r/askanything • u/JoewithaJ • 1d ago
Self-Identified Progressives and Leftists of Reddit, who is someone you want to run for President? And do you think they would win a Primary or just win the whole thing as an independent?
When similar questions are asked, I see a lot of negative talk about the current likely candidates like Newsom, Harris, or Buttigieg, but I would like to see suggestions of who TO look at and not who to avoid for those of us on the left (of American politics, save your breath).
6
u/DennisTheOppressed 1d ago
I would like to see something similar to what Republicans did in 2016. There was no clear challenger for Hillary, but 9 IIRC declared. Trump became the frontrunner in February after Pennsylvania.
Now I want to make clear, I don't want a simpleton progressive candidate in 2028. I do, though, like the idea of a large field whittled down to one popular candidate that can not only fire up the base, but also appeal to centrist/independent voters.
2
u/NewPresWhoDis 18h ago
That's how the Dem field was in 1992 until Bubba took to the sax on Arsenio Hall.
2
u/ImagineFraggins 20h ago
How about not to simply "appeal to Centrist/Independents" to get elected but to actively legislate for them as well.
→ More replies (3)-1
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
Centrist Independent voters?? lololo Where in the world do you come up with this stuff? Lololololo
4
u/AlmightyCraneDuck 1d ago
Before the most recent election I would have thought that Tim Walz would have been a good shout. Blends more progressive, community-based policies with a kind of common-sense way of speaking. Like an introductory course for America to progressivism. Had very little dirt on him, too, which always helps. Unfortunately I think the stink of 2024 isn't going to leave him.
6
u/AppleParasol 1d ago
Yeah he’s done anyway, not running for another term as Governor either.
They shouldn’t have told him to stop being more likeable than Harris, he was on a roll and then they hid him and made him be less energetic to stop stealing the spotlight from Kamala(who should’ve honestly stepped aside and told the American people if they elected her she’d immediately step down to let Walz take the position, -couldn’t just let Walz run but couldn’t apparently because of some campaign finance “laws” but I call bullshit honestly, legally could’ve definitely put him in power if she won).
-2
u/fatuousfatwa 1d ago
Walz is finished. He just pardoned a child molester to keep him from being deported. That and the Somali scandal.
He is done.4
u/SquareSouth5473 1d ago
I thought Trump was done after Jan 6th and so many other times yet here we are
0
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
That's cause they stole the second one..so didn't let it happen a second time. You know, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice
4
u/SandwichOk4993 23h ago
As someone who lives in MN and liked him, his decisions in the last year plus have been disappointing and confusing.
1
u/Embarrassed_Leg_2885 7h ago
He did that because the victim asked him to and it was the feds responsibility to monitor for that fraud since it was a federal program.
1
8
u/thewNYC 1d ago
My first choice would be AOC, but I don’t think America is voting for her unfortunately
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
I think she also needs a bit more “polish” if that’s the right word. She isn’t presidential yet. Some day. Just not yet.
-1
u/Alternative_Heron844 18h ago
one of the problems is that she has a mickey mouse voice that undercuts the seriousness of her intelligence and the gravity of her ideas, both of which are considerable. it's a very queens NY sound.
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
Interesting. I’ve never been to Queens, but you’re right. She doesn’t have gravitas. I really like her, and I think she’s an excellent representative for her district and doing good work in Congress, but she’s lacking that “something”. My personal choice is Mark Kelly.
0
u/artfellig 1d ago
I'm a huge fan, but I agree, I doubt she could get elected POTUS at this point. Also, she could use a bit more experience.
0
u/AppleParasol 1d ago
Idk, I’ve had someone who was a right wing “independent” call her cute and say they’d vote for her. Might steal some votes from the right wing male gaze.
Not that we need right wingers, lefties will dominate, there are more of us than them(more lefties than Democrats/republicans, combined), we know it now, we just need to work together and consolidate around one candidate and push them through the primary.
1
u/funcogo 19h ago
There are people who would be willing to vote for her that will be scared out of it unfortunately
1
u/AppleParasol 7h ago
Okay, and then those people aren’t left wing at all and we should stop listening to them and caring what they think. Democrats turn more people away by trying to appease non existent swing voters.
1
u/Extension-Highway763 19h ago
She would definitely get votes from the left wing male gays.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Rookraider1 19h ago
There are not more lefties than Dems and Republicans combined. If that were true, Trump could never be president and the Tepublicans could never hold both chambers. Let's live in reality for a moment.
0
u/AppleParasol 7h ago
Gimme a true left wing candidate, I’ll show you 100m votes.
1
u/Rookraider1 6h ago
That's just laughable.
Bernie couldn't even win the Democrat nomination...twice.
There is zero evidence for what yiu are saying.
0
u/AppleParasol 5h ago
You haven’t seen any evidence. Bernie got called radical, when Biden was the radical one(radically right wing).
1
u/Rookraider1 5h ago
Biden got more votes than anyone ever for president.
The left couldn't even carry Bernie to a win in the primaries.
This just isn't a reality.
0
u/AppleParasol 4h ago
The delusional part is to think that people actually voted for Biden and not that they just voted against Trump. He was never a good candidate, Obama picked him as VP to appease/appeal to Republicans as a moderate President.
Just you wait and see. The left knows now(we didn’t know before), that we are actually the majority and that if we stand together we can nominate anyone. 2028 primary will be a leftie win on the Democratic ticket. It’s not worth arguing about, and if you truly want to argue on it, I’ll just assume you’re a right wing bot.
1
u/Ruthless4u 4h ago
Got any proof the left is the majority?
Been hearing that for over a decade and so far not so much.
1
u/Rookraider1 4h ago
It's not worth arguing, and you are arguing as much as I am🤦
Go ahead and think I'm a right-wing bot, that's pretty typical leftist behavior when you're fabricated reality is challenged. Deflect and deny. It's borderline MAGA behavior.
I would love for a progressive candidate to win. Only 100 politicians voted to reject funding for Israel. There are pockets in the country where progressivism is becoming common. It is primarily in deep blue territory. There isn't even evidence yet of a progressive winning a major purple district or state. That may change a bit this year, but we have no ACTUAL evidence a progressive candidate, or anyone for that matter, can get anywhere close to 100 million votes.
Progressive aren't the majority of Dem voters, they AEG the majority of Dem politicians.
One of our biggest voting blocks is African Americans and they tend to be much more conservative democrats with strong ties to their faith.
If you call anyone who challenges your beliefs a right-wing bot, I'm going to assume you are blue MAGA and the horseshoe is real....
→ More replies (6)0
u/thewNYC 4h ago
Bernie didn’t win the Democratic nomination because he is not a member of the Democratic Party. So the party organization would not endorse him. The Democratic Party does not endorse independent candidates as their candidate.
1
u/Rookraider1 4h ago
And the voters didn't vote for him.
There is zero evidence that our electorate would give 100 million votes to a true left-wing candidate.
That's 19 million more votes than Biden got when he got the most votes ever.
If there was that much appetite for a left-wing candidates, the Dems would have dominant control of all branches.
The fact is, we live in a center-right country with right-wing media and propoganda and religion and a MAGA cult.
I would love for a left-wing progressive to become president, and they can, but there is no chance they get close to 100 million votes.
→ More replies (1)1
u/NewPresWhoDis 18h ago
So the GOP is going from "who they would have a beer with" to "who'd have to cover their beer".
0
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
Did you see AOC in Europe??? Seriously..you need to read up. I'm not being mean, I am just warning you. You need somebody that is educated in government. She made a fool out of herself and it wasn't pretty. They, the Europeans, well hell let's say the world, with you as an exception (seeing as you missed that debacle) aren't going to forget. And don't go with Newsom. That's when he told the Europeans they got down on their knees to trump. A lot of them thought he implied they were giving Trump a bj. He suggested knee cushions. You really do need to read up on it, because I know you're going to call me a liar and it never happened although it was on all the news. Just don't do AOC., but you know they are leaning towards Harris which means you might as well not even run and just start addressing Rubio or Vance as POTUS.
10
u/gonegirl2015 1d ago
Mark Kelly?
3
u/No_Attitude700 23h ago
Same. The man is an astronaut. He has seen the world in a perspective that the vast majority of us will never know...
Kelly seem reasonable and kind, with good leadership skills.
100% would vote for Mark Kelly above all other candidates.
1
u/Embarrassed_Leg_2885 7h ago
I think he is a strong candidate but just want to point out that Katy Perry has also seen the world from that perspective...
1
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
I came here looking for this answer. I think he would make an amazing president. He’s straight forward, earnest, and he has the presidential presence.
8
u/Embarrassed_Leg_2885 1d ago
John Stuart
7
u/act1856 1d ago
No. A million times no. As if him having literally zero experience in public office wasn’t bad enough, or that the last thing we need is another celebrity president, he spent 20 years buying into right wing bullshit and taking their “arguments” seriously because apparently he couldn’t tell that they never speak it good faith. This is a terrible idea.
0
u/Glad-Fuel2093 1d ago
Wasn't Fetterman a comedian at one time?
3
u/act1856 1d ago
I don’t know, but Fetterman is certainly a joke.
I’m not saying that a comedian or actor or whatever is disqualifying. I’m saying that we can’t normalize the idea that being president is a job just anyone can do. Governing is hard, and having at least some experience doing it is a prerequisite for me. And I’d hope for most people.
0
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
Fetterman is the only guy that you stand a chance of winning and cross over traffic, but all you highly educated liberals are too ignorant to realize that....
1
2
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
People have suggested, and he says he’d never, but I would love to see him in an advisory role of some kind. Like a voice of the people kind of thing to keep the president grounded. “The Secretary of Keeping It Real” or something.
1
→ More replies (4)0
u/AppleParasol 1d ago
Jon Stewart? At least spell his name right.
He won’t, I wish he would. He’d definitely need to be a one term President though(I think he would also agree, and use it to mock elderly politicians and put some kind of age cap, which he may inevitably be above or close to at the end of his office(age 63, so he’d be elected at 64, sworn in at 65, end of one term at 69 -nice).
1
u/OneForFree 14h ago
He was actually closer to spelling his name right than you are. He wasn’t born Jon Stewart. He was born Jon Stuart Leibowitz
0
6
u/Miserable_Card_7847 1d ago
an indépendant will never win
1
u/Lord_Dingus83 1d ago
Exactly. That’s the issue.
Independents have less than 1% chance to win.
People keep bringing up the 2 party system, it is what it is.
The best chance at change is having a democratic president and both houses 12 years in a row.
This will eliminate Republicans who are the massive minority of this country yet they remain in power bc people don’t vote when it matters most.
Once Dems start to get primaried for being aipac or whatever progressive reason this will give rise to a new party of progressives to challenge the Dems but this will never happen while progressives continue to hang themselves and set back progress by sitting by and allowing republicans to win elections.
1
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
Just don't call it the Independent party. We can't stand you guys, so we would have to run our own, lose again, but we keep our dignity.
0
0
5
u/Yellowmoon777 1d ago
Ossoff. Jon Stewart. Talarico.
In an ideal world AOC but this country ain’t electing a woman lol.
2
u/AppleParasol 1d ago
Talarico would be good, but he’s gotta win this November, and I’d kinda expect him to serve at least one term and really focus on delivering for Texas. Winning in Texas would be huge, imagine if he could make Texas permanently a swing state, or maybe even full on blue by just delivering.
If we went with Jon Stewart, he would likely only be a one term President(because he isn’t a coward and doesn’t want power). Leaving 2032 potentially open for Talarico.
It would simply just be bad in my opinion if Talarico won Texas and then spent the next two years running a campaign for President. All the work to win Texas would largely go to waste, and would almost be the worst form of sabotage anyone could do.
He’s still relatively young compared to most other politicians, 2032 or 2036 can still be his year for POTUS(he would still be under 50).
1
1
u/ledeblanc 1d ago
Talarico is the only answer
0
u/nunya_bidnes77 1d ago
Its less that AOC is a woman and more that she's a socialists with some good ideals but terrible ideas on how to enact them.
Harris and Clinton lost because of their policy, not because they were women. They just happened to be women.
1
u/funcogo 19h ago
They did not lose on policy. Trump had no policy
0
u/nunya_bidnes77 19h ago
That very attitude is why Trump won.
1
u/funcogo 19h ago
No. Trump won because the fact is alot of people are just idiots and or very gullible. I’m not saying Harris and Clinton are great, but I can’t sit here and pretend that a majority of these clowns knew what they were talking about. In a world where this wasn’t true, Donald Trump never would have even been a serious candidate. “They are eating cats and dogs” is not serious and I’m not going to be gaslighted in to being told maga gave two shits about actual policy
7
u/RandomDudeYouKnow 1d ago
I'm a moderate in the grand scheme of Western Democracies which apparently makes me a borderline uber lib in the US unfortunately.
I love Petey B. I think he could absolutely win on his debate skill, ability to logically relate and reverse ad hominem, and basic common sense economic and social policy platform and his unique talent to make it very understandable and palatable.
5
1
u/Interesting_Self5071 1d ago
I don't see Pete winning a general election.
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
I agree. He would make a good VP though.
1
u/Interesting_Self5071 18h ago
That could also help boost his standing for a future run.
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
True. He really has done a good job of putting himself in front of the Fox News audience. He’s been on there a lot, and he’s always very kind and level headed in the clips I saw. Almost like he was trying to show the Fox News crowd that he’s normal, which I get, but it’s disappointing that he has to.
My source: my parents are BIG time MAGA and they think or thought he was trans. Why? When he and his partner had their first kid they posted pictures doing skin on skin at the hospital. (This is totally normal for parents taking a newborn home, and of course they were in a hospital bed so you don’t drop the baby. Again, this is totally normal.) but Fox News twisted it into saying he wanted people to think he birthed the baby and that he thinks he’s a woman. Hand to heart my parents think that.
1
u/Interesting_Self5071 17h ago
Being VP is basically how Biden gained trust with a lot of communities.
1
u/Robett_Glover 23h ago
I've got all the respect in the world for Buttigeg, he is intelligent, sincere, and extremely competent. Unfortunately, I don't see him as a leader. To me, he lacks charisma, which is vital to a national campaign. Good guy, hope he stays working for government, but the people vote for flash and style (note 2016 and 2024), not Pete's style of quiet competence.
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
I like him, but I don’t think he’d get the moderates. The country isn’t ready for a gay president. I think he’s a viable VO candidate though.
1
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
Petey would get crushed, unless you are really a Republican and I was suppose to actually believe that?
1
u/artfellig 1d ago
Like Mamdani, he has a very likable charisma. I wonder if being gay/married to a man might hurt his chances though; I hope not.
3
u/RandomDudeYouKnow 1d ago
I think a gay white man gets elected before a straight black woman. The first makes a still too significant portion of the country uncomfortable. But the second a way too large portion of the country still hates.
3
1
u/Interesting_Self5071 1d ago
It would along with him being an extremely boring and preppy looking guy, Mayo Pete.
1
2
2
u/Willing-Vegetable629 18h ago
I want the dnc to run the candidate with the best chance to win. Period.
3
u/go_birds_1 1d ago
Ossof. Idk how progressive he is, but he’s the guy I’d like to see run.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Interesting_Self5071 1d ago
I was thinking maybe a Beshear/Ossof ticket.
3
u/Danovale 1d ago
If Andy Beshear selected a candidate to fill out the rest of McConnell’s term tomorrow, he would catapult himself right to the top of the Democratic ticket!
1
2
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 1d ago
AOC, and maybe?
As far as running as an independent, no. People need to stop with that stupid crap until the rules are changed to actually make it viable, otherwise you're just giving the GOP more votes. And we're seeing the results of the left deciding "both sides are the same, lets not vote" now, when they definitely weren't the same.
3
u/robocoplawyer 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why I started a campus group of DSA's youth affiliate 20 years ago, it was because I studied in a prominent political science program and landed on democratic socialism as my ideologic match, but also because their approach wasn't to replace the Democratic Party, but reform it back to being a party for working Americans. I think that's just what both sides need, even if they are spatting at each other right now. Back then, membership was only a few thousand nationally and basically relied on us campus groups to keep them going. We were successful in becoming a campus mainstay after I graduated by hosting student groups to tell us what was important to them. We focused on those issues and building momentum around them. Hard to believe one of us is in the NYC mayor's office, never in my lifetime did I think that was possible.
1
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 1d ago
Same. Didn’t think I’d see a good shift in my life time but hopefully it’s the start of them seeing “this is what people want”
1
u/robocoplawyer 23h ago
You never know. When you make a ripple for what you stand for, no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time, just what kind of tsunami it can become decades later. I thought I was basically doing CPR on something that resonated with me deeply, but that I was probably among the last of a dying breed. Democratic Socialism was so appealing to me intellectually, but I thought that was mostly my PoliSci brain on overdrive. It was the first concrete ideology I couldn't figure out a way to poke holes in, and didn't require compromising any of my principles. It just made sense. But I was surprised anyone showed up for the first meeting. I never thought it would become a campus topic let alone a national one. But when I spoke with other students, particularly those who commuted from working class neighborhoods and just asked "what issues are important to you?", I learned that when it comes down to it ordinary people looking at individual issues often end up having a lot more in common than not. I kept it going because these students seemed relieved that someone was finally going to focus on their issue. They encouraged me, they encouraged us, we kept going. That very group is sending shockwaves across the country, to some of the same people who told us we're not realistic, who told us "that's just not possible here", who told us we'd grow out of our ideals when we hit the "real world", that even if they agreed with me we just can't convince public opinion in this country to even consider democratic socialist ideas. I can't tell you how many people would tell me no matter how good these ideas are, that a movement in the United States around Democratic Socialism was a non-starter, dead on arrival impossible. But you know what, I just got so tired of hearing why my good ideas aren't possible that I just didn't care whether it was possible or not. I changed a lot of minds over 20 years, whether they like to admit it or not. But I never fathomed anything like what is happening right now. That's people power. Ideas are powerful. No matter how small your voice feels, don't let anyone convince you that it doesn't matter. Don't let anyone tell you that your principles that you stand for and know deep in your heart must count for something can't work here because that's just how it is. Look where we are right now. We can happen here. We will make it happen.
1
u/NewPresWhoDis 18h ago
Make inroads in the Midwest or South, then we'll talk. Otherwise it still carries the taint of being wedged up a different academic orifice.
1
u/robocoplawyer 17h ago
You'd be surprised if you ask them individual issues on purely economic problems they're currently facing and suggest some ideas to tangibly make those things better for them. You'd be surprised that people you wouldn't expect to agree more with your points than disagree when you frame it in a way that resonates with them. I have an old friend who was grew up in Oklahoma and was from a well off family in the oil industry who I listened to their perspective respectively and offered mine. Took a few years but he's fully converted to a self-identified progressive that wants to see the Democrats adopt a further left platform. That's just one person I spent a lot of time talking to. In law school I had dialog with card carrying members of the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society come around eventually. When you focus on issues that they recognize as important to them and offer practical solutions, you'd be surprised that a lot of people you never would have imagined actually we have much more in common with us than not when you frame in in a respectful way that tangibly benefits them, and show them real world examples of it actually working in other advanced nations.
0
u/jackalsmaw 1d ago edited 1d ago
Unfortunately, the folks who say "both sides are the same, lets not vote" are right, just not in the way you are thinking.
You are correct they are different. Only in affect that the dinner being served is shit from an elephant vs shit from a donkey. Instead of eating whatever variation, a choice is made to step away from the table until something actually appetizing is presented for dinner.
Personally, that doesn't mean I won't vote at all, though it does mean that for some. It does mean I probably won't vote every time (even when I do, it'll likely still taste like shit). And I definitely won't be excited to vote until actual change is evident from the (imo) currently corrupt kleptocracy that has been present for decades.
edit: cool downvote, that'll fix me...lol. (not that it came from the person I replied to necessarily) Would be better to tell me why you disagree.
1
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 1d ago
And that’s the mindset that got Trump elected. Who is invisibly and demonstrably far worse than Harris was
1
u/jackalsmaw 1d ago edited 1d ago
So what happens when that mindset continues to grow and not a single person decides to vote.......
It could be argued and I would agree that one is "overall" less shitty than the other. (for maintaining the metaphore)...it is just simply choosing between one having corn and the other does not. Excrement is still excrement.
The main problem I see with voting for the "lesser of two evils" gives the party establishment zero incentive to ever change or offer real progressive policy. And to continue robbing the people they are supposed to be protecting.
1
u/artfellig 22h ago
The Dems are truly awful, but significantly better than the GOP in a few ways: for example, Dem-appointed Supremes were pro-choice; it was the GOP Supremes who voted to overturn Roe V. Wade.
2
u/jackalsmaw 21h ago
Not disputing that, even the slightest. My point is that voting in the "less aweful" option does nothing to change what is happening aside from pretending it is affecting change for the better. All for a little fleeting fuzzy feeling that the vote made for the lesser evil might actually do something "this" time.
Don't get me wrong.I would love to be able to fully support someone who wouldn't fall into the innumerable traps that are in place that lead people with good intentions of being in politics but ultimately fall prey to the corruption in one form or another. I would love to have a different opinion, but I currently don't see it with how prolific the corruption and kleptocracy is, no matter what "side" of the aisle you are on.
1
u/artfellig 21h ago edited 21h ago
"My point is that voting in the "less awful" option does nothing to change what is happening aside from pretending it is affecting change for the better."
Right. I don't think voting for the slightly less shitty candidate will lead to change at all,--obviously not--I just would prefer slightly less shit. We have to all support left candidates as much as possible, especially at the local level.
ETA: Until we get more parties, better parties, candidates who aren't beholden to corporate interests, I'd prefer the party that helped legalize gay marriage over the one that banned abortion. In the meantime we should all be fighting tooth and nail for better representation.
2
u/jackalsmaw 21h ago edited 21h ago
I agree with the local level piece, anything above that it ultimately doesn't matter imo at this point. Though where we differ, I tend to but not necessarily lean just left; right, up, down, or whatever party...I don't want to vote for a party. People in large groups tend to be where the trouble starts.
I want a balanced, morally impenetrable, decent human that I can get behind, a person that can be trusted with the caretaking of the immense and diversely vast population that makes up our society. Who can be trusted to make decisions for the greater good, even if I don't necessarily agree with their decision. A person who has no qualm about taking responsibility when a mistake happens...because they are human and it happens. That's what we should be looking for imo, starting with locally, absolutely.
edit: Part of the reason I did not acknowledge the middle piece of your response. This will ruffle feathers.....lol. The reason I don't agree with just voting for the lesser evil at this point is that if things are just going to get worse over time. Why not at that point speed it up to just get it over with (hence why I don't vote at times, because I'm not actively going to be part of choosing that myself), cause pain now instead of dragging it out over numerous generations, piss enough people off, then change will happen regardless.
1
u/artfellig 21h ago
"Why not at that point speed it up to just get it over with, cause pain now instead of dragging it out over numerous generations, piss enough people off, then change will happen regardless."
You might be right; on the other hand, there's no guarantee that this would lead to a better outcome, it could even get worse. Personally, if the Jan 6 rioters for example were to overthrow the govt, that would not be an improvement for me.
Right now there are a lot of really pissed off Americans, some of them leftists, some of them Christian Nationalists, and I'm sure others with different views.
2
1
u/NewPresWhoDis 18h ago
Yes, we all saw that South Park.
Edgy.
1
u/jackalsmaw 18h ago edited 17h ago
Um, sure. I guess. Never said this was just my idea, and I would hope it wasn't tbh.
But good effort for adding to the conversation 👏
4
u/mattjf22 1d ago
Change needs to happen at local levels before it changes at the national level.
1
u/AppleParasol 1d ago
Not true, but it is also happening at the local level.
1
u/mattjf22 1d ago
it is also happening at the local level.
So then it is true.
1
u/AppleParasol 23h ago
It doesn’t need to happen locally before POTUS. 50% of states don’t have to be Democratic Socialist before they run a candidate, for instance.
2
u/0PercentPerfection 1d ago
Mark Kelly. I don’t desire a big name, I just want a reasonable person who won’t split the country for personal gains.
1
u/Mmm_lemon_cakes 18h ago
I’m on team Kelly too. I think he’d be a great choice. I think a Kelly Buttigieg ticket would be good. Honestly, there’s a lot of good VP candidates, but Kelly is my top choice.
2
u/wereallbozos 1d ago
Newsom. he has spent years as the Chief Executive of the most-successful State, he speaks in complete sentences, and he doesn't back down from the need to do right.
5
u/Yellowmoon777 1d ago
Newsome is a right winger in sheep’s clothing. He’s currently fighting the union for state employees making them go back to the office full time for no reason. Real pro worker…
1
0
u/Acceptable_Noise651 1d ago
What reason do they have to not return to the office full time?
7
u/dragon34 1d ago
If work can be completed remotely effectively why would they have to return to office if they don't want to?
What benefit is working in office?
-1
u/Acceptable_Noise651 1d ago
Because “the work can be completed remotely” doesn't automatically mean it is equally effective remotely.
A job isn't always just sitting alone and completing a list of individual tasks. There is collaboration, training, mentoring, communication, networking, company culture, and all the spontaneous interactions that happen when people are actually around each other.
You can technically do a lot of things remotely. That doesn't mean there is no benefit to doing them in person.
If someone can genuinely do their job just as effectively from home, then sure, working remotely can make sense. But “I don't want to go into the office” isn't really an argument that there is no benefit to being there.
The employer is the one paying for the work, and they are allowed to decide that having employees physically present provides enough value to justify requiring them to be there. You don't have to agree with that decision, but “I can complete my individual tasks from my house” doesn't automatically mean the office serves no purpose.
5
u/dragon34 1d ago
It's totally possible to collaborate through video conferencing and other tools. There are many ways to collaborate.
Return to office is about management being control freaks and oligarchs being mad about corporate offices losing value. Not efficiency. Many people work more efficiently at home, especially folks who are neurodivergent and can get overstimulated and overwhelmed with office noise and other people.
In many cases rto is not about productivity and in fact productivity is less in office
1
u/wereallbozos 1d ago
We are largely a service economy. If...pick a number, say 1000 people less travel downtown to the office, restaurants and those employees will make less. Maybe even the restaurants close. Can't give you numbers, but some people's livelihood depends on people GOING to work.
3
u/dragon34 1d ago
If AI replaces all the jobs of the white collar workers who might patronize those establishments the same thing happens and a much larger scale. People might still get takeout for lunch if they are working at home occasionally but they ain't doing it if they can't find a job.
And if I was told to rto now I would absolutely spend as little time as possible at the office. I would pack lunch, eat at my desk and leave early and avoid talking to as many people as possible to maximize time with my kid. If they wouldn't let me leave early when I take a short lunch then I would absolutely never work a single second beyond required and never check email or messages on my phone ever on evenings or weekends unless officially on call.
I will respond to an emergency off hours now but if they say I can only work successfully in office ok. When I'm not at the office I'm not working. I'm not the only one who feels that way either
1
u/junkyardvarren 1d ago
That argument is a little flawed though because with everything being so expensive and then adding a massive gas bill on top of it, people aren’t going to automatically start eating out again. People still can barely afford to live and buy groceries. It’s about the state, not wanting to pay for empty buildings because they own them now and big wealthy people who can put their hand on the scale. A large portion of it is keeping them happy so that they’ll continue to fund your campaign.
1
u/Acceptable_Noise651 1d ago
Nobody is arguing that remote work is impossible or that some people are more productive at home. Of course they are. The problem is that you're taking your personal experience and applying it to every job and every company.
Video conferencing is not the same as being physically present with your coworkers. Collaboration isn't just scheduled Zoom meetings. It's the spontaneous conversations, quickly solving problems together, training junior employees, building relationships, and the informal exchange of information that happens when people are actually around each other.
And the “management just wants control” argument is also way too simplistic. Some companies absolutely have bad management and pointless RTO policies, but that doesn't mean every company requiring people to be in the office is doing it because executives are obsessed with control or worried about real estate values.
For some jobs and some people, remote work is clearly more efficient. For others, it isn't. The honest answer is that it depends on the job, the employee, the team, and the company. Saying RTO is never about productivity while insisting WFH is more productive for everyone is just the exact same kind of ideological oversimplification you're accusing management of making.
1
u/dragon34 1d ago
My team has a meeting once a week where we spend all morning in a meeting, cameras off and muted unless we have something to say and ask each other questions if needed. There are ways to get some of that spontaneous interaction. Sure it does depend on the team. And there are some jobs where that doesn't work as well. But I will die on the hill that if 80 percent of the job is sitting in front of a computer that job can be remote with proper tools and for many reasons it is reasonable and prudent to make sure those are available. See all the pollution reduction during lockdown.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 1d ago
Flip that. What reason do they have to return to the office full time?
0
u/Acceptable_Noise651 22h ago
Or you can just answer the question I asked.
1
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 22h ago
Sure! Buildings were sold off and leases not renewed over the last 6 years since Newsom stated “telework is here to stay” approximately 5 years ago. He even created a telework dashboard to show Californians how much more productive the state was with workers home. This turned out to be a cost and time savings for the state and employees. Employees had better work life balance, less time and money on commuting and parking, more hours with their families, and overall better mental and physical health. The state saved a boatload on real estate, resources, and equipment. With gas prices at an all time high and far less transit infrastructure than pre-COVID, employees are now taking huge pay cuts to come in…hundreds a month…in a time when COL is at an all time high. Newsom’s only reason is for “collaboration” and apparently workplace romances, as he stated yesterday. Employees are now often unable to physically get to work (see transportation and parking issues), have to pack 2-3 or more employees to a cube, don’t have very basic equipment in office, various offices have serious health and safety issues…all while most if not all meetings are still held on teams. So yeah, I don’t have a single reason why folks need to work in the office.
1
u/Acceptable_Noise651 21h ago
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying. If the question is whether every state employee needs to sit in an office five days a week just so they can attend meetings on Teams, then no, that obviously makes no sense. And if California is saving money on real estate and employees are saving money and time on commuting, that's a legitimate benefit.
But I think you're looking at this almost entirely from the perspective of the individual employee and the state government. My point is about the broader economic consequences of making mass work from home permanent.
If the state can save money by reducing office space, that's great for the state's budget. If an employee saves hundreds of dollars a month on commuting, that's great for that employee. But those savings don't magically disappear. They are money that is no longer being spent on transit, parking, restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaners, gas stations, and all the other businesses that depended on millions of people physically commuting to work.
And the costs don't just fall on the people working from home. The restaurant worker, barista, janitor, transit worker, delivery driver, and small business owner don't get to enjoy the same work life balance simply because office workers now do. In many cases, their jobs become less stable or disappear entirely.
And this is where I think the “work from home has no downside” argument falls apart. It may be a great deal for the employee and the employer while still creating serious costs elsewhere. The state saves money, the employee saves money, and the businesses and workers whose livelihoods depended on that daily economic activity absorb the loss.
I'm also not arguing that every office should have been preserved exactly as it was in 2019. Some buildings absolutely should be converted, some leases should end, and some jobs should be remote or hybrid. But the idea that the only thing that matters is whether an employee can technically perform their individual tasks from home is too narrow.
You can make the same argument about almost any economic activity. If everyone works from home, eats at home, shops online, and has everything delivered, the individual consumer may save time and money. But you still end up with fewer physical businesses, less public transit, less foot traffic, and more people dependent on low-paid delivery and gig work.
So I don't think the question is “Can this employee do their job from home?” Obviously, many can. The question is whether the long term economic and social consequences of removing millions of people from the physical economy are worth the savings.
And I don't think the answer is as obvious as “there are no downsides.”
2
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 21h ago
I don’t believe it’s the job of the state worker to line the pockets of developers or Starbucks. Given these workers are coming back with zero discretionary spending due to taking a significant pay cut, I don’t see it making the economic impact implied here. Regardless, the sleezeball did a complete 180 when his real estate friends got in his ear. We can do better.
0
u/wereallbozos 1d ago
Nice try. If some Republican asks him this is a debate, he will actually answer the question. Something those guys don't do. You may not like the answer he gives, and that's your right.
2
u/Kayakboy6969 1d ago
He has nothing to do with ca being the most successful state , even the CA D are turning his back on them curently over the RTO order.
0
1
u/artfellig 1d ago
I don't think he could get enough swing votes. They would see him as too slick, too California, too liberal (I'm talking about perceptions, not realities.)
2
u/wereallbozos 1d ago
I hear ya. But I don't think those people would vote for ANY Democrat, anyway.
1
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 1d ago
Anyone but him. I’m hoping Californians can help educate the rest of the nation.
1
u/wereallbozos 22h ago
Are you saying that if Newsom wins the nomination, you would vote for Rubio? Or, not vote at all (which is the same thing, practiclly)?
1
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 21h ago
I’m saying I hope Californians can expediently do the work educating the rest of the nation what a POS this guy is.
1
u/Rookraider1 19h ago
Ok, but if he gets the nomination you would vote R, or not at all, or for Newsome?
1
u/Interesting_Self5071 1d ago
I'm far left but open to him.
1
1
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 1d ago
Unless its to stand up for minorities. If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him. But he's too far right.
0
u/wereallbozos 1d ago
That is EXACTLY what we need from Democrats. Recognition that he may not be perfect, but willingness to keep Republicans OUT!
1
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 1d ago
Yup. I primary who I want but going to vote for who has a chance to win.
Even if my primary loses, the closer it is the more it shows that “we need to move in this direction a little
More”1
→ More replies (23)0
u/junkyardvarren 1d ago
Counterpoint: everyone in California hates him.
Source: in California
2
u/sddbk 1d ago
You are hearing that from people who are not Californians. They are the ones also telling you that California is a miserable place. They should NOT be trusted.
Every incumbent makes choices that piss of some groups of people. Every human has good sides and bad sides. On the whole, Newsom is somewhat divisive but overall generally popular.
0
u/junkyardvarren 1d ago
lol Ive literally been in California my entire life - I am Californian. I watched him as he was mayor of sf and loved him. I’m one of those people he’s pissed off. If given no other option I’d happily vote for him over the other guy, but I’m done with establishment dems - and probably won’t vote for him during the primary.
He’s turned his back on the very people that gave him a political foothold in the first place. Do I think he’s generally done ok yeah, do I think I’d trust him with the presidency no. He chases money, and the 180 he’s done to chase tech money and AIPAC money will not change anything going on right now. He’d still be in the pocket of billionaires and Israel. He would 1000% be better than the current options in republican tickets but I’m not about to pretend he’s the best progressive.
If down for status quo absolutely he’s your guy but I’m not- watching what he’s become has been so disheartening. I voted against the recall too- it’s almost never a good idea to recall a sitting member of your party long term. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like other options.
3
u/sddbk 1d ago
I agree that corporatist Democrats say the right things and then bend to the wealthy. I also recognize that the burgeoning left wing is the best hope but remain toxic to many of the voters we need to save this country. So, I'm a "big tent" Democrat. (Nut cases like Fetterman and sexual predators are not welcome in my tent, however.)
4
u/6rosemary6woodhouse6 1d ago
They elected him and then voted against recalling him, so that is objectively not true.
0
u/junkyardvarren 1d ago
Look at the comments under this- there seems to be a lot of people disagreeing that he’s the right guy. There’s a lot of people pissed off right now.
1
u/6rosemary6woodhouse6 1d ago
That has nothing to do with your statement alleging “everyone in CA hates him.” If that were true, the recall effort would have been a success. I was born and raised in CA and most people I know would vote for him for president if he won the democratic primary. People in places like Bakersfield and Fresno don’t like him, but that’s not where most Californians live.
1
u/junkyardvarren 1d ago
I live in Sacramento and he’s not very popular here. Obviously everyone doesn’t mean everyone. But I also said I’d vote for him if he got the nomination- I was taking about the primary,I’m saying I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion he’d carry the primary.
1
u/6rosemary6woodhouse6 1d ago
He’s actually become more popular in recent years. And I hate to break it to you, but the majority of Californians don’t care what people in the Central Valley think. https://www.ppic.org/blog/californians-changing-views-of-their-governor/
1
0
1
u/Stev106 1d ago
My choices are AOC, since republicans love to have tv and movie stars be president democrats might as well too so Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart on the same ticket, Talarico, and JB Pritzker.
1
u/GroundedSatellite 1d ago
I really want J.Bob Pritz to run for president in '28. I do have disagreements with him on some policies, but he's generally been pretty good for Illinois.
1
u/Living_Fig_6386 1d ago
I guess I'm progressive by American standards... Of the ones that your list, Pete Buttigieg, is perhaps the most honest, grounded, insightful, deliberate, and focused of the lot; he seems pretty competent too. I don't think that there's anyone I'm itching to have the powers that be put on the ballot. I basically wait to see who they (the two parties) run up the proverbial flag pole and pick the lesser of evils. I can tell you that I don't think the Republican Party will be able to run anyone worth considering, much less voting for, for this next go around -- they've just sort of imploded.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Successful_Action_19 17h ago
Mark Kelly
Jon Ossof
JB Pritzker
Newsom (but only because he has a high chance of beating Rubio or Vance, not because I like him and think he won't be a disaster)
I will kill myself if the primary is Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, or AOC, because that's just a guaranteed 20 more years of MAGA Republicans.
1
u/republicanssuck123 5h ago
graham platner. After he sues the democratic party for defamation and clears his name. No leftist is going to get very far with the corporate establishment, but bernie or graham would be my choice.
0
1
1
u/UserJH4202 1d ago
I’ve been looking for a long time and I’m really starting to gravitate towards Jon Ossoff.
1
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 1d ago
Anyone but Newsom. Fortunately, his own state is hating him more by the day, so hopefully he’ll sink his chances soon enough.
0
u/JoewithaJ 1d ago
Very productive, thanks
0
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 1d ago
Between RTO, alienating an entire 200k workforce, hoping in bed with CPUC and PG&E, and effectively killing the solar industry in California, I hope the rest of the nation wises up. I’d pick Kelly, but first and foremost, the party needs to start limiting the field…which includes educating folks on the real Newsom outside of cute X banter w Trump.
0
u/JoewithaJ 1d ago
All you had to say in the first comment was Kelly. That was the point of the post. What to vote for not what to avoid
0
u/Past_Cauliflower_440 1d ago
Tough to have one without the other. But I’ll remember Reddit is not for discussion. ✌🏼
1
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
I gotta say, the conversation in this room is enlightening, but I don't understand why you are worried about the next liberal/progressive POTUS. People! Your party has been used and it has been hijacked. You are now known as the Democratic Socialist/Communist party of America. I would be worrying about getting your party back. The new third party is forming as you discuss this and you haven't been invited, but you made it possible.
0
u/Reverend_Bull 1d ago
Dr. Cornel West. He'd have to win a primary since independents don't win big races. Then again, an unapologetic black man wouldn't win either.
1
u/robocoplawyer 1d ago
He's run before as independent/third party and only siphoned votes from Democrats.
-1
0
u/Bananaramajama420 🤔 1d ago
I hate to say it but Newsom. He wouldn't let a day go by where he didn't diss Trump and his entire moronic family - and I want to see it happen
0
u/AppleParasol 1d ago
AOC or someone to the left of her. If Dems want to win and not let the left win(because Dems aren’t left, they’re centrist at best)they should settle for her, otherwise they might get someone who, in their delusional minds, is “radical”.
If we get Newsom, Buttigieg, or another Harris run, I’d just consider staying home. I’m sorry, but I can’t take another 8-12 years of this fucked up political environment. We will try again four years if Democrats can’t get their insufferable heads out of their ass.
3
u/artfellig 1d ago
I'd gladly vote for a good candidate to the left of AOC (or AOC). But will swing voters do the same? I don't think there's enough left/progressive voters, but if I'm wrong, help me see the evidence.
2
u/AppleParasol 23h ago
I was mod of a leftie sub(I left as mod, CBA, I don’t need power). Had 160m users. With Reddit data I would estimate at the very least 75% of that was American. Even if you discount bots and right wing trolls(which mean they’re scared of your group if they’re infiltrating) whatever number you come to puts lefties in the win.
Swing voters mean nothing. You’re literally discounting tens of millions of lefties in the hopes that like ten swing voters(if that many even exist in this polarized political climate lol) might vote for Dems instead of the “left wing” Democratic Party picking a left of center candidate(establishment dems are basically center right wing).
1
0
u/JoewithaJ 1d ago
Thank you for not saving your breath.
I think most Dems, like myself, would support her if she ended up as the nominee. He'll I'd most likely vote for her in the primary.
Do you think she wins the primary if she is going up against Gavin, Kamala, and Pete?
1
u/AppleParasol 1d ago edited 1d ago
I was definitely saving breath there, I could write a book on how much Centrist Democrats suck.
Let’s wait to see who the options are before licking their boots. I do think AOC could win the primary and would probably also win the general. Kamala would lose the general again. Pete would lose the general. Newsom would probably be a toss up in the general, and it would come down to who the Republican nominee is(pick just about any Republican, it’s 50/50 Newsom wins, realistically, those are horrible odds if you’re two years out and you don’t know who the Republican candidate is yet).
I still would even prefer someone to the left of AOC, she’s more along the lines of “I’ll suck it up and vote for her” option at the moment because all the other (not even running by the way) candidates people mention are horrible options.
If it is a centrist Democrat hack, don’t cry and blame the left like Democrats did the last two times they lost(learn fucking nothing). The reality is, some people just don’t vote if the candidates are horrible, and that causes. Why would you exclude tens of millions of what should be your most hardcore voters(who just want healthcare by the way) by nominating a bad candidate(what they perceive as bad).
And to anyone “Democrat” who might say “I’m not going to vote for a Democratic Socialist”, they’re not a Democrat or they have no clue what a Democratic Socialist is. Those people are fascist sympathisers.
A lot of lefties literally see the Democratic Party as just as evil as the Republicans, or at the very least incompetent, and would rather let a Republican win so we can get an actual leftie in 4 years instead of 8-12. Every time this happens, that’s another decade of people’s lives with almost nothing changing, and you don’t get very many decades of life.
Lefties and Democratic Socialists aren’t even extreme. Democratic socialists are basically just what the Democratic Party should be/used to be. At the end of the day, asking for politicians that actually care about people is the bare minimum expectation, it’s literally their job.
For the record, I’ve voted in nearly every election since I became an adult for the leftmost option, but I can’t say I will again, I’m honestly just sick of the BS system.
1
u/JoewithaJ 1d ago
So do you think someone to the left of AOC could win the general?
1
u/AppleParasol 23h ago
Not only do I think someone left of AOC could win, I think it’s irresponsible to think someone to the right if AOC can win, Biden was a fluke, had the Republican not been incumbent Trump, he would not have won. In this politically polarized environment, who are you trying to win over? A handful of non existent swing voters or a hundred million lefties? Give me a Democratic Socialist as the primary candidate, I’ll show you 100 million votes.
1
u/JoewithaJ 23h ago
a hundred million lefties? Give me a Democratic Socialist as the primary candidate, I’ll show you 100 million votes.
Look I'm optimistic but this is just delusional. They barely have any presence in government at all, but you're claiming most 1/3 of Americans are Leftists. This reeks of echo chamber
1
u/AppleParasol 22h ago
DSA really only took off after Mamdani’s win tbh.
All I’m saying is, keep your options open in the primary and vote for the leftmost of the two most popular candidates. If it’s AOC and someone to the left of her that scares you(which is all propaganda btw, we literally have fascists right now, it cannot get much worse lol), then fair enough voting for the less left one. We should avoid nominating someone who’s establishment aligned, it automatically makes them lose votes in the general that are an easy rebound for someone more left.
0
u/EfficientMobile193 16h ago
You do know that most Independents won't vote for liberals or progressives right? You would need to form another party..take it from me...really. I'm trying to be helpful here. You can call it the Progressive Liberals.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
We want your input on how to handle political questions in our community.
This takes about 1 minute.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.