The Race For 2028

[Elixir]

I don't head out on election day hoping to find a new drinking buddy. And if you do, I should warn you to expect disappointment.

That’s s harsh. I’m sure some of those guys would want to drink with Tigers!

 

[WAB]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

 

[Tigers!]

I don't head out on election day hoping to find a new drinking buddy. And if you do, I should warn you to expect disappointment.

That’s s harsh. I’m sure some of those guys would want to drink with Tigers!

If you are shouting then yes. Though I drink coke or juice rather than alcohol

 

[Tigers!]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

We are trying on occasions to keep as much money as possible out of politics but it is hard. The fungibility of money is impressive.

 

[bilby]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

It's all smoke and mirrors. Most of the wealth they look at in that article is the value of our real estate.

My house has quadrupled in value since I bought it, but this does nothing to my standard of living - I can access that increased "wealth" only as an expensive loan (which just means more expense for me as I have to make higher repayments from my unchanged income); or by selling my house, which means buying another because I still need a roof over my head - and all the other houses have also massively increased in price, so it's a wash.

I am not more wealthy as a result of the stupid housing price inflation, but the methodology used in that article says I am, so I guess:

 

[laughing dog]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

It's all smoke and mirrors. Most of the wealth they look at in that article is the value of our real estate.

My house has quadrupled in value since I bought it, but this does nothing to my standard of living - I can access that increased "wealth" only as an expensive loan (which just means more expense for me as I have to make higher repayments from my unchanged income); or by selling my house, which means buying another because I still need a roof over my head - and all the other houses have also massively increased in price, so it's a wash.

I don't know about the content of the article, but the basic theory is that when people become wealthier in illiquid assets (like a house), they may start saving less out of their income and spend more. There are some studies that support that theory as a rule, but at the individual level, results may vary dramatically.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

I'll just address the charisma part.

It's an intangible that has no single defining features. The best I can come up with is that a charismatic person is one that people like to see and listen to, which makes them likable. Through that, a message, almost regardless of what it is, is better conveyed and therefore more persuasive. That's the best I can do.

Trump is charismatic to tens of millions. I sure as hell don't and will never understand why, but he it's not what he says, it's how he says it. It's how he carries himself. Again, I find him repellant in every single way, but clearly others love him.

 

[ZiprHead]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

I'll just address the charisma part.

It's an intangible that has no single defining features. The best I can come up with is that a charismatic person is one that people like to see and listen to, which makes them likable. Through that, a message, almost regardless of what it is, is better conveyed and therefore more persuasive. That's the best I can do.

Trump is charismatic to tens of millions. I sure as hell don't and will never understand why, but he it's not what he says, it's how he says it. It's how he carries himself. Again, I find him repellant in every single way, but clearly others love him.

He dumbs it down for his dumb followers.

Dumb is spelled with a b. Did you know that?

 

[Tigers!]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

I'll just address the charisma part.

It's an intangible that has no single defining features. The best I can come up with is that a charismatic person is one that people like to see and listen to, which makes them likable. Through that, a message, almost regardless of what it is, is better conveyed and therefore more persuasive. That's the best I can do.

Trump is charismatic to tens of millions. I sure as hell don't and will never understand why, but he it's not what he says, it's how he says it. It's how he carries himself. Again, I find him repellant in every single way, but clearly others love him.

He dumbs it down for his dumb followers.

Dumb is spelled with a b. Did you know that?

So is plumb as Trump continually plumbs the depths of stupidity

 

[TV and credit cards]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

Agreed. I think that any ticket with Ossoff will win. How about Ossoff with Whitmear? But Ossoff/Buttigieg would work also.

 

[TV and credit cards]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

Agreed. I think that any ticket with Ossoff will win. How about Ossoff with Whitmear? But Ossoff/Buttigieg would work also.

Whitmer doesn't even appear in the poll's top ten candidates. But I don't know how this poll was presented to those surveyed.
But I try and think, historically, what is Whitmer known for nationally? Kidnapping attempt. Maybe Covid.

From the article, many people do not even know who Rubio and Buttigieg are. And it's the sensational stuff that sticks. I'd bet some who do know who they are remember "Little Marco" and the gay mayor and little else. So people like Ossoff and Whitmer are even less known. I was just thinking in Ossoff, a southern man on the ticket might help more where it counts. Or a southern black man might work. But sadly, I think simply being a woman is not enough. There are too many women who see the world through traditional and conservative eyes. So if it is a woman, she better have charisma.

 

[Harry Bosch]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

Agreed. I think that any ticket with Ossoff will win. How about Ossoff with Whitmear? But Ossoff/Buttigieg would work also.

Whitmer doesn't even appear in the poll's top ten candidates. But I don't know how this poll was presented to those surveyed.
But I try and think, historically, what is Whitmer known for nationally? Kidnapping attempt. Maybe Covid.

From the article, many people do not even know who Rubio and Buttigieg are. And it's the sensational stuff that sticks. I'd bet some who do know who they are remember "Little Marco" and the gay mayor and little else. So people like Ossoff and Whitmer are even less known. I was just thinking in Ossoff, a southern man on the ticket might help more where it counts. Or a southern black man might work. But sadly, I think simply being a woman is not enough. There are too many women who see the world through traditional and conservative eyes. So if it is a woman, she better have charisma.

I think that she's very charismatic. She has executive experience and has won many times in a purple state by wide margins. She can deliver a very important state. She's a probusiness moderate. And she's a great speaker.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

Agreed. I think that any ticket with Ossoff will win. How about Ossoff with Whitmear? But Ossoff/Buttigieg would work also.

Whitmer doesn't even appear in the poll's top ten candidates. But I don't know how this poll was presented to those surveyed.
But I try and think, historically, what is Whitmer known for nationally? Kidnapping attempt. Maybe Covid.

From the article, many people do not even know who Rubio and Buttigieg are. And it's the sensational stuff that sticks. I'd bet some who do know who they are remember "Little Marco" and the gay mayor and little else. So people like Ossoff and Whitmer are even less known. I was just thinking in Ossoff, a southern man on the ticket might help more where it counts. Or a southern black man might work. But sadly, I think simply being a woman is not enough. There are too many women who see the world through traditional and conservative eyes. So if it is a woman, she better have charisma.

I have a hard time thinking the Dems are going to give up a Senate seat in Georgia. The Democrats need the Senate to hold. Ossoff won by an embarrassing amount in '26. Ossoff, Cooper likely have ascension aspirations, but their Senate seats are just too valuable. Cooper is molded for North Carolina and can't be replaced. Ossoff will be hard to replace as well.

Bershear (if he doesn't run against Paul in '28, I think our only shot at a solid red state Senate seat in '28), Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsom (I don't think it'll be Newsom, the very early front runners rarely ever get the finish line), Moore, Hobbs, and Kelly (KS Governor). Though Hobbs and Kelly could look to the Senate as well. I expect '28 to be the year of the Governor primary.

 

[ZiprHead]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

I'm not sure the country is ready for a gay guy and his husband in the White House.

How about Ossoff/Duckworth or Beshear/Duckworth? I think either might be unbeatable.

 

[Elixir]

Ossoff-AOC, just to piss off the T’suckers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ossoff-AOC, just to piss off the T’suckers.

NO, Sharpton/AOC would be better. Could cause a lot of strokes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ossoff-AOC, just to piss off the T’suckers.

NO, Sharpton/AOC would be better. Could cause a lot of strokes.

Strokes of joy perhaps as they’d be virtually guaranteed of a Republican victory.

 

[Tigers!]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

Agreed. I think that any ticket with Ossoff will win. How about Ossoff with Whitmear? But Ossoff/Buttigieg would work also.

Whitmer doesn't even appear in the poll's top ten candidates. But I don't know how this poll was presented to those surveyed.
But I try and think, historically, what is Whitmer known for nationally? Kidnapping attempt. Maybe Covid.

From the article, many people do not even know who Rubio and Buttigieg are. And it's the sensational stuff that sticks. I'd bet some who do know who they are remember "Little Marco" and the gay mayor and little else. So people like Ossoff and Whitmer are even less known. I was just thinking in Ossoff, a southern man on the ticket might help more where it counts. Or a southern black man might work. But sadly, I think simply being a woman is not enough. There are too many women who see the world through traditional and conservative eyes. So if it is a woman, she better have charisma.

Wouldn't competency be better than charisma?

 

[Politesse]

2028 White House hopefuls

I like the idea of Ossoff/Buttigieg. Ossoff being from the south and Buttigieg having more national name recognition. Both being young white family men would more than negate any concerns about Pete's marital proclivity.

Rubio has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him.
Vance? Forget about it. It don't wash off so easy.

Agreed. I think that any ticket with Ossoff will win. How about Ossoff with Whitmear? But Ossoff/Buttigieg would work also.

Whitmer doesn't even appear in the poll's top ten candidates. But I don't know how this poll was presented to those surveyed.
But I try and think, historically, what is Whitmer known for nationally? Kidnapping attempt. Maybe Covid.

From the article, many people do not even know who Rubio and Buttigieg are. And it's the sensational stuff that sticks. I'd bet some who do know who they are remember "Little Marco" and the gay mayor and little else. So people like Ossoff and Whitmer are even less known. I was just thinking in Ossoff, a southern man on the ticket might help more where it counts. Or a southern black man might work. But sadly, I think simply being a woman is not enough. There are too many women who see the world through traditional and conservative eyes. So if it is a woman, she better have charisma.

Wouldn't competency be better than charisma?

What country do you think this is for? Texas just turned blue because the Republican Senator candidate looked weird.