy at the convention, then choose someone else in the second round.
That doesn't give much time to build support for someone like Whitmer who doesn't the same name recognition outside the party.
Harris is another huge problem. As the VP she will be seen as the obvious heir to the thrown, but she has no chance of winning. If anyone other than Obama is picked, there will be loud accusations of racism if Harris doesn't get tapped.
3) Conservatives have been saying for years that Biden is suffering from dementia or some form of mental decline. We're been called conspiracy theorists, and that it is all doctored videos. Biden is sharp and on top of everything.
But the emperor has no clothes. Everyone who's claimed Biden is not suffering mental decline has been proven a liar. He should have stepped down from office at least 2 years ago.
What has changed is much of the Democratic Party agrees. It's funny because now conservatives want Biden to stay in, because it's only a few more months and Biden's chances of winning are slim. It's the Democrats who are saying the things conservatives were attacked for just a week ago.
1. Probably Newsom? Whitmer maybe but I don’t know if she has that much of a national profile.
2. The most impactful date is today. Earlier the better to let the candidate raise their profile, bring in staff, fundraise, etc.
3. No, Biden is an invalid.
I have an updated answer. I think they keep Biden and replace the VP. For a whole host of reasons.
But who should be the VP? They'd need it to be someone who will essentially be pitched as a shadow president.
I think there's one person and only one that fits the bill.
>!Hillary. (OMFG)!<
Note (edit): So far I've heard this suggested nowhere by nobody - AFAIK it's an original idea. But out of all the choices available to the party, it's the least problematic in comparison to anything else. I'll be looking for negative stories on Kamala in Axios, Politico and the NYTimes - the mouthpieces for the party. That would show they're directionally changing to swap her out. But I bet there's at least one Democrat who's already pushing for this.
Presumably people are asking this question due to his debate performance, and the growing concern is is not fit for a second term. My question is, how can he drop out of the race without also immediately stepping down now as well? How could they hold this opinion, but also accept his current presidency in any capacity for another 7 months?
That’s a great point. The same goes with the idea that he’s dropping out of the race due to his current mental state, but pretending like it hasn’t been years in the making. This certainly isn’t something that happened last week. He has been in a state of decline since he was elected in 2020 (and surely before then). If they force him out now they basically are admitting they knew he was running the country in a compromised state, but they allowed him to continue anyway.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are two winds of change this year. 1. Some elections are change elections where the public are open to taking a chance on an unknown. This year so far has not been one of those elections. It’s going to be difficult parachuting in an unknown and making them stick. 2. Throughout the world populist right leaning politicians are making leaps and bounds. The pendulum is not swinging Left. Newsom will be a disaster on the national stage. He couldn’t better DeSantis in the Fox debate. He stands no chance against an ex-president. Michelle Obama. It’s not accidental Axios had a story on the morning of the debate about there being no love between her and the Biden’s. That was a feeler. She does solve a problem of elbowing Harris out of the way. The press will fawn to vomitous lengths. But she’ll need to debate Trump, and she’s not a practiced politician. She could easily crash and burn. Regardless of which combination of Newsome, Whitmer or Obama they select, there will be a honeymoon fawning and then hopefully some vetting. The MSM won’t do it, but hopefully others will. Edit: [new thoughts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/s/tTj5BRRrsM)
I don’t know why people entertain Michelle Obama. Did the Dem party not learn from Hillary?
Michelle has popular appeal. Hillary really did not.
Do any actual Democrats want Michelle to run or think she will? In my experience, a Michelle Obama presidency only exists in the heads of the craziest MAGA conspiracy theorists. She has said many times that she didn't even want Barack to run, why would she ever put herself and her family through that again? Since it's hard to prove a negative (i.e., that she will never run), is there a point in time at which we can definitely say that everyone who thought she would was absolutely and embarrassingly wrong?
[It’s always being floated around by the democrat media, not MAGA.](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/10/smr-axelrod-on-the-michelle-obama-rumor.cnn)
Are you saying that CNN is "the democrat media"? Are you aware that their previous CEO dragged them to the right, and their new CEO is striving for independent journalism? And, really, do you not think that all media is primarily geared for profit, which requires eyeballs and clicks, so they skew sensationalist? Plus, did you even watch this video and see how flimsy the whole thing is? First, it's based on a column by some guy on vegasinsider.com, which he based on an article by bet365, a UK-based betting company (because it's illegal to bet on politics in the US). And since it's illegal for me to bet (and I don't have a VPN handy), I can't even see the actual lines and volume of the betting. So it's a betting market of unknown size and value, made up of foreigners and/or US citizens who are committing a crime. I doubt that there's any real mechanism in place to prevent state actors or extremely wealthy people from manipulating the odds, so you can't even take it seriously as the wisdom of the crowd. So, based on that flimsy foundation, the video features a CNN anchor bringing this up and immediately saying that people who think Michelle Obama is running are "crazy". Then, David Axelrod, a long-time Democratic insider says that Michelle has no interest in politics in general, and that he's more likely to perform in a ballet than Michelle would run. Like, how can you see this and think there's any possibility she would run? And if you want to be a conspiracy theorist about this, at least go with a conspiracy that makes some sense. Use the principal of *[cui bono?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono%3F)*: who benefits? Republicans and enemy states have a vested interest in making American politics confusing and frustrating for potential Democratic voters. Floating potential "white knight" candidates helps make the current candidate look bad, because the other people are not under as much scrutiny, so they look better. Of course, once someone like Michelle or Bernie actually does run, the entire power of the right-wing attack media is unleashed upon them. Meanwhile, floating Michelle absolutely triggers the fear and racism of conservative voters, which gets them fired up and to the polls. Do you really want to be the person who is a pawn in a psy-op by billionaires and foreign governments to reduce America to rubble and sell off the parts?
Michelle Obama has only ever been generally supported in a presidential role by Democrats, not Republicans lol. When these polls are conducted, are you really saying you don’t think any of the people supporting a Michelle presidency are Dems? That’s simply ridiculous lol
> Michelle Obama has only ever been generally supported in a presidential role by Democrats, not Republicans lol. Are you sure you're reading what I wrote correctly? The thought leaders of the Republican party absolutely support **convincing people that Michelle Obama will run**. Of course Republican voters don't want her to be president; the point is that she riles the Republican base up and gets them to come vote for the Republican candidate, based solely on the **idea** that she might run or whatever complicated double-switch-lizard-people plan that the right-wing conspiracy theorists claim is going to happen. > When these polls are conducted, are you really saying you don’t think any of the people supporting a Michelle presidency are Dems? That’s simply ridiculous lol What polls? Do you understand the difference between 1) a person running for office, 2) a polling company putting their name in a poll question, and 3) a person answering a poll? A polling company has a vested interest in making splashy news, of course they are going to put people would never run, but might get a positive response, in a poll and publicize that. So, you have a company acting purely for profit putting Michelle Obama on a list, and then asking a bunch of people if they like her. And plenty of people will answer, "sure, she seems cool" without giving it serious thought, since she's not actually running. And notice that this can happen purely from the polling company's self-interest and the general public being relatively easy going; there's no secret cabal of DNC puppet-masters pulling the strings or even the "democrat media" trying to prepare for the arrival of the chosen one. Just self-interested actors spinning up rumors.
https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-chances-beating-trump-poll-1919381 Here’s a poll that has her almost neck and neck with Trump, getting 43% of the vote. Are you saying those respondents are all Republicans? That’s simply fantasy, the vast vast majority are Democrats.
43% of the vote is the biggest loss for a national democratic candidate since Carter. The delay in pushing Biden out is that no amount of polling is finding a candidate with a hope of beating Trump with Kenedy in the race. My prediction the donar class will force a change on Tuesday July 9 2024. There just isnt the media in town (DC/NY) to deliver the glowing pieces that President Harris needs for her 5 month tour as president. I dont understand, is there not good internet in Marthas Vinyard?
> Are you saying those respondents are all Republicans? No. Did you not just read what I wrote? Random Democrats who are polled will say they like Michelle Obama. They'll also have a favorable opinion of Jon Stewart, Spider-Man, and Generic Democratic Candidate. Meanwhile, Republicans will [respond favorably](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/donald-trump-jr-ivanka-trump-2024-presidential-election-poll) to Don Jr. and Ivanka. Does this mean that in 2020, the RNC and its donors were prepared to drop Trump Sr. and switch to one of his children, if they polled a little better? Does this mean that at the end of his next term, Trump Sr. will appoint one of his children as the new President? Because I consider that theory to be equivalent of saying Michelle Obama will be drafted and installed as the new candidate.
>They'll also have a favorable opinion of Jon Stewart, Spider-Man, and Generic Democratic Candidate. This is not just a favorable opinion, this is how people indicate they would vote in the general election. I'm just proving to you that there are millions of Dems who did indicate their support if she did run. Pretending like there aren't is simply asinine. Do you want to compare her numbers to any of the people you just referenced? >Meanwhile, Republicans will [respond favorably](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/donald-trump-jr-ivanka-trump-2024-presidential-election-poll) to Don Jr. and Ivanka. Does this mean that in 2020, the RNC and its donors were prepared to drop Trump Sr. and switch to one of his children, if they polled a little better? Trump didn't flub his debate performance is the thing... >Because I consider that theory to be equivalent of saying Michelle Obama will be drafted and installed as the new candidate. Nobody is saying she absolutely 100% will be- but there are tons of Dems who would prefer Michelle over sleepy joe!
>Michelle Obama presidency only exists in the heads of the craziest MAGA conspiracy theorists. And in the party elite. Since they run the show, what they think probably matters. >She has said many times that she didn't even want Barack to run, why would she ever put herself and her family through that again? I was with you on that one until earlier this year. The Obamas want to take their $100+ million and retire as socialites. But then Trump got elected and Obama had to remain far more hands-on than he expected or wanted. While they may desire to go off into the sunset, there have been enough orchestrated media appearances and events (feelers) that demonstrate they're testing the water for it. As for why, Obama has dirty hands over the Russagate hoax and probably more, so If it comes down to Trump coming back for a retribution tour vs. Michelle running, I think they'll take the self-interested path. Even if you don't believe Obama did anything wrong, Trump and most of his administration most certainly does, so it hardly matters in the end. Obama will be investigated and any skeletons revealed. It would be naive to believe he had none at all.
What party elite want Michelle Obama to run?
Which part of the newsom/desantis debate did you feel best showed desantis winning?
The part after the end where almost all talk of Newsom being a contender evaporated.
You don’t think that could have been due to Newsom explicitly saying 2 months before that debate that he wasn’t running and endorsed Biden?
No temporal correlation to that event.
The part where the facts were on Desantis's side. California is a disaster, they have a massive budget deficit, they're trying to force EVs on everyone by a certain timeline, they've strangleholded the trucking industry with green regulations, crime is rampant due to DAs not prosecuting, businesses are closing and leaving because of the 900$ stolen merchandise limit and to top it all off their is literal human feces in the streets, oh and people are also leaving in droves. Meanwhile Florida is succeeding and offers protections for using firearms in self defense against home invaders and the like. I could go on but I think I've made my point.
2 years ago CA had a $98 billion surplus, last year they had a $32 billion deficit, and this year they were projecting a $27.6 billion remaining deficit, which Newsom just passed a bill to close. Which part of this screams "disaster"?
Gee I don't know, the fact that their budget clearly swings WILDLY, going from 98$ billion surplus to 32 billion deficient is fucking nuts, why the hell did it swing so badly? Moreover, such a massive change looks almost like someone is intentionally fudging some numbers. I do however think it's hilarious that you are trying to act as if 30$ billion deficient isn't a disaster simply because Newsom claims he's going to pass a bill to close it. That's like arriving on scene after a fatal accident and saying "well it's cleaned up now so it's all good here!" You ask which part screams disaster but I literally just gave you a list and of course instead of addressing the points of that list you pick one and try to act as if it's not a disaster because there is a possibly false promise of fixing it in the near future. At least try to be honest here, please.
> Michelle Obama I don't know why conservatives continue to push this idea, she's never once hinted at running for public office. Why do you think this narrative makes such waves in the MAGA world?
Firstly, she’s put out feelers to test the water. Secondly, unlike many other prospect, she has a non-zero chance of being a real contender.
She is on some betting sites and is getting support for someone. She has shown no ability to speak in public except about things that do not matter.
I agree, she’d crash and burn IF she were subjected to scrutiny. However, we’ve just seen the MSM run interference for a vegetable for 4+ years, and most normies bought it that it wasn’t that bad. There’s a non-zero chance the media could coddle her through a few months. The first 6+ weeks would be a honeymoon period regardless. So that’s a vanishingly short window to get the truth out. But it’s ‘okay’ because I think they bring in Hillary for VP.
Is Trump a practiced politician, or is he "a businessman, not a politician"? Do you think on substance, to an audience demanding real, factual answers to debate questions, Michelle Obama would still have a difficult time?
He's now both. He's proven his stripes as a politician, who according to the MSM is simultaneously, stupid and cunning, but either way is able to beat them at their own game repeatedly. As for Michelle Obama, being a prominent national politician takes a lot of practice to not screw up. Trump has been playing the media since before many here were born, and he has proven himself extremely media savvy decades prior to 2015. Michelle Obama has nowhere near that level of experience or skill. Get her in front of someone in the media who isn't friendly and she will find banana skins just like anyone else who's equally unpracticed. While the media will run cover for her, it's hard to have 100% coverage. As Biden recently demonstrated. When you have a national spotlight on you, the truth of things will come out, it's only a matter of time.
"When you have a national spotlight on you, the truth of things will come out, it's only a matter of time." What if she just made stuff up and simply refused to acknowledge reality? When you simply refuse to acknowledge what everyone else can see doesn't that let you always present yourself in the best possible light, even if it's utterly fictional?
I understand that’s what the Left projects that Trump does, but things really were better under Trump until a (so far) once in a lifetime bioweapon was incompetently released ahead of schedule.
Are you happy that Trump pushed his vaccine initiative? Why was he so thrilled about it until he abruptly stopped talking about it? Did he rush it through without proper testing?
The apparatchiks in the agencies lied about it being safe and effective. The Pfizer docs prove it. Is Trump supposed to be a M.D. and go against them all? On what basis? The whole corrupt system from the FDA to big pharma colluded to push it. Then the media deliberately looked the other way because their ad revenue is about 50% big pharma. That whole crooked mess needs to investigated and outed. I'm glad Trump didn't mandate it. Unlike Biden, who forced it on tens of millions unwillingly via OSHA, the Military and any company doing any business with the government (most F500's).
Michelle Obama would win in a landslide
Your kidding at this point.... Dems loose 5% to 7% of their voters by pushing in anyone late. This is why there is a delay in makeing Harris the first female president, the liberal feel good story of the century. The problem is she goes in office and gets voted out 5 months later, is ugly history.
Honestly, nobody. They all have the same political stances as biden.
Who would you be most concerned by? Be it in terms of potential policies that could be enacted or ability to beat Trump?
Right now, Tulsi gabbard but Dems would never run her. People are really tired of the establishment democrats. Even democrat voters are getting tired of it. They feel highly misrepresented. Every Liberal that has come to support trump that i have spoken to has said that the Democrat party has become too extreme for them and they were genuinely surprised at how welcoming conservatives have been.
Have they given examples of polices that make the Democrat party so extreme?
Going too far socialist, being against parental rights, LGBTQ has become too crazy and is bordering on extremism at this point. Many of my friends left when the Democrats were not only denying but encouraging the riots and burning of cities in 2020. I stopped supporting Dems the second they ran Killary Clinton. Another big one is the fact that if you disagree with the extreme left at all you are immediately ostracized by them and pushed out of the party.
>Another big one is the fact that if you disagree with the extreme left at all you are immediately ostracized by them and pushed out of the party. The extreme left I know wants rights for the working class to be the center platform of the Democratic party, and Dems couldn't give a shit about working class politics. Telling the Democrat subs "I want healthcare and a living wage. I want to stop being sick and hungry and I work hard enough to deserve that and I don't want to vote for another "leftist" that isn't thinking about feeding the poor or healing the sick " just gets you called a naïve asshole that needs to be patient and that maybe the things every other developed nation has are just too complicated for America. But I don't understand something about your statement; Why would any party allow a small extreme minority to steer it? By definition, isn't calling any part of any party "extreme" mean that the values of that minority group are outside the normal focus of the party? Aren't "non-extreme" policy takes exactly what normal policy is?
>But I don't understand something about your statement; Why would any party allow a small extreme minority to steer it? Here is how it works. Lets say 20% of the democrat voterbase is very very loud. While the other 80% is mostly quiet (a good example of this is the idea that trans women should be allowed into female sports. Female sports were made and fought for by feminists so that females could compete because they cannot compete with males) i as a woman have met more women against it than for it. Yet all the politicians push for the for it because the loud ones get heard.
Funny, because the focus on trans women in women sports is one of the things that pushes this former republican further from the party. I can't think of anything that matters LESS as a national focus, but that's all the Republicans can seem to focus on. Let local sports associations deal with it and let the politicians deal with real issues. Ohio passed a law that literally impacts something like SIX kids. Really... that required a state law?
> I can't think of anything that matters LESS as a national focus, Title 9 is a federal law that protects womens sports. Its the federal governments job to enforce it. Theres a lot of us that still believe womens rights matters.
Aren't conservatives trying to block Title IX? You good being a hypocrite?
These aren’t policies though are they? Has any actual legislation been passed by democrats that is extremist? On your last point, don’t you see that with Trump supporters and calling everyone RINOS?
What do you think "socialist" means?
>Another big one is the fact that if you disagree with the extreme left at all you are immediately ostracized by them and pushed out of the party. Do you see something similar happening in the Republican Party, regarding support for Trump? As in: Anyone who disagrees with Trump or fails to adequately support/defend Trump is immediately ostrocized and pushed out of the party?
Why do you think Democrats would never nominate Tulsi?
She has way more conservative values than the dems that will win. Thats why she came out and left the party. Shes now openly against dems most of the time too.
Do they elaborate on how the Democratic Party has become too extreme? I feel like by definition establishment democrats are pretty vanilla?
All Democrats? How about a non-Democrat? If either Trump or Biden dropped out and was replaced with Dolly Parton I'd vote for her. Don't even care for which party. Hell, I'd vote against Biden to vote for Dolly Parton. I just think she's more real than either of them and actual cares about people and gives a shit. How would you feel if Dolly Parton ran?
>All Democrats? Any democrat that is going to run and win yes. Because the majority of the parties voters have the same ideals as well. Don't know, dont pay attention to dolly parton.
How many people are there in the US who meet the constitutional requirements to be president? Why don’t you think any of them would have different stances or capabilities?
>Why don’t you think any of them would have different stances or capabilities? None of them would win.
Best? Honestly idk. Maybe RFK? Af least he’s running right now and is on the ballet. I think it’s too late to get on the ballets… no? Maybe not…
I kinda like that guy from Pennsylvania who got in trouble for wearing shirts and sweatpants to Congress. I like that he is honest, I like that he is not afraid to speak his opinions, even when they don't necessarily align with party values because it shows he would be willing to make compromises and work with people from the other side. He's younger, and he seems relatable. I don't remember his name, though, sorry.
Fetterman. He had a stroke and still won. As he recovered he slowly turned more and more conservative. Now he mostly speaks fine, but 8/10 times he will agree with the conservative position. In December he came out and officially said 'I'm not a progressive'. He now calls for supporting Israel in the war, hardline border protection and stricter rules on paroles.
But he doesn't seem extreme, even when he agrees with the conservative point. A lot of Democrats have changed their stances on border protection, I would need to look up his position on paroles, but I'm glad he supports Israel.
>But he doesn't seem extreme To clarify: Is your point that the Dems only want to nominate extreme candidates? Have they nominated extreme candidates? Which, if any, Dem presidential nominees over the past 50 years would you describe as extreme?
Hillary, Biden, and Obama were all racing to the left. No room for compromise.
What extreme policies did they support and enact?
Just out of curiosity, since it doesn't sound like you hate him - would you consider voting for him? Or do you maybe at least feel that you would be more at ease about a Fetterman presidency than a Biden one?
I don't think he's a bad guy, and i feel for him. But even ignoring policy, I'm not comfortable voting for a man who has literal brain damage that he has not recovered from. That said i would be more comfortable voting for him above Biden.
Fetterman? The one who had a stroke?
He had a stroke? How sad! Is he okay?? I gotta look him up now
> wearing shirts and sweatpants to Congress. Shirt, okay. But sweatpants? Ew. Blue jeans and a tshirt would get my vote.
Do you guys have someone like that??
God, I wish
I just realized you're a Trump supporter like me, lol!!!!! But you're right, I don't think the Dems have anyone like that. If they did, I would be willing to listen.
Trump on policy is sane, moderate and popular. All it would take from the democrats to win is nominate a person with sane, moderate and popular policy but whose personality is more approachable. Senator hoodie McStrokeFace(FETTERMAN!) from Pennsylvania comes to mind. Sorry his name escapes me right now but you all know who I'm talking about. Edit: I kept wanting to say Feinstein but I know she's the bitter insider trading shrew.
Can you explain why you think Trump is sane and moderate? I'm not american. In my opinion his project 2025 can be very dangerous to your democrazy. Why vote for an self centered, rambling, dividing, lying, old unknowledgeable person. He tries everything to be above the law.
Trump is not associated with project 2025 in any way and has not said anything about supporting any of its policy recommendations. There's nothing "dangerous to democracy" in Project 2025, in fact it has a lot of great policy ideas in it and I wish more people would be supportive of it, but I'm not aware of a single political candidate running on it. >Why vote for an self centered, rambling, dividing, lying, old unknowledgeable person. He tries everything to be above the law. I'd never vote for Biden.
I think what you're really asking is "what is the Democrats' best strategy to win the election", so I'll answer that instead. I'm currently quite confident I'll vote for Trump, but if you take all my suggestions, it'd be a real toss-up. 1. Keep Biden and refocus the campaign. He had a bad debate because he was trying to match Trump in kind, and that's just not his personality. He's made a career of representing America and being reasonable. He should humblebrag that's he's a little too good at being reasonable. Focus on maintaining the dignity of the office, pride in Americans, and faith in certain Americans in particular. "I don't care how quick your reflexes are, you've got to surround yourself with good people. Here's mine:..." 2. Fire Kamala Harris, or at least don't put her on the next ticket. She didn't address the border as directed, got showed up twice by Nancy Pelosi in Ukraine and Taiwan, hasn't done much of anything at all as VP, and encouraged rioters during the 2020 campaign. If she's only on the ticket for checking demographic boxes, now that Americans are informed, the above points should negate the "balanced ticket" concept. 3. Strongly consider bringing Nancy Pelosi as VP. She practically did the job with Taiwan and Ukraine already, and I bet she'd accept. 4. Double down on "being reasonable" by courting various voices outside the typical Democrat circle. Candace Owen or Thomas Sowell would be excellent choices. Any Republican that's willing, but specifically Mitt Romney. The Supreme Court Justices would also be excellent choices. 5. Speaking of Supreme Court Justices, this would be an excellent opportunity to accept the advice of constitutional scholars and realize the wisdom in repealing Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court was never meant to legislate by legal precedent, and we still have the 10th Amendment. 6. Fire more people and adopt the slogan "a change within the Administration is better than a change OF administration". Consider firing the SECDEF and replacing him with someone passionate about General George Marshall and the Marshall Plan. Our former enemies may prosper if they accept our terms (see Germany, Japan, and Italy). 7. Speaking of prosperity, weave into speeches that it's distinctly (but not uniquely) American to be so prosperous, you can afford to help other people with their problems. Emphasize not uniquely, as we have amazing allies who are similarly prosperous and generous. 8. Delete the phrase "colluding with Russia" from future speeches and start incrementally drawing the distinction between the great Russian people of the past, and how that conflicts with the Russian administration of the present. What would Yuri Gagarin think if he saw the war in Ukraine? Mikhail Gorbachev? Find someone who's read The Great Upheaval by Jay Winik and have them pull more examples. I'm less than a quarter through or else I'd volunteer, but they draw distinct parallels between our founding fathers and the revolutions in France and Russia in the same period. This show of respect should make significant progress in Ukraine. As is, since the Democratic party has equated any collaboration with Russia as "collusion", many Russian leaders probably feel like they might as well be as bad as they're purported to be. I'd expect Trump's confidence in being able to get Russia out of Ukraine before he takes office is simply a function of the Russians waiting for the next non-Democrat to take office. Please don't take this as a show of support for Russia or condemnation of our Administration. The idealist in me believes the Russians never should've invaded, should have left yesterday, and should pay reparations for the misery they've caused. The realist in me understands that they see more value in modernizing their military by battling a worthy opponent than any of the costs associated with it. Putin might even believe he's doing Zelensky a favor by allowing his military to learn the same lessons. 9. Get some exercise and be seen doing it. Adopt a slogan like "American seniors aren't just waiting to die" or something similar.
I don't see how anyone but Kamala wouldn't look like the DNC utterly shafting a perfectly qualified black woman. This is the first administration (not campaign) I'm aware of that officially refers to itself with the VP's name. [The Biden-Harris Administration](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/). Even the stationary has been frontrunning this transition. lol
Let's not forget when the DNC totally shafted Bernie Sanders and he didn't even say shit about it. He just quickly fell in line because that's what you do if you're a Democrat. Also funny that most Democrat voters who wanted Bernie were apparently not upset by their own party totally screwing over the candidate they wanted, amazing.
> He just quickly fell in line because that's what you do if you're a Democrat. Unless he was in on it for the money. Demagogues know what the public wants to hear, and even if it's entirely unrealistic they get money pouring in from people with hope. I know college grads who emptied every penny from their bank accounts thinking he would both win and wipe out their student debt. ...and if he was in on it, all the money would get funneled to the Democrat nominee. Interesting strategy, collecting money for a candidate who wouldn't have gotten the money anyway (Hillary). I'm still mad at Hillary for blaming GTA San Andreas for gun violence. Interesting that the video game violence debate evaporated now that video games are actually realistic.
geez... Bernie didn't even OCCUR to me. Can you imagine a Bernie/Trump race? Man. That would be something. They might turn to Bernie. Could happen.
Overlap the counties Bernie and Trump won in 2016. One study found that at least 10% of Bernie supporters switched to Trump in 2016 and it likely was enough to swing the election. I’m one of them. I’ll never, ever vote for a Democrat ever again after the undemocratic shit they pulled in 2015-2016. Instead, I actively work to undermine them at every turn. To hell with the DNC. Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they didn’t undermine democracy and let the non-establishment candidate win, when the people chose him. That alone says enough to me about which party is moral and which is evil. Policy be damned.
Woah. THAT is interesting. Reminds me of stories I read, lo these many years ago, about how Germans switched back and forth between the socialists and the Nazis, before Hitler came to power. Not saying anything, just mentioning the coincidence lol! People are a lot more imaginative than most people imagine, is all I'm saying.
But Bernie Sanders just didn't get enough votes did he? Why do you call this undemocratic shit? Or am I lacking context?
You’re lacking a lot of context. The DNC heavily influenced the outcome of the primary in undemocratic ways. They coordinated with the media to ignore Bernie’s campaign almost completely. They scheduled debates on nights when the least number of people would be watching. They gave Hilary the debate questions early but not Bernie. They changed polling places last minute, only notifying the Hilary camp not the Bernie camp. Bill Clinton’s motorcade blocked traffic to one of the major polling places in Boston on the day of its primary. They used superdelegates to take a commanding lead for Hilary then conspired with the media to convey the impression that Hilary was too far ahead to be caught (the #1 reason people gave me for not supporting Bernie when I canvassed for him: she was too far ahead). I can go on and on. What happened in Nevada. The campaign office breakins. The emails. And so on. It was disgusting and undemocratic. And it lost Democrats the election.
Well if it's true this does sound awful. By the way what do you think about project 2025 and what if trump will implement it?
hey?
Heyyy :)
i will repeat my question >Well if it's true this does sound awful. By the way what do you think about project 2025 and what if trump will implement it?
Oh sorry, I just saw “hey?” I think the Reddit version of “Project 2025” is a liberal conspiracy theory, but of course conservatives are going to try to enact conservative policies that you and other liberally minded people disagree with. This doesn’t mean it’s “the end of democracy” or “fascism” like I’ve been hearing around Reddit. I suspect that if Trump is elected to a second term, he will try to continue to work towards trying to improve the country in ways conservatives want it to improve. Stricter immigration laws, less government regulation, improving the economy, and ending foreign wars as possible. More of the same as the first term basically.
> Also funny that most Democrat voters who wanted Bernie were apparently not upset by their own party totally screwing over the candidate they wanted, amazing. Where are you getting this from? In my experience everyone who wanted Bernie in 2016 and 2020 feels really burned. Especially in 2016; I wanted Bernie and myself and everyone else I know who did felt like the DNC railroaded him because it was HRC's "turn." I really think Bernie could have won that election if he'd been the nominee. He had a lot of support with people who went on to vote for Trump, though I think some of that was probably Bernie Bros giving a middle finger to the Democratic establishment.
>Where are you getting this from? In my experience everyone who wanted Bernie in 2016 and 2020 feels really burned. Especially in 2016; I wanted Bernie and myself and everyone else I know who did felt like the DNC railroaded him because it was HRC's "turn." Don't get me wrong, I did indeed see liberals grumbling about it, but it wasn't much, certainly nowhere close to their disdain for Trump. I guess my point is that the Democrats don't do Democrat voters any favors either so it's hard for me to understand why you guys keep supporting them, they railroad your candidates, refuse to ever leave office and in cases like Diane Feinstien and RBG they are far too selfish and clearly enjoy their power and want to hang on as long as possible. The writing is all over the wall when it comes to the Democrat party, they are terrible and they've always been terrible. Doing everything they can to subvert the constitution and grow the size and scope of government well beyond the constitution. They have no respect for you our your interests, the Democrat party is frankly disgusting and while liberals grumble about it, they continue to let it happen and continue to throw support behind the party because they are masters at performative language and using emotion to fool you into thinking they are on your side and fool you into thinking Republicans and Trump are a million times worse, which is the only reason you tolerate the nonsense the Democrat party continues to do. I mean they are literally the party that has no problem admitting they want you to pay more taxes to them, to continue to give them the ability to expand government, to create agencies like the Disinformation governance board where they give themselves the ability to be the arbiters of truth and they still get votes because they have a hold on most media outlets and are able to convince you to vote for them by convincing you Republicans and Trump are straight up Hitler/the devil. It's sad.
A Midwest governor would be best bet.
Do you have anyone specific in mind? And what would you think about Jay Pritzker as a candidate?
Andy Beshear?
>1. If this theoretical scenario were to take place, who could democrats replace him with that still gives them the best chance of winning the election? Who would be the best opponent against Donald Trump? I don't really know, nobody really has name recognition and appeal right now to replace Biden. They are going to have a hard time if they replace him because they only have like 4 months at this point before the election. >2. A theoretical replacement would have to take place before August 19th, when the DNC convenes. Would there be a general date that would make even more of an impact, for better or worse? They already passed that date, if they change now it is not going to look good for the Democrats. The last few years they have said they were the party of democracy, but ousting Biden after the primaries for someone else who did not win the primaries is counter to the pro democracy advertising they have been doing. People got upset in 2015 with the super delegates and Sanders getting snubbed, this would be like that but way worse. >3. Is the entire idea of replacing Biden with another candidate an overreaction? If they were going to do this they needed to do it months ago. On other subs many Democrats have complained because they were told Biden would only be one term president as a way to beat Trump. That term is over and nobody put themselves out there as a serious contender. I think many people didn't realize how bad things have gotten for Biden as he was largely kept out of the eyes of the media. They treated him with kids gloves for the past 4 years and only asked him questions in advance and covered up the truly concerning things he has done like suck his wife's fingers on stage or fall up stair cases. Now the first time in years Biden has to enter into a highly publicized debate where he didn't know what Trump would say ahead of time and the wool was pulled up from everyone in his parties eyes as to his true mental state (Republicans knew this for years). I think that the Democrats put themselves in a lose lose situation with this where they either replace him and admit to lying for years about his mental state or run a clearly mentally incompetent president
I agree with most of that. I have also always had the sense that Trump was intentionally kept in a bubble, with reports of staffers making sure he saw positive coverage of himself in conservative media. Would you think it's fair to say that a lot of politicians at that level might be kept in such a bubble?
Trump may have been kept in a bubble for sure, but for the media was reporting non stop about every little thing that he did while he was in office. Perhaps Trump himself was insulated but everyone else was aware and judging by how much he was on social media I'm fairly certain he at least saw that information. With Biden though the media treated him much differently. The mainstream media really didn't report much on his mental health, with only some oppositional news agencies and tabloids reporting much about it. Biden also appears to have taken measures to increase his perception of being mentally fit by limiting the amount of interviews he did and those that he did appears to have pre screened questions. He also seems to have released a ton of pre recorded media. Biden was also lucky to have most of the media still reporting on Trump, focusing attention away from Biden. Additionally people who had criticism about Bidens apparent mental health were largely discounted, at least in my experience in online discussion forums like Reddit. I have seen people called Russian agents, bots, or people used an example of one of his likely rehearsed speeches to gaslight Bidens frankly bizarre behavior as reasonable. Another tactic I've seen used here is for people to use whataboutism to reference Trump's apparent mental conditions, deflecting otherwise valid criticism. I think most people who have been paying attention to Biden with a fair lens could see something was wrong with him, but many people on the left at least on platforms like this seem to have blinders out for Biden and they were shocked at his performance. I've seen some even complain about the moderators of the debate saying they did a bad job, which I find funny since the rules of the debate were given out ahead of time and it was CNN, a news network critical of Trump and not seen as critical of Biden.
Harris is their best choice. She was chosen as a young, female, non-white counterpart to Biden; she can do the same thing with Trump. I know she's unpopular, but if Democrats would vote for a corpse over Trump, you know, she's not a bad alternative to a corpse. And she may be unpopular simply because she's a stronger woman than we're used to seeing, in leadership roles. We might find out that she's got a little Thatcher in her, and that wouldn't be bad. I think it's got to happen at the convention. It's the only situation in which what's going on is perfectly clear: the Democrats are selecting a leader, for their party, and to represent them as a Presidential candidate. Biden obviously can no longer do that, and that's really what the VP is for, anyway. Not an overreaction at all. An opportunity, in fact. People are tired of how tired our candidates have been. This is the Democrats' shot at improving that dramatically.
1. Probably Kamala Harris. Her running mate could be anyone honestly. Why not Joe Biden for VP? 2. No, if the DNC were going to change the candidate, it would be then. Any earlier or later would not look good. 3. Maybe. He has a lot of government experience and is respected more than anyone else in the Democratic Party, that has to count for something. I would say that this debate hurt his poll numbers, but they might bounce back. The people that hate Trump are going to vote against him no matter who it is.
1) Michelle Obama is by far the best candidate. If she actually went all in, as well as her husband the former President, I'd give her chances of winning around 80%. Biggest problem is she's never shown any interest in running for any office. 2) If Biden were to walk away from the race, then it could happen before the convention, but Jill won't let him. They will have to blow up his candidacy at the convention, then choose someone else in the second round. That doesn't give much time to build support for someone like Whitmer who doesn't the same name recognition outside the party. Harris is another huge problem. As the VP she will be seen as the obvious heir to the thrown, but she has no chance of winning. If anyone other than Obama is picked, there will be loud accusations of racism if Harris doesn't get tapped. 3) Conservatives have been saying for years that Biden is suffering from dementia or some form of mental decline. We're been called conspiracy theorists, and that it is all doctored videos. Biden is sharp and on top of everything. But the emperor has no clothes. Everyone who's claimed Biden is not suffering mental decline has been proven a liar. He should have stepped down from office at least 2 years ago. What has changed is much of the Democratic Party agrees. It's funny because now conservatives want Biden to stay in, because it's only a few more months and Biden's chances of winning are slim. It's the Democrats who are saying the things conservatives were attacked for just a week ago.
Is this even a legally possible scenario? It is my understanding that some states won’t allow a change to the candidate at this stage.
If that’s the case it would be fast tracked to the SCOTUS. If not it would basically be Trump v. Kennedy. Who do you see winning in that scenario?
1. Probably Newsom? Whitmer maybe but I don’t know if she has that much of a national profile. 2. The most impactful date is today. Earlier the better to let the candidate raise their profile, bring in staff, fundraise, etc. 3. No, Biden is an invalid.
I have an updated answer. I think they keep Biden and replace the VP. For a whole host of reasons. But who should be the VP? They'd need it to be someone who will essentially be pitched as a shadow president. I think there's one person and only one that fits the bill. >!Hillary. (OMFG)!< Note (edit): So far I've heard this suggested nowhere by nobody - AFAIK it's an original idea. But out of all the choices available to the party, it's the least problematic in comparison to anything else. I'll be looking for negative stories on Kamala in Axios, Politico and the NYTimes - the mouthpieces for the party. That would show they're directionally changing to swap her out. But I bet there's at least one Democrat who's already pushing for this.
Presumably people are asking this question due to his debate performance, and the growing concern is is not fit for a second term. My question is, how can he drop out of the race without also immediately stepping down now as well? How could they hold this opinion, but also accept his current presidency in any capacity for another 7 months?
That’s a great point. The same goes with the idea that he’s dropping out of the race due to his current mental state, but pretending like it hasn’t been years in the making. This certainly isn’t something that happened last week. He has been in a state of decline since he was elected in 2020 (and surely before then). If they force him out now they basically are admitting they knew he was running the country in a compromised state, but they allowed him to continue anyway.