How dare you peasants be allowed to vote on and pick the next person who will compete in the general election for president
Democrats, addicted to nominating senators, prepare for a 2028 pileup
Democrats look like they’re headed to another presidential primary dogpile in 2028, whether they want it or not.
“I feel it in the air,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., who joined the 2020 primary — as a governor — and wants it “official” that he’s not running this time.
He hopes, in fact, that the party can winnow down its field to six to eight candidates over the next two-and-a-half years. That would avoid a replay of what he called the “ridiculous adventure” of 2020, when more than two dozen Democrats ended up seeking the nomination.
Well, that was before the party foisted Sleepy Joe on the electorate. Then deciding to replace Biden with Kamala. When the Dem voters wanted a primary. How’d that work out?
But even as Democrats prepare for next year’s midterms, the already-crowded stage looks set for a 2020 replay. Some contenders are playing coy about it. Few are ruling it out.
And a party that’s plainly addicted to nominating senators and ex-senators — 1940 was the last year Democrats ran a ticket without at least a running mate of senatorial heritage — may end up doing the same in 2028.
At least a half-dozen senators are now viewed as potential 2028 candidates by their colleagues and top Democrats on Capitol Hill, a mix of new faces and familiar ones.
How dare they run rather than be appointed by the Elites.
But replicating 2020 presents its fair share of risks for a party that’s still grappling with the fallout from the reelection decision by the winner of that primary, former President Joe Biden.
Democrats are sorting through a lot right now: their handling of Biden’s disastrous 2024 campaign, how to resist President Donald Trump’s agenda, and whether to compromise with Republicans on anything at all.
Weirdly, they do not mention coming up with an agenda that is good for Americans and that Americans will like.
BTW, we’re now at the point where the media is creating TDS stories. Remember this from all the way back in 2006 about George W Bush, as published by the Washington Post, entitled The Left, Online And Outraged?
In the angry life of Maryscott O’Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O’Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.
Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O’Connor’s reputation is as one of the angriest of all. “One long, sustained scream” is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers “malevolent,” a “sociopath” and “the Antichrist”? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as “Satan,” or about Karl Rove, “the devil”? Should it be about the “evil” Republican Party, or the “weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving” Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says “I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned”?
That was from Progressive bloggers. Now we get
Dining across the divide: ‘He asked what I think of Trump. He’s a dangerous idiot’
This is the far left UK Guardian, who puts two people on opposite sides of British politics, who discuss different things, and then the Guardian has to bring in Trump at the end, because TDS. We saw Credentialed Media outlets try this a bit with Bush 43, but, it was mostly blogs. Now you have so many of those bloggers and attitude at major news outlets, and they are waking up and thinking “what can I manufacture that is Bad for Trump?”
Read: Progressives Rather Unhappy That Democrats Are Going Through A Presidential Nomination Process »