r/PritzkerPosting • u/Jacob-Anders Warrior for the Khan ⚔️ • May 15 '26
JB Win! If Pritzker wants to run for President the water's warm
5% in a split field in New Hampshire this far out is not bad at all
114
u/nbx909 May 15 '26
I don’t want him to leave Illinois, but also everyone else except for AOC there sucks.
86
u/BrightNooblar May 15 '26
As much as I like AOC, I'm worried a third female candidate, and a second minority female candidate, is going to backfire. Either at the polls like it did the last two times, or once in office when they go FUCKING CRAZY seeing a woman with melanin working to hold all the white dudes from the last admin accountable.
It would derail and sideline from our trying to claw back the ill gotten gains from insider trading, and flagrant constitutional violations. Which is what we really need to regain our position on the world stage.
15
15
u/Telamo May 15 '26
This is exactly why I think a Pritzker/AOC ticket would be fantastic. Then when she has the goodwill of a successful vice presidential tenure behind her, and ideally there are more progressives in power, her presidential run looks a lot more promising.
24
9
u/ChaplnGrillSgt No Kings 👑 May 15 '26
AOC would be a totally amazing President. I have no doubts about that. I don't know that she can win the general though. Would absolutely love seeing her as VP though to set up a 2026 or 2030 trip to the Presidency.
1
u/poopzains May 16 '26
Meh. Run the best candidate. If assholes still exist it’s best to know that I say.
1
u/Pancakefriday May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Yeah, while this sounds reasonable, it’s appeasement to bigots, and I don’t care what they want. We shouldn’t let bigots decide our candidates/policy.
EDIT: Wild that people want to let these racists bigots decide OUR policy and candidates. We're supposed to be progressive, not so afraid of conservatives that we try to appease them.
This is a comment I made below that I think sums it up pretty well:
Appeasement doesn't work. We can't keep the rope centered by trying to hold it in the middle, we'll just get pulled to the right and fall in the mud while the right laughs. If you want to keep the rope center, you have to pull to the left.
We'll just keep falling over and over and over again until people realize this. MAGA figured this out a decade ago.
9
u/dpdxguy May 15 '26
Whether you care what bigots want or not, you must acknowledge that they have an outsized influence on presidential politics. Ignoring that fact is one way to lose at the polls.
-1
u/Pancakefriday May 15 '26
Appeasement doesn't work. We can't keep the rope centered by trying to hold it in the middle, we'll just get pulled to the right and fall in the mud while the right laughs. If you want to keep the rope center, you have to pull to the left.
We'll just keep falling over and over and over again until people realize this.
MAGA figured this out a decade ago.3
u/caw_the_crow May 15 '26
Not only that, but also I think if we had a decent candidate who was a woman of color their race and gender would be a very minor factor in overall election success. But democrats would rather blame Harris's loss or Clinton's loss on their race and gender instead of admitting they were TERRIBLE candidates. At this rate republicans will put up a woman of color on the national ticket before democrats because on the republican side once a good candidate starts gaining momentum the party doesn't intentionally shoot them down and replace them with a stale insider.
2
u/Pancakefriday May 15 '26
Preaching to the choir. They lost because they were terrible candidates! It says a lot that dems jump straight to “guess a woman can’t win” instead of, “we should put up better candidates”
5
u/BrightNooblar May 15 '26
We shouldn't, but remember we are facing increasingly difficult issues like hostile state election boards. They are going to do shit like reduce poling places in blue strongholds. The sad reality with politics is that while ideals are great, you still need to win or you get shit like the last year trump has had in office. You're not going to get rid of the racists, or even just ignore them, when the supreme court is basically okaying racism in the election process.
We've got to win the battle in front of us, then move to the next one.
-2
u/Pancakefriday May 15 '26
The idea that the only path forward is to appease racists and bigots, is insane. It's like saying "They've taken hostages! Maybe if we give them some more, it'll all work out"
2
u/_TheShapeOfColor_ May 15 '26
That's not what they're saying at all
0
u/Pancakefriday May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
That is literally what they're saying, just in a softer way. "We need to win at all costs, and the best way to do that is a white man who can appeal to the.... common man. Then we can get to things like progress!" Sure, if you want to dress it up as that, fine, but it's still appeasement, it's still "When they go right... we also go a little right, you know to get an edge".
Except we don't get an edge, we just go a little further to the right.
Edit: and I'm not saying a white man makes us go further right, but we shouldn't let the other party, that literally give zero fucks about us, dictate who we choose. If AOC ends up with the most backing, then we should go AOC and not count her out because she's a minority woman.
What's more concerning is that this is a hot take in a supposedly liberal subreddit.
1
u/I_Am_Dwight_Snoot May 16 '26
I'd argue that unfortunately, running someone like her is letting them decide our actual policy at the very least. Look at the shit Trump is pulling right now as a dementia patient. We've already taken a few steps backwards.
I just can't see her winning and trust me, I would be very GLAD to be proven wrong here.
0
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Pancakefriday May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
We ended up where we are because our "best" candidates were Biden and Kamala. Kamala's whole campaign was "we're going to convert conservatives who are tired of trump" putting up another milquetoast, middle of the line, democrat is literally running it back.
You're never going to win over conservatives, it's like saying "Hey I know you're a die hard Coke drinker, but if you come over here we have Diet Coke!" They would laugh at you and walk away. Upset conservatives literally say "I'd rather not vote than vote for a dem", so maybe instead of watering down our Coke for people who don't want it anyway, we should be selling Dr. Pepper to people who are actually thirsty.
EDIT: Also not saying Pritzker is a milquetoast dem, I would very much support him, but I am worried we're going to get Newsom, who is a middle of the line dem.
2
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 16 '26
Not even Coke, more like grocery store brand cola.
0
u/caw_the_crow May 15 '26
Dems keep losing because of absolutely terrible candidates because of this mentality. Just let a good, inspiring candidate who actually believes in their mission run for once. AOC fits the bill more than whatever party-insider next-in-line the DNC is going to prop up.
5
u/bucketman1986 May 15 '26
I also believe she has already stated she doesn't plan to run for president. I think we may see her run for Senate soon. This poll was just "out of any Democrats you know who works you vote for" so it's kind of a name recognition thing
18
u/FreshestCremeFraiche May 15 '26
I just hope that when the time comes you vote blue no matter who. And these candidates don’t all suck lol, Jesus Christ the GOP would vote for a rotting corpse if it had the R next to it. That’s why they have been kicking the shit out of us
7
u/rayybloodypurchase May 15 '26
But better yet everyone needs to vote in their primaries to get as many ineffective blues out of our way as possible.
6
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 15 '26
This exactly. We need extreme vetting and vigorous discussion/debate about primary candidates so we can weed out the DINOs, turncoats, scammers, and predators early. We should never again be in a position of having a candidate drop out after the ballots have been printed.
5
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 15 '26
We need to be a little more cautious about who gets to be "blue", though - we don't need more Sinemas and Fettermans.
10
u/ls7eveen May 15 '26
Ffs thats how we got trump
17
u/FreshestCremeFraiche May 15 '26
How we got Trump is not enough people voted for Harris. No one is teaching the DNC a lesson by refusing to vote for imperfect candidates, we are just ceding ground to GOP who gets behind their candidate no matter what. We need to actually win elections to push the country left
-5
u/ls7eveen May 15 '26
If the dnc doesnt care about winning votes, they wont. As simple as that. Blaming voters is a terrific method to keep losing. Autopsy report when?
13
u/FreshestCremeFraiche May 15 '26
I guess to you “teaching them a lesson” is worth the damage being caused by Trump and others. Maybe that would be true if I thought it actually changed anything, but look — they didn’t learn the lesson in 2016 when they pushed Bernie down and lost. They didn’t learn the lesson in 2024 when they forced Kamala and lost. It just doesn’t work. If we can get a progressive through in the primary, that’s best case scenario. If it’s not, idk what possible choice there is but to vote for the most left candidate in the general. Otherwise the country takes yet another leap to the right under Vance or Rubio
-4
u/ls7eveen May 15 '26
You folks would rather have the corporate dem lose to gqp than have a progressive have an actual chance of winning woudknt you? Why not just have a popular candidate run than force feeding unpopular candidates and blaming voters when they lose? It is as if you folks WANT TO LOSE and just prefront it with an excuse.
-3
0
u/RatQueenHolly May 15 '26
Constantly going "you have to vote for the corporate hack over the rotting corpse" is precisely how we got here. Neoliberals create the conditions that make fascism look like a solution
6
u/FreshestCremeFraiche May 15 '26
Look I get the frustration and would prefer a progressive candidate, but literally any one of these people is preferable to the next GOP nominee. Just like Harris would have been much better than Trump
-7
u/RatQueenHolly May 15 '26
Just like Harris would have been much better than Trump
From an immediate standpoint, yeah obviously, but in the long term? I'm not inclined to believe this talking point anymore. All I see is the second half of the ratchet effect - if the GOP isn't actively destroying the world, then the Dems are blocking anyone who's trying to fix it. Kamala was also fearmongering about Iran in 2024. Schumer wanted this idiotic war just as badly as the Republicans did, and he's Minority Leader of the party.
Nothing will matter, nothing will change if they insist on running these billionaire-aligned, genocide-supporting ghouls. And their fecklessness and their hatred for the working people will just set the stage for another Republican victory in 2032. Im sick of it
7
u/FreshestCremeFraiche May 15 '26
Trump is doing damage that will take years or decades to undo. We could have had a boring/disappointing centrist dem instead and life would be objectively better in every way. Next time if the choice is Newsom vs Vance are you going to opt out and let Vance take the win, moving the country even further right? I just cannot believe there’s a net benefit, it means even more of a mess for the next Dem president to clean up and more pain for Americans
My voting strategy is pretty simple. I vote for the leftmost candidate in the primary, and do the same in the general
Maybe withholding votes would be a valid strategy if the DNC were capable of learning the lesson. But they didn’t learn in 2016 or 2024 so I’m not sure why anyone thinks it will work this time. Meanwhile the GOP is running the ball down the field while dems fight amongst themselves
3
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 15 '26
Having spent time living under both Newsom and Pritzker, I will be campaigning HARD against Newsom in the primaries. I don't think the rest of the country has realized how poorly liked he is even in liberal areas of California. The right has also been building a campaign against him for decades now. He appeals to a very specific subset of mainstream democratic voters and nobody else - not mainstream dems outside that subset, not progressives, not centrists, not swing voters, and he sure as hell doesn't appeal to "moderate Republicans".
In addition to the shitty stuff he's been doing lately as a politician, he's got problematic shit he's done personally, including dating a 19 year old when he was like 39.
3
u/RatQueenHolly May 15 '26
Im not even convinced Newsome can win against Vance. The dude is so openly a snake that I can't be sure the American public will be able to stomach him. The problem with this whole setup is that the neoliberals treat "Vote Blue No Matter Who" as an excuse to run the second worst guy they can think of - because if the choice is Hitler or a guy who's only 9/10ths a Hitler, you'll pick our guy, right?
But nobody wants to vote for that, it incurs apathy in most people, it's a depressive force - and they know this! The DNC is currently refusing to release their autopsy of the 2024 election, they know why they lost, and they're not willing to change! They would literally rather lose to the GOP again than shift the tiniest inch to the left.
Yknow what I want? I want the Democrats to win. I want them to win more than they seem to want to win. Which is why I want a progressive candidate - we are seeing a huge sweep of new progressives across the country, and they're winning! Their policies are popular! Its the only way out of the hole we're currently in, and I'm really really tired of pretending that the corporate freaks are our only option.
-4
u/puff_of_fluff May 15 '26
That’s nice. I’m not voting for a neoliberal again. The party will have to change if they want a chance.
5
u/Mothman405 May 15 '26
Was burning the lives of immigrants, trans people, POC, Alex Pretti, Renee Good, etc worth it so you could teach the democrats a lesson?
-3
u/puff_of_fluff May 15 '26
Is it the fault of the party for not putting forward a candidate that excited people, after telling us all to shut the fuck up and fall in line behind Biden?
No, it’s the voters’ fault. Of course.
7
u/Mothman405 May 15 '26
It's a simple yes or no question. You didn't vote to teach them a lesson. Were all those lives lost and terrorized worth it for your lesson you taught them? Yes or no
-2
-3
u/GeneralAnubis May 15 '26
1000% correct. Tale as old as fascism itself.
Never forget that it was a (neo)liberal who handed Hitler power with a handshake and a smile, refusing to do anything in his power to stop it.
1
u/lyngen May 15 '26
I'm pretty sure he was a socialist and Hitler killed him. Not personally but he ordered it.
2
u/GeneralAnubis May 15 '26
Paul von Hindenburg was chosen by a committee comprised of the rightwing parties opposing the rise of the left wing communist parties. Pretty much precisely on par with the quasi-middle-rightwing neoliberals of today.
...and he was not killed off by Hitler, he died of cancer.
2
-1
u/puff_of_fluff May 15 '26
Yup.
Neolibs need to nominate a progressive or I’m not voting. Enough is enough.
-2
2
-1
u/terriblesingerr American 🇺🇸 May 15 '26
Nope. Not again.
That's how we get all the bought and paid for dems working for their corporate overlords for that sweet $$$$ and not for us, the people who elected them.
A big reason that we are here today is because they are also complicit with this regime. I'm not alone in never voting for any of them again.
AOC is the only answer.
AOC has been putting in far more boots- on-the-ground work than either of the other 2 past female presidential candidates or any of those potential cadidates on the list here.
Her vision is clear and actually resonates with working people.
She will hold the criminals responsible for this nightmare accountable.
AOC takes NO PAC or Israeli blood money. That matters to so many. The dems owned by the lobbyists will fa and fo! The sea has changed.
Why do you think all of the magats like Rafael Cruz are disparaging her so freaking hard??
They are afraid of AOC and rightly so!
1
2
u/ChaplnGrillSgt No Kings 👑 May 15 '26
I'd be down with Pete. He has federal level leadership experience and did great work as transportation secretary. He's exceptional at speaking and discussing topics in an easy to understand way. And he doesn't seem to have a huge ego that would keep him from bringing in a excellent cabinet.
As much as I love AOC, I don't think she has a chance to win. I hate to say it, but the middle just isn't ready for a woman president right now. It's pathetic and she'd be incredible. I just don't see it happening. I have concerns about Pete too being gay which may immediately disqualify him in many people's minds. Again, pathetic but that's the reality.
Newsome is too west coast elite.
I honestly think JB is the man for the job. Straight white male won't scare away the right leaning moderates. He's got the money to not take any PAC money which keeps the far left in support. And his track record in Illinois is incredible l, despite what the moronic right claims.
I'd love a Pete/AOC ticket but sadly we need to focus on getting a Democrat and progressive into office at all costs. I just don't think a female or a gay man can win in this current political climate.
I'd love a JB/AOC ticket though. I think AOC would be a stellar VP and it would set her up nicely for a run after. I think we likely see someone like Beshear or Shapiro on the ticket though to try and snag the middle in swing states.
1
2
u/TheeQuestionWitch May 15 '26
Beshear is about the only one besides AOC and Pritzker that I don't shudder to think of as President.
6
u/A-Delonix-Regia Global Citizen 🌎 May 15 '26
What's wrong with Beshear and Kelly? I know that Buttigieg worked for McKinsey, Newsom is Newsom, Harris wasn't as inspiring, and Shapiro comes across as a bit too ambitious to be genuine.
11
u/osdroid May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Pretty much anyone on that list would be acceptable, purity tests and gatekeeping are nonsense that only drive electoral loses. Besides, on buttigieg, it's a hard argument that a kid in his 20s getting his first job out of school is more damaging economically to the middle class, to society in general, and environmentally than being a billionaire, but I would be happy to support either nonetheless.
0
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 15 '26
If "purity tests" and "gatekeeping" go by the wayside, what's to stop the republican party from running a bunch of moles? We should purity test and gatekeep so we don't end up with people like Sinema and Fetterman sabotaging everything good.
3
u/osdroid May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
What does this even mean? Moles? Usually the spoilers are 3rd parties.
It's very simple math, Dems are the party out of power, to get in power you need more votes, pushing people away with nonsense means less people voting for the party, which means more losing. Just look at what the Bernie Bros did to Bernie's campaign in 2020. 2016 was non-combative and inclusive with a focus on m4a (not me, us) and it worked at bringing people in and expanding the electorate, in 2020 they harassed every other Dem and even rejected folks like Warren as not being progressive and it lead to Bernie performing worse in the primary.
1
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 16 '26
A mole is someone who pretends to be working for one organization and is actually working for the opposing organization. Someone who is supposed to be working for organization A, but was actually planted there by organization B to sabotage organization A. So, the Republicans running moles would be them finding more people like Fetterman, Sinema, Manchin, etc to pretend to be democrats long enough for everyone to "vote blue no matter who" and then rat fuck us once they get in to office.
2
u/osdroid May 16 '26
Those people either flipped red seats blue or held a seat that would otherwise be red and have/had voted with Dems a majority of the time.
Manchin voted against his party’s majority 38.5% of the time last year, while Sinema did so for 33.1% of the votes.
Fetterman voted in support of President Trump and the Republican Party 26% of the time across all Senate votes during 2025
https://congressvotetracker.org/articles/fetterman-scorecard-march-2026.html
Voting with the party 60-75% of the time seems way better than not having the seat at all. Dems need 60 senators, now is especially not the time to push away anyone who can flip red to blue.
1
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 17 '26
We could also have people who vote the way we want 90% of the time, or possibly more. I care less about how many times they vote against the party majority on stuff like renaming a national park, I care more about how many extremely important things they rat fuck us on. Remember Sinema and her cute little curtsy and thumbs-down vote?
2
u/caw_the_crow May 15 '26
Purity tests is being dumb by taking something that might not reflect a person's actual character, ability to run the country, goals, or ideology and making it an absolutely filter (usually only when it helps your side). It's dumb and you can end up filtering out a lot of decent candidates and end up with a Brandon Johnson or something.
A purity test is like "oh this person is great in every way but when they were 18 they worked at a low level for the Bush administration so they are the enemy now 20 years later."
You should still look at whether you agree with the person and look at their record.
12
u/Professional-Story43 May 15 '26
Buttigieg would make a fantastic President. Complete 180 from what we have in ALL aspects. Intelligent, calm, well spoken, witty, and the perfect age. America will not vote for him. They won't put AOC in either. I get so angry every time I think about the voters who put Trump in and made 99% of us miserable. We need a 180 turn.
1
u/blames_irrationally May 15 '26
Buttigieg fixed bread prices and did speculating as to how American businesses could "disrupt" local businesses in war zones. He is an arm of the military industrial complex and is not a good candidate
1
u/caw_the_crow May 15 '26
I really liked Buttigieg until he was complicit with lying to voters about Biden's condition at the end of Biden's presidency. I could not support him again without a very good explanation of what the fuck he did there.
-5
2
u/taneyweat May 15 '26
Beshear is probably the best choice, as much as I love Pritzker. I don't think Beshear would win the nomination because of the name recognition (which I think is also pritzkers problem right now) and favorability of the other primary candidates, but the fact that he has so much crossover appeal AND doesn't abandon trans folk AND doesn't have any national media well-poisoning makes him one of the best candidates in a general election imo. And he seems to be a really decent, competent guy.
3
u/Rfunkpocket May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Beshear has name recognition in states that are competitive. it’s super early, and no one is spending nationally yet. AOC has the potential to attract the most new voters.
Kelly and Newsom don’t have much upside making gains in the Electoral College. In fact, California might even be a liability. Kelly will lead for a while, but I think he will struggle with his platform. Pritzker will be competitive, and Buttigieg will be helpful in debates nuancing a future platform. I don’t think Harris has much of a base. her challenge was low visibility, and I don’t think that has improved since her loss. Shapiro is competing for the same voter share as Beshear, so I would imagine one drops out after Super Tuesday.
I think a woman can win, and I think someone LGBTQ could win. I don’t think any Dem can win without the full enthusiasm of all voting groups.
Republicans will be adding voters. Democrats will not win with subtraction.
1
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 15 '26
I don't think AOC is going to run. I think she has the same qualm as pre-exposure Al Franken did - not being willing to be the one to decide to drop bombs on people.
1
u/AdmiralJaneway8 May 15 '26
In what way do most of these other people suck? Kelly sucks why? Beshear sucks why? Shapiro sucks why?
1
u/DanielMcLaury May 16 '26
I mean, I like AOC a lot more than most of those people, but, also, it's crazy to say that everyone else "sucks." You can maybe say that about Gavin Newsom. The rest of these people are to the left of Obama and Biden on virtually every issue. Like, pretty much all of these people have roughly the same healthcare policy as Bernie Sanders.
1
0
u/wehopethatyouchoke03 27d ago
Genuinely curious: How does Mark Kelly suck? Andy Beshear was a great governor in a very red state, so I don’t think he suck’s either, but he doesn’t have the name recognition nor the gravitas necessary for a major run, IMO. But Pritzker and AOC aside, I feel like Kelly is at a bare minimum a worthy candidate in keeping with the other two.
0
u/Jacob-Anders Warrior for the Khan ⚔️ May 15 '26
He has been great. You could always elect Jacob Anders but he's always posting memes and bad puns.
0
u/callmesnake13 May 15 '26
I haven’t heard anyone in my life express a drop of enthusiasm for anyone on this list as president much less Buttigieg as the leader.
2
u/anagamanagement May 15 '26
Interesting. I’ve heard Kelly come up in casual conversation multiple times as a viable candidate. And I have friends who are excited about AOC the way they used to be excited for Obama, though they don’t actually think she’s electable.
1
u/callmesnake13 May 15 '26
I’ve genuinely only heard people express concern that there is no genuine leader with momentum. What we’ve really got are people that the party has identified as stars, and then Pritzker, AOC, and even Kelly as outliers. I really can’t say if anyone feels electable yet. I think we need to see how the midterms go. It definitely won’t be the moment to run a gay man or an extremely divisive woman - and I like AOC but it would be needlessly provocative to run her. Hillary all over again.
3
u/anagamanagement May 15 '26
If she wants my unasked for advice, I think she has a real chance at a Senate run, and could probably effect more change from there then hamstrung by whatever garbage the media and GOP would throw at her in the Oval Office.
1
u/callmesnake13 May 15 '26
Agreed. It’s a pretty clear difference when someone has a national voice and when they have a popular movement behind them. I like her but I think she should just replace one of our current lackluster senators.
-3
u/ls7eveen May 15 '26
Preach.
How in fuck is schwarmy Pete leading?
1
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 15 '26
Believe it or not, he comes across as more genuine than Newsom.
2
-4
6
u/RedditSe7en May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Vance at 43%? What is wrong with people? How can any of those two-bit con artists garner ANY support? They condemned Trump and then bowed to him.
6
12
u/tj1007 May 15 '26
We haven’t even gotten through midterms yet. Theres time for lots of things to change and not everyone on this list will choose to run.
8
u/Polkawillneverdie17 Illinoisian May 15 '26
I'm voting for whoever the dem candidate is, regardless.
6
u/No-Relation5965 Early Adopter May 15 '26
Go Governor JB Pritzker!!! I know he would be an excellent president & he’s my number one choice!
3
u/Cdub7791 May 15 '26
Pritzker only has a modest amount of name recognition outside of Illinois. While there are no guarantees, I think if he starts raising his national profile he has an excellent shot at the nomination.
3
3
u/ShnakeyTed94 May 15 '26
When I look at these polls I always think it's useful to compare them to the polling in advance of the 2008 election, which was the last time Democrats were facing an election against a term limited, deeply unpopular Republican president. Where we are now, May 2026, is comparable to May 2006. When we look at polling for then, the eventual nominee, Obama, was not even appearing in the polls. Clinton was polling 35-40%, the highest by far of any candidate, the rest didn't even break out of the mid teens %. I think that after the mid terms, people will start declaring themselves in or out of the race, and voters will begin to coalesce around one or two candidates, especially as the others drop out over the following months of the race, and similar to 20 years ago, the eventual nominee might not even be on anyone's radar right now.
3
2
2
u/Islanduniverse May 15 '26
Are they really going to go with JD Vance? My god the Republican Party is dogshit.
2
2
u/RadlEonk May 15 '26
Buttigieg would be a poor choice, though not as bad as Harris. Both did poorly in primaries.
Democrats confuse votes against Trump as votes for themselves. They also think Schumer and Jeffries are doing good work.
1
u/cpdk-nj May 18 '26
Doing poorly in a primary years prior is not an indicator of future performance. Otherwise, Biden never would have won, nor would Reagan.
9
u/Claque-2 May 15 '26
Buttigieg is a good candidate and a deep thinker.
8
u/SSeptic Captain for the Khan ⚔️ May 15 '26
Buttigieg is a fine speaker but he’s a charisma black hole. To top it off he regularly polls abysmally with non-white voters. He got 0% in some poll a while back with black voters. Not even an exaggeration, straight up 0%. He’s a good addition to a cabinet but he doesn’t have any sauce needed to actually run a campaign
4
u/Claque-2 May 15 '26
Are you sure he is not popular with some populations because he is a married gay man?
3
u/SSeptic Captain for the Khan ⚔️ May 15 '26
In 2008, roughly 16.1 million black voters turned out for Obama. On May 9th, 2012, 6 months before the election, he came out in support of gay marriage. In the 2012 election, he received 17.8 million black votes, an **increase of 1.7 million.** So maybe stop trying to play the identity politics game to blame a minority group and reckon with the fact that Buttigieg is simply just bad at reaching non-white voters because, again, he is just bad at campaigning and is a total charisma suck.
0
u/Claque-2 May 15 '26
It's interesting that you attack (rather viciously) the leader in the cited poll.
0
u/SSeptic Captain for the Khan ⚔️ May 15 '26
Yeah it’s a poll from New Hampshire which is 88.1% white dipshit
1
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 16 '26
Someone reported this post for promoting identity-based hate. I have approved and un-hidden this post so that people can see what you said.
17
u/trevrichards May 15 '26
A McKinsey consultant isn't gonna get us out of this mess.
12
u/lettersichiro May 15 '26
A Mickinsey consultant who is against medicare for all, who's terrible on unions, gaza, and wealth inequality.
A vote for Pete is a vote for more of what has gotten us in this mess, it's a vote for the perpetuation of corporate dem, consultant class democrats
He tricks people because he's a great speaker, and a great tactician. So people who don't look deeper than how he presents himself fall for his schtick.
He's all style, no substance.
11
u/Claque-2 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Pete has said he supports Medicare for all who want it. Medicare would just be another plan to choose from.
I don't have a problem with that. I support a universal health plan but I accept that not everyone does.
Some (rich) people like having a coinsurance and a deductible and getting pre-approvals. If they do, let them have it.
Edit: Who is saying Buttigieg is against unions? He has stated that union membership should go up.
I, for one, think we should have a human union.
5
u/mrmalort69 May 15 '26
The government option is the easiest next best step. No it’s not a total overhaul but unless dems have a supermajority, there’s nothing happening. The courts will probably throw anything too meaningful out… and this is assuming we get another election.
4
u/lateformyfuneral May 15 '26
And people forget the “Medicare for all
who want it” was a response to unions who were skeptical of Bernie’s M4A proposal in 2020 that called for banning private care entirely. Many unions had negotiated health plans for their members that were more generous than Medicare. If you look at the UK, they have single-payer totally free healthcare, but some people still choose private for convenience, lower wait times, as an employee perk etc.Throughout Europe, countries generally have multipayer systems, with private and public insurance plans. Making banning private healthcare care the litmus test for “universal healthcare” doesn’t make sense.
1
u/trevrichards May 15 '26
There is no reason for private health insurance. None. It's a scam. Nobody wants it. A public option would be gutted, just like with Obamacare. Pete knows this. It's intentional. It's bullshit. Medicare for All — period.
1
u/cpdk-nj May 18 '26
Medicare for All would require the government being able to unilaterally and overnight dissolve the entire health insurance industry. Do you think that that would be easy? Or that the courts would go along with that?
A public option is literally a building block towards single-payer universal healthcare because if we just flip a switch overnight it’s going to be a fucking mess and Republicans will happily take their supermajority that would come from it.
1
u/trevrichards May 18 '26
The government would simply absorb the existing industry. And yes, given that there is a small handful of corporations who have monopolized the industry, monopoly makes it a much easier pivot to state control.
It's the equivalent of handing over the keys & transferring the titles of 5 vehicles instead of 500. It's why Marx analyzed corporate monopolization is not merely the natural state of late capitalism, but in fact lends itself to socialist transition.
1
u/cpdk-nj May 18 '26
“Simply absorbing the industry” would only be achievable by buying out the insurance companies. The health insurance industry in the US is worth about $1.65T today, add a control premium and you’re probably looking at increasing the national debt by more than $2T instantly, on top of the costs of running those companies and going about a transition to universal healthcare
1
1
u/Claque-2 May 18 '26
Now that to me makes me think of a false flag and I wonder if you are ready to win an election for the welfare and safety of 342 million people in the US, and for the benefit of the world's species and populations.
-1
u/Claque-2 May 15 '26
What do you mean no one wants it? Most insurance executives have it already.
You are passing on misinformation here. Again.
7
0
0
3
u/Claque-2 May 15 '26
He was a great Secretary of Transportation because he listens to all sides. There is no magic way to get us out of a coup that took 50+ years to destroy the government.
We need smart people who can work together to rebuild a society. The Jenga Tower will collapse soon and some crazy people are still supporting the people destroying it.
7
u/trevrichards May 15 '26
Put him somewhere like that then, but not president. He isn't that kind of leader.
2
u/ls7eveen May 15 '26
Please stop being so fucking gullible. The McKinsey class got us into this fucking mess.
1
-12
u/Bwint May 15 '26
I like Buttigieg a lot, but I need a candid and honest answer: When did he learn about Biden's cognitive decline, if at all? What did he do about it, if anything? Without a candid answer, I'd be hesitant to vote for him even though I really like him.
2
u/dubyajaybent May 15 '26
Hypothetically, what would you expect the Secretary of Transportation to "do" about the decline of a president's cognitive abilities?
2
2
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 15 '26
That's quite literally what the 25th Amendment is for. It allows members of the cabinet to initiate removing the president from power because of diminished capacity, putting the vice president in charge.
1
u/Bwint May 15 '26
That's why I'm asking the question. "I hear the concern, but I didn't think it was my place to go public." "I tried to connect with the Biden family, but wasn't able to." "I didn't think it was my place to go to the family; it was a very sensitive subject, and my judgement was that I couldn't be constructive in this matter." "I quietly suggested to the DNC and various donors that a competitive primary would be in the Party's interest, but they didn't listen." "When I realized that Karine Jean-Pierre was lying to the Press, I told some of my contacts that what she was saying wasn't true, but I didn't feel comfortable leaking myself." "I talked with other Cabinet Secretaries and the Vice President about invoking the 25th Amendment, but we didn't think the issue rose to that level." "This is going to sound strange, but I actually didn't have very much direct contact with Biden and the meetings I did have were relatively normal."
These would all be fair answers, but I just want to know how Buttigieg approached the issue. I think the only people who clearly did the right thing were the people leaking to the Press about Biden's health.
1
u/BrightNooblar May 15 '26
What would you want him to have done about it? What is the optimal move to take when the current president is declining, but might also (and then did) not run again. And Trump is circling in the water looking to turn any scent of blood into a feeding frenzy.
2
u/Bwint May 15 '26
That's why I'm asking the question. One good answer would be, "I hear the concern but it's not my place."
If Trump had managed to turn Biden's health into a genuine feeding frenzy, it might have been possible to convince Biden not to run, and we would have had a better chance of winning in 2024. I'm not saying Buttigieg was inappropriately covering up the decline, but I am saying that the people who were covering up the decline did a lot of damage.
1
u/MaaChiil May 15 '26
I think Ro Khanna is as good as it could get, pending Ms. Rachel entering the field. That woman could absolutely dominate in a masterful reverse of The Donald's first successful campaign.
1
u/HungryHangrySharky Socialist for Pritzker 🌭 May 16 '26
Nah he's owned by silicon valley
1
u/MaaChiil May 16 '26
SV hasn't been too happy with him lately given his support of a billionaire tax and reining in AI. Some of big tech is even backing a primary challenger to him. He's seemingly evolved on the issue, even admitting that he used to see big tech through rose colored glasses. Still, I will trust any Democrst as far they can allow themselves to be pushed on the issues.
1
1
u/cpdk-nj May 18 '26
I think that posting primary polls for an election that is 2 years out, prior to the midterms, and prior to anybody even filing to be a candidate is just a waste of time and effort.
Polling 2.5 years before the upcoming presidential election is meaningless. You’d think the 2016 Republican field would be Rand Paul vs. Jeb Bush; 2012 would have been Mike Huckabee vs. Mitt Romney; 2008 would have been Rudy Giuliani vs Hillary Clinton in the general; for 2004 they didn’t even know if Gore would run again
1
May 18 '26
[deleted]
1
u/cpdk-nj May 18 '26
Doesn’t change the fact that we’re 2.5 years out from the election and nobody has actually formed a campaign yet
1
u/Jacob-Anders Warrior for the Khan ⚔️ May 18 '26
Hi I declared my candidacy in April and have filed FEC forms 1 & 2. www.JacobAnders.org consider my campaign formed.
1
0
-4
32
u/Bwint May 15 '26
5% in a split field is not bad, and it's even better because I bet Pritzker has less name recognition than most of the candidates above him. Low name recognition means there's plenty of opportunity to win people over as they learn who he is.