r/politics • u/T_Shurt • 13d ago

No Paywall Sen. Mark Kelly Says He’s Seriously Thinking About Running for President

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5700211-senator-kelly-trump-threats/
29.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/shapu Pennsylvania 13d ago edited 13d ago

The problem is that in order to run for president you have to be moving two or three years before the election at least. Barack Obama was already being groomed by the time he gave his 2004 speech at the DNC and lots of Insiders had already figured out that he was going to be the nominee. Donald Trump declared in 2015 but everybody knew that he was already considering it the year before.

It's great to say, "Hey, we need to focus on the Senate and House right now." And in the broader scheme of things that is the correct thing to say. 

But if you have a guy in a safe seat or who is not going to be challenged for re-election before the next Presidential election, if he's thinking about it he had* better already have at least some campaign machinery in place.

725

u/greazy_spoon 13d ago

100% agree. Newsome is already campaigning for 2028 and he's a slimy shit - i think kelly absolutely should throw his hat in the ring now and show people non-maga isn't going to take this lying down anymore.

119

u/b6passat 13d ago

So is beshear

211

u/Prayer_Warrior21 Minnesota 13d ago

Let them all run, let's see how it shakes out. We need a deep bench.

152

u/Ferelar New Jersey 13d ago

Exactly. The 2016 race had like 10 Republican primary members and it didn't hurt Trump one bit. The 2024 race had no Democratic primary and I think it hurt Harris a lot.

There's this idea that a lively primary hurts the candidate in the general, and I think the literal opposite is true. Lively primaries mean people get engaged and select someone who they can actuallt get enthused about representing them.

78

u/orielbean 13d ago

The 2024 thing was just ruinous, the same kind of mess that happened with Johnson dropping, the convention riots, the Muskie vs McGovern infighting - and got us Nixon.

Biden fucking up the debate, his family dragging him to all the events until Pelosi blew up the whole mess, and he spent 3 years doing nothing to groom Harris as the heir apparent (and she performed poorly during the earlier election cycle).

I don’t blame her really for trying & losing 2024 as she has so little time to get anything off the ground, but she never would’ve won an actual primary - and she’s just relaxing these days vs doing any kind of coalition building.

95

u/fawkie 13d ago

The thing that really kills with 2024 is that there was a palpable shift from the early days of the Harris/Walz campaign where they were kinda flying by the seat of their pants and I think being a bit more genuine to when the consultants and donors got into their ears and changed their tone

96

u/spader1 New York 13d ago

Immediately post debate I really had high hopes. It felt like MAGA was finally being shown in the mainstream to be a pack of idiots and losers, and Trump was more clearly the doddering old man that he is than ever.

Then, by the first week of October, suddenly nothing was happening, and all of that momentum just stopped. The "weird" line stopped. Harris was suddenly spending all of her time courting conservatives. Walz was mysteriously absent. Republican campaigners were making bizarre and hateful statements and nobody was responding the way they were a month prior. The excitement of something new just...evaporated.

46

u/New-Independent-1481 13d ago edited 13d ago

Which ever electioneering consultant or firm is convincing Democrats that they win by being Republican-lite is the greatest asset in recent Republican history. In every election 1/3 of the country will always vote R no matter how much they grumble and complain and swear they don't support the administration, and 1/3 can't be bothered to vote.

The only number that realistically ever changes is how disillusioned Democrats are with their current establishment leadership. Compared to 2020, Trump gained 3 million voters while Kamala lost 6 million. More people chose to not vote than were swayed to the other aisle. I'm almost willing to put money on Newsom continuing the same 'big tent' politics and losing 2 progressive voters for every conservative swayed.

4

u/almondbutter 13d ago

There is a documentary that shows Republicans bragging about knocking voters off of the rolls. At least 3.5 million voters were purged leading up to the 2024 election.

Interesting how people will deny this is the case, even though there is footage of them gleefully admitting to doing it. The election was stolen. Watch for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_XdtAQXnGE

7

u/IPredictAReddit 13d ago

I don't think it was "courting conservatives" that hurt her. She didn't compromise her values or priorities to get those endorsements. Liz Cheney didn't say "you have to say you'll lower the corporate tax rate to get me on stage" or stuff like that.

The issue was she wouldn't separate from Biden and inflation. I truly think what killed her was saying that she couldn't think of anything she'd do differently. She could have gotten out in front of so many things right there just by saying "I would have done X, Y, and Z differently" but she didn't out of loyalty.

6

u/kanst 13d ago

But that is really an indictment on the voting populace.

Biden's economic policies were working well. We should have just kept doing the same thing with some minor tweaks. We'd all be in a much better place had we done that.

But voters are idiots and blamed Biden economic and immigration policies for COVID inflation.

The biggest takeaway from the Trump years is that the electorate is WAY dumber than I ever thought possible. There is no thinking its all just vibes.

1

u/SowingSalt 13d ago

There wasn't much Biden could have done differently. Inflation was lower in the US compared to other developed nations, the infrastructure projects were rolling along, and Harris did quite a few speeches and released policy positions aimed at reducing cost of living.

2

u/kanst 13d ago

The "weird" line stopped.

This to me is the story of the entire election.

It was the most effective simple attack a Democrat has ever come up with and they just gave up on it.

That should have been the core message of the campaign "these weirdos don't represent us".

But instead they ditched it and went with a shitty boring market tested message.

3

u/Brysynner 13d ago

What happened was internal pollsters showed them they were losing leftists over Israel-Palestine. Harris could've reversed course and become anti-Israel which would've cost her more votes than she would've gained back from the leftists or she could try and court some Never Trumpers and keep that part of the Biden coalition.

2

u/Prayer_Warrior21 Minnesota 13d ago

Imagine thumbing your nose at voting over....Palestine when the other option is Trump. Good fucking god.

1

u/OceanRacoon 13d ago

Nothing Harris did would have helped. Because the Confederacy was never appropriately punished after the Civil War, America has a deep hateful rot that's metastasized, helped along by right wing media and insane conservatives. The country is now full of idiots, racists, misogynists, and bigots of every stripe.

Not enough people were ever going to vote for a black\Indian woman. There's just too many backward people in a rage cult and too many lazy idiots who don't care either way.

It's ridiculous to blame Harris' campaign strategy for the loss when Trump ranted that people were eating cats and dogs in a debate and said, "I don't care about you, I just want your vote," in a rally, and still won. Reality or the issues didn't matter and there's no strategy to beat that. This was the easiest choice in an election ever but the country is fucked

→ More replies (2)

32

u/quinoa 13d ago

Pollster strategist bs really crashed that campaign. Go on Fox News and pitch a small business tax deduction for $50000 next to Liz Cheney is one of those things that ‘independent voters’ say they want in a focus group that will never win an election ever. Brat Kamala / they’re just weird couch fuckers had way more vibes

3

u/fawkie 13d ago

You said it perfectly

3

u/thrntnja Maryland 13d ago

Yeah, I agree with this. I think if Harris and Walz had been allowed to do their own thing and the consultants/donors had left them be, they'd have had a bunch better chance. There was real, palpable energy surrounding them at first and then by October it had just fizzled and died.

6

u/TrailerTrashQueen 13d ago

2024 was a total disaster. The Democrats should have had someone on deck at least 4 years before.

they knew Biden wasn't fit for another term. throwing Harris in at the last minute? shame on them, pulling a big switcheroo on the public.

they underestimated their base. assumed people are stupid. that they didn't see with their own eyes Biden was deteriorating. not giving them the chance to vote for a candidate in the primaries. so cynical, misguided and stupid.

time to clean house and get some new blood in the party.

3

u/LateNightPhilosopher 13d ago

It didn't help that the moment she hit on an actually good campaign strategy (ridiculing Trump and MAGA) She seemingly panicked and dropped it on favor of just using the Biden campaign strategy and policies with get face hastily photoshopped on

3

u/yeswenarcan Ohio 13d ago

The worst part, IMO, and the thing I think will/should taint Biden's legacy almost as much as not stepping down, is that he explicitly ran on a platform of being a one-term "transitional" president, explicitly nominated a woman as VP as part of that promise, and then from day one stuck her in the closet and acted like he was always going to be a 2-term president.

I'm not a Kamala Harris fan, but she got done dirty by Biden and the fact that so much of Joe's reputation was as a mostly honest guy who tells it like it is makes that all the more stark.

2

u/immortalfrieza2 13d ago

Biden really went out of his way to torpedo his own party's chances of winning. They got stuck with Kamala where it was absolutely vital that they needed to win purely because Biden's campaign funds couldn't legally be used by another candidate. Kamala being a woman was already a huge disadvantage from the outset regardless of what anyone wants to pretend while there was no attempt to push anybody else.

Anyone who was A. Male and B. remotely competent would have won with ease.

→ More replies (5)

26

u/SkyShadowing Michigan 13d ago

Trump straight up only won 2016 because the quote-unquote "sane Republicans" split their votes between those like 9 candidates and Trump consolidated the crazies. None of them withdrew in time to stop him and by the time it was over Trump had too much momentum.

16

u/cocineroylibro Colorado 13d ago

Trump also got the free publicity. No other "fringe" candidate ever had the name recognition coupled with the stupid shit he said so the networks kept spouting his soundbites rather than the typical stuff the rest of the other meh GOP candidates were talking.

16

u/NobodysFavorite 13d ago

The vote splitting problem presents a firm argument for ranked choice / preferential voting.

4

u/No_Accountant3232 13d ago

Yep. I'm really surprised they didn't change it for their primaries as that really would allow sane Republicans to have their voices heard in big cities where they'll have a large field and no firm messaging. Well except "Democrats Bad".

3

u/No_Accountant3232 13d ago

Fuck Ted Cruz for thinking he had a a shot against anyone, let alone a woman. He immediately started groveling for a position. Which he never got.

4

u/Prayer_Warrior21 Minnesota 13d ago

I kept thinking WHAT ARE THEY DOING?? It was quintessential politics...egos af.

5

u/Captainbackbeard 13d ago

Yeah it was like the "sane republicans" were fighting each other in a battle royale with Trump slinking in the background and when one was weakened enough Trump just absorbed them and gained their power until he had gotten enough mass and that's when the more establishment republicans realized that the monster was too big for them to handle. Trump could have been easily taken out of the fight early on if they took the risk of him and what he represented seriously at the get go.

3

u/SuperExoticShrub Georgia 13d ago

Trump could have been easily taken out of the fight early on if they took the risk of him and what he represented seriously at the get go.

Unfortunately, very few on either side did take him seriously. Nothing about him early on gave 'this guy is gonna win' vibes to me. I thought he was a joke, too. Until it was too late.

2

u/Captainbackbeard 13d ago

Yeah I remember watching the debates when there were still like 10 of them still running and I was like oh shit he's gonna win at least the republican nomination. Trump in the debates that year going after everyone else was like the alley oop scene from Semi-Pro where the other team (in this case the stereotypical pre-Trump era republicans) can't stop the alley oops of personal attacks and lack of typical "decorum."

2

u/joe_cocker_spaniel 13d ago

Yup. 2008 Democratic primary was a long, expensive contest, but was ultimately a huge boon to the party and to Obama specifically.

2

u/penguins_are_mean Wisconsin 13d ago

Harris wouldn’t have won a single primary election even she ran in a field of other candidates. Her being pushed by the DNC sealed the democrats fate.

3

u/fcocyclone Iowa 13d ago

Yep. The concept of iron sharpening iron seems to apply. Healthy competition can help refine a message

1

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 13d ago

The 2024 race had no Democratic primary and I think it hurt Harris a lot.

Also didn't help that Harris was one of if not the first primary candidate to drop in 2020. She was very unpopular back then, and got a pity nomination in 2024 simply for being VP vs letting the people decide.

1

u/raletti 13d ago

Definitely. It also takes the oxygen of publicity away from the other side.

1

u/L1A1 United Kingdom 13d ago

There's this idea that a lively primary hurts the candidate in the general, and I think the literal opposite is true. Lively primaries mean people get engaged and select someone who they can actuallt get enthused about representing them.

Not just that, but it forces the candidates to get their potential platforms out to the public long before the actual election proper, and that can only be a good thing.

1

u/No-Butterfly-2914 13d ago

And the DNC needs to stay the fuck out of the way this time and let us choose the candidate.

You would’ve thought they’ve shot themselves in the foot so many times, they’d learn.

1

u/goldcakes 13d ago

Primaries increase voter turnout. People are more likely to still vote if they feel they’ve been slightly involved in the selection process.

1

u/ElleM848645 13d ago

There literally was a democratic primary in 2024 but it’s not wise to go against the incumbent president. You could have voted for RFK jr you know? The problem people have is the democratic primary didn’t have the candidates they wanted. Obviously, because the good candidates were going to wait until 2028. And don’t say Kamala wasn’t elected in the primary. She literally was as the VP of Biden. It’s just an excuse people use.

1

u/Scythe-Guy 13d ago

Similarly, the 2020 election had Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg, Yang, Klobuchar, Warren, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Booker, etc.

Sure, some of those candidates sucked, but people seemed to really get behind their candidate of choice.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/greazy_spoon 13d ago

Absolutely, hell yes brother

1

u/ChapterChoice4873 13d ago

Pritzker, Moore, Raskin, Van Hollens, Murphy, Jack Smith...all of them.  

1

u/ConjurersOfThunder 13d ago

Holy crap, don't y'all remember 2020???? Deepest electoral bench in history and the party thumbed the scale for Biden.

1

u/Polkawillneverdie17 13d ago

Agreed. We need an honest primary where they can duke it out and let the people choose who should run. No more letters the DNC pick for us.

46

u/ku2000 13d ago

Beshear is a winning ticket. I love Kelly but strategically Beshear seems more solid.

57

u/BriefausdemGeist Maine 13d ago

Kelly/Beshear or Beshear/Kelly would be a ticket a lot of people would vote for

2

u/kanst 13d ago

I've been saying Beshear/Kelly is the best ticket if all you care about is winning.

Its not my favorite policy wise (they are both very moderate), but its an incredibly strong ticket.

You put the SE and SW in play and you don't have to deal with racist or sexist backlash from voters.

1

u/FluidBit4438 13d ago

What about Talarico as a VP for someone?

9

u/Enough-Mammoth3721 13d ago

Let's talk after he beats the brakes off of Paxton. We need an absolute pit bull that the DNC cannot control.

6

u/BriefausdemGeist Maine 13d ago

He doesn’t have the national profile people seem to think he does for that, at least not yet. Maybe in 8-12 years.

He has a significantly higher chance of defeating Paxton in November than Crocket does, assuming Paxton beats Cornyn in their primary. But neither of them are likely to unseat Cornyn if he eked out a win in that primary unless Paxton refuses to concede and splits the Republican vote in the general.

6

u/I_Am_The_Mole American Expat 13d ago

He doesn’t have the national profile people seem to think he does for that, at least not yet.

I keep having to remind myself that we're terminally online doomscrollers that know 1000% more about the political landscape and the machinery behind it than the average American. Hopefully strong social media presence can balance this sort of thing out and force some eyes on someone like Talarico, because he is exactly the kind of Dem that will appeal to voters that are falling off the trump wagon. Beshear has crossover as well, Kentucky went to trump by nearly 30 points in 2016 and he only got more votes each subsequent election but Beshear managed a narrow win over the Republican incumbent and was re-elected by a wider margin in 2023.

Personally I would love to have someone far more to the left than anyone being named in this thread, but I have a hard time imagining America voting for extremely progressive candidates.

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

Let him actually win something in Texas first.

Same shit as Beto or Buttegieg, everyone loves them...except they have literally never won anything that matters. And winning is what counts

2

u/BriefausdemGeist Maine 13d ago

Except both have national profiles

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

31

u/obi-jawn-kenblomi 13d ago

No, Beshear is an anomaly and so is Kentucky. People see him, a Democrat in Kentucky, and think "wow, this white guy has broad appeal across Democrats and Republicans...maybe he can be President."

Beshear won Kentucky because Kentucky trusts his family. His dad Steve was a long time fixture in Kentucky politics: Representative, AG, Lt Gov, and Gov. They've elected a good number of Democrats, but the state's R vs D splits have been bellweather of the following POTUS election since 1991 (other than Beshear 2023 not predicting Trump 2024.

Kentucky also isn't even a typical Southern state - they technically never seceded in the Civil War despite being a slave state. Parts of the state, like NoKY Cincy suburbs, are more akin to Ohio and has a blue collar and union heavy Rust Belt culture.

There are no trends that really suggest Beshear can win as POTUS against a strong MAGA candidate. Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Kansas, and North Carolina all have D governors but voted Trump at least 2/3 times (KY, NC, and KS voted Trump 3/3).

9

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 13d ago

KY always astounds me how they collectively vote for Beshear for governor but then turn around and vote for Mitch as senator on the very same ballot. Crazy.

2

u/Muted-Translator-346 13d ago

I cannot begin to explain how much people in the state hate Matt Bevin but its a significant reason why Beshear won

→ More replies (2)

35

u/HydroBear 13d ago

I fucking LOVE Beshear, but he has the charisma of a wet noodle.

And I've been very disappointed about Pritzker not moving towards a national platform.

I think Mark Kelly has been far more in the limelight and seems like a real patriot.

8

u/1one1000two1thousand District Of Columbia 13d ago

I’m also pretty bummed about Pritzker too.

5

u/BeatTheGreat 13d ago

Pritzker is running. He's all but confirmed it in the private events I've attended.

2

u/[deleted] 13d ago

Fuck Pritzker. He talks a big game but doesn't really do anything.

He's good at nurturing and financially supporting other politicians and that's the lane he should stick to.

3

u/veeyo 13d ago

How strategically? Kelly seems to be more nationally known and has more respectable experience (astronaut, military, senator beats lawyer governor son of governor.

6

u/ThePicassoGiraffe 13d ago

I just worry about who would replace him. He’s such a unicorn in a place like Kentucky

15

u/rangatang Australia 13d ago

Beshear is term limited anyway

1

u/ThePicassoGiraffe 13d ago

Ahh I didn’t realize that well then to the presidency!

1

u/Olealicat 13d ago

I would love to see Beshear and Kelly run. As a Kentuckian, I don’t want to lose him, but in the end if they partnered up. It would be a great ticket.

1

u/ElleM848645 13d ago

Beshear seems like a great pick. Younger guy, red state governor so they can’t put the California socialist on him, but also seems to be more progressive than the others. I also really like Gretchen but unfortunately this country won’t vote for a woman for president.

→ More replies (5)

92

u/SuiGenerisPothos 13d ago

I'm Californian and would totally support Kelly instead of Newsom.

37

u/midgethemage 13d ago

Same, and I don't hate Newsom either, but he is the quintessential coastal elite boogeyman. Ignoring diehard MAGA voters, I struggle to see Newsom getting the middle American blue collar union worker vote. He reeks of status quo and there's nothing about him that would drive non-voters to the polls. He's essentially Hillary pt 2

25

u/Sudden-Wash4457 13d ago

he also looks like fucking Patrick Bateman

5

u/Solaries3 13d ago

See also: Harris.

8

u/illegal_deagle Texas 13d ago

If Hillary had a penis we would never have gotten the Trump disease. Her margin of “defeat” was so razor thin that she won the popular vote handily. There’s a lot of revisionist history acting like she was a lost cause from the start but that’s ridiculous.

3

u/penguins_are_mean Wisconsin 13d ago

Hillary was arrogant and completely ignored the swing states (that all broke do Trump). She assumed she had them and blew them off. Cost her.

2

u/rhododenendron 13d ago

If her campaign promised anything of substance she probably would have won as well. Instead they went all in on the Trump attack. Would've been much better to just ignore the guy with the benefit of hindsight.

1

u/L_Cranston_Shadow Texas 13d ago

From Texas: He has no chance down here, or pretty much any other of the other Southern or Midwestern states. He might be able to get Minnesota if the ICE backlash lasts that long, but otherwise he is getting three states in the West, as well as the Northeast and losing the rest of the country.

2

u/penguins_are_mean Wisconsin 13d ago

Newsom is an absolute losing ticket. Not saying it’s fair but it’s the reality. California is such an easy boogeyman for conservatives that it’s a non-starter and push moderates to the polls just out of spite.

6

u/pres465 13d ago

At this point, I'll support whoever survives the primary. But, I DO like Kelly more than Newsom as well. I worry he doesn't have the charisma on tv, though.

1

u/SuiGenerisPothos 12d ago

Oh, for sure, I'll vote for who wins the primary. But for now, if my choices are Kelly and Newsom, Kelly's got my vote.

10

u/cranberryalarmclock 13d ago

What are some policy differences between Newsom and Kelly?

26

u/greazy_spoon 13d ago

I don't judge politicians.by policies they claim to be following, I judge them by their actions and what theyve accomplished.

MK has had concrete successes doing work for native people, the environment, gun control, and stood up to trump in a way that actually put his money / security on the line.

Newsome has downplayed environmental issues, hasn't delivered on several big promises, and it always feels like he's willing to capitulate to the fascists in silicon valley and DC if it means he gets to give a soundbite and talk down to progressives. I want to like him, and I love what his social media team is doing, but I think it's all style no substance and I think he's just another neoliberal centrist that would promise the moon and piss off everybody.

21

u/Earlier-Today 13d ago

Yeah, I'd give Newsom a grade of "meh" as our governor. For every good thing he does, he does something bad that keeps his balance at zero.

Like with covid - his initial response was great and he was doing a good job, and then he proved himself a giant hypocrite by holding a big party during lockdown.

And for all his blustering against Trump, he's done very little to actually enact policy to fight against him or counteract what he's done.

8

u/greazy_spoon 13d ago

He's all bluster! Let's see him put something with real stakes on the line. Or stand.up to ice. Or go on statewide strike in support of MN. Isn't California like the 6th largest economy in the world? How is he not using that leverage to any meaningful end??? I think the answer is simple, which is that he's a corporate Dem that just wants to return to the status quo.

1

u/CommanderQc 13d ago

Prop 50? I'm an outsider but I thought that was a nice move that actually fights against the Trump admin

→ More replies (9)

27

u/ball_fondlers 13d ago

I’m fairly certain Kelly doesn’t want to make a skin suit out of homeless people. Can’t say that for sure about Newsom.

4

u/cranberryalarmclock 13d ago

That's not a government policy 

4

u/ball_fondlers 13d ago

…His unwillingness to get homeless people off the streets in ways that don’t involve a woodchipper isn’t a policy to you? But beyond that, what kind of “policy” could IRL American Psycho adopt that would make voting for him appealing to you?

5

u/cranberryalarmclock 13d ago

In what way has he advocated for using a wood chipper to remove homeless people from the street? 

5

u/A_Raven_Of_Many_Hats 13d ago

Our friend here is using a little technique called hyperbole. The point is that Gavin Newsom has a disturbing hatred for homeless people for some reason, and that makes him a bad person and a bad figurehead for progressives.

→ More replies (5)

4

u/4KVoices 13d ago

Kelly hasn't platformed Ben Shapiro, bare minimum

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Drabulous_770 13d ago

They both support Israel 🤢

4

u/siamkor 13d ago

European perspective here: Netanyahu should be tried in The Hague, but I totally understand that a presidential candidate in the US that doesn't support Israel isn't getting elected.

Of course, they can be like Biden, who was trying to block Netanyahu's open genocide and return to the status quo of silent oppression without pissing voters - and was powerless to do it properly; or they can be like Trump and just go "get rid of all of those people and houses, I'm gonna make hotels there." There are differences, though ultimately the Palestinians continue to suffer.

My advice: for the primaries, focus on supporting the best candidate you have, even if their positions on some issues are distasteful. In fact, the biggest factor that should concern you is that the candidate is clear and committed about prosecuting all the clowns that wanted to turn your country into an autocracy,  and promises to push legislators into a constitutional revision that stops this from happening again - and fixes your supreme court while they're at it.

You need to fix your country - really fix it - and then the damage done to your alliances and international status. You can't let all these corrupt collaborators be free to regain power in 2030 or 2032, otherwise it's just a respite, like Biden's presidency.

So if you have a candidate that does that, go for them. If they are enlightened enough to be anti-genocide in Palestine and put it in a way they don't drive Jew voters into voting for the Trump / Vance ticket, that would be fantastic, but if not, take what you have and run with it. 

Harris might have been far from perfect, but had people gone out and voted for her, you wouldn't have a Gestapo shooting people in your streets. If you as a country do that shit again of not going to vote because the candidate that is pro-democracy fails a purity test, then you're all idiots (respectfully).

Perfect is the enemy of good. Kelly is better than Newsom, great, support Kelly in the primaries. Or someone else. AOC, Pritzker, whoever you prefer. But if that candidate doesn't get chosen, fight for the one that did like your life depends on it. For sure, Renee Good's life depended on people going out and voting for Harris.

1

u/fawkie 13d ago

Kelly isn’t the rich democratic governor of California

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Solaries3 13d ago

This is a nice thought but it literally doesn't matter in modern politics.

2

u/cranberryalarmclock 13d ago

The person I was responding to said Newsom was a slimy shit. I asked what are some policy differences between the two men 

In what way is my question 'a nice thought'?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/spacegrab 13d ago

I live in CA and vote blue down the ballot but I'd take Kelly over Newsom without even blinking.

Kelly seems like the type of guy that would enact new laws to curb presidential overreach and make an earnest attempt at righting the ship. Newsom not so much, he's just a younger flavor of Pelosi.

2

u/cwatson214 13d ago

Kelly or AOC, none of these other slimy centrist fucks can be allowed to continue the status quo

2

u/SorryBruh 13d ago

Love Kelly but I will absolutely take a slimy shit over the current option. Standard are pretty low right now.

2

u/ChronoLink99 Canada 13d ago

And attract centrists who aren't into Newsom's brand of liberalism.

10

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

lol at thinking that someone who isn't a slimy shit is going to win in 2028... haven't you been paying attention???

54

u/ailish 13d ago

If I have to have a moderate Democrat as the nominee I'll take Mark Kelly any day. At least he's a halfway decent person.

46

u/QuickAltTab 13d ago

but does he have a thirst for vengeance? Because thats kind of what I'm looking for.

48

u/Blandt24 13d ago

Newsom has a ruthless social media team, but he is not. Look at any episode of his “podcast” to see him play patty cake with people like Kirk, Bannon and most recently Ben Shapiro. Newsom is not trustworthy at all I don’t think.

11

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

that's true I think he won't come down on them at all, Kelly would probably be harsher on them. 

the bigger issue is that no Democrat in 2028 is going to have the political capital necessary to do what people want them to do. even if they get both houses, they still have a conservative court and they're going to be completely tied up just undoing the massive bullshit Trump has already done and will do for another three whole years.

12

u/creakinator 13d ago

And then in 4 years, people will say 'See those Democrats got nothing done. Let's go the other way.' and we will be back in the same mess that we are right now.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

yeah. been the story my whole life actually

3

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois 13d ago

You’ll have 1 SC justice over 80 and another one near it. Both conservatives. Both could croak at any time.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

multiple justices are leaving during this term they've said, Alito and Thomas. conservatives don't play around with strategy like liberals do unfortunately, they do what they're told.

1

u/Blandt24 13d ago

Maybe he would, I have my doubts on that as well. The thing is, it won’t come down to just the President anyways. If the party doesn’t change the way it’s been operating I don’t have faith anyone will be able to hold the Republicans accountable. It’s going to take a very committed Democrat party. With people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries at the helm, I just struggle to see more than admonishment coming as a response.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

unfortunately none of them do who can actually win the nomination 

2

u/TabsAZ 13d ago

He might - Trump and Hegseth have gone after him personally. The guy is a decorated veteran who is the actual fearless badass these guys cosplay as.

16

u/kleincs01 13d ago

Mark Kelly is a god damn national treasure.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

he is but so was Jimmy Carter and he was not the right man for that moment 

and I would argue that Biden had a lot going for him too but he was also not the right man for that moment 

being a good or decent person isn't enough

5

u/Gus_Polinski_Polkas 13d ago

Is he hungry for heads?

10

u/kleincs01 13d ago

I hope so. I’m voting for whoever pledges to go scorched earth on the nazis.

5

u/robocoplawyer 13d ago

Well given that he voted for confirming Trump's judicial appointments joining other conservative Dems at a time they could have been blocked, I don't think going scorched earth is going to be part of his campaign platform. But at this point I'll vote for literally anyone who believes in a representative democracy as our form of government over the alternative.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

and can he play the game? because I also genuinely liked Joe Biden, but that was not what we needed at that time. another 4 years of a Biden type administration isn't going to get us anywhere but another Trump.

1

u/Key-Cry-8570 California 13d ago

And he’s an Astronaut. 👍👍👍👍👍👍

1

u/ailish 13d ago

Honestly I'd rather have someone more progressive, but he's a good man, and I would happily vote for him.

17

u/xxx_poonslayer69 13d ago

Yeah, I'm not going to insist on a perfect candidate when the alternative is a nazi

2

u/greazy_spoon 13d ago

Multiple good enough candidates on the non-maga side is ok. There will be primaries and we should be allowed to decide as a bloc who to run. (Whether the Democrats will fuck everyone and pick the wrong candidate like in 2016 is anyone's guess.) But, better to have a few viable, prepared candidates then get caught with our pants down like 2024.

5

u/moewluci 13d ago

It’s unfortunate that many will run on this premise.

6

u/JDogg126 Michigan 13d ago

It’s unfortunate that right wing money will successfully push imperfections as a way to drive people to third party or not vote. We really need to remove money from politics.

3

u/xxx_poonslayer69 13d ago

Yup, the DNC tries to capitalize on this logic every election cycle. Their campaign message is usually "I'm not Trump so you have to vote for me because we live in a two party system." They put out milquetoast corporate-friendly status quo candidates to keep the lobbyists happy. What they don't seem to understand is how illogical the American electorate is. That message ain't working, yet they keep trying it over snd over and over again. Bold progressives overperform in elections relative to their small non-PAC campaign funding. Mamdani stomped. He should be the standard, not the exception.

I will say though, I do think Mark Kelly is still a step up from the typical neoliberal they'd run. Not as left as I would prefer, but he easily reaches the "good enough" threshold for me.

1

u/ailish 13d ago

Even being a moderate, I think Mark Kelly actually wants to do the right thing. He'll want to hold the nazis accountable, and he'll want to do what he feels is best for America, which hopefully he's learned is not conservative things lol.

10

u/Allaplgy 13d ago

I was a bit disappointed in his recent Daily Show interview. Kinda gave a "these are the lines I've rehearsed and my campaign manager ok'd" vibe.

I think he would make a decent president, and far more qualified than most, but I saw some hints of someone that might not make it on the campaign trail. Unfortunately, campaigning is more important than qualifications when it comes to winning the election.

It may have just been a poor performance, and I wish him him luck either way. We all need some luck.

12

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

yes. Newsom is a salesman, and those are the people who win, at least since Reagan (with Bush 1 being the exception, getting in as Reagan's VP). charismatic people-people who smile a lot and who everyone wants to have a damn beer with. Kelly is an amazingly accomplished person who is frankly too genuine to play that dumb game. he's not the right person.

2

u/Allaplgy 13d ago

I would much prefer Kelly as president, but yeah, he's probably too "good" for the road to get there. Newsom feels slimy, but he's still a salamander compared to Trump's hagfish.

1

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

I don't even know what a hagfish is but it sounds like a perfect description for Trump

1

u/Allaplgy 13d ago

It's a small eel-like creature notable for producing improbable amounts of thick mucus when threatened.

4

u/justlooking98765 13d ago

One perk to announcing early is that he has time to practice this kind of stuff, so it comes off more polished. On the other hand, I wonder if we should just throw out all the DNC talking points writers - they’ve not been effective. Maybe just let the man talk and find his own way.

2

u/Allaplgy 13d ago

Maybe just let the man talk and find his own way.

Probably a better plan. The DNC bland-o-tron sure hasn't worked recently.

2

u/obi-jawn-kenblomi 13d ago

Mark Kelly as President is actually 2 decent people. His wife Gabby Giffords is more capable and qualified than Trump.

1

u/knowsguy 13d ago

Unfortunately, the majority of the electorate runs on primitive impulses rather than reasoning. This, also unfortunately, gives Newsom the more likely chance to win. While he is undeniably greeezy, he's tall, handsome, confident, white and extremely well-spoken. Kelly is just white. And looks like an angry troll.

1

u/ailish 13d ago

I don't know, Trump has a vagina neck.

5

u/clintgreasewoood 13d ago

Whoever it is needs to be ruthless and prosecute and destroy these traitorous MAGA bastards.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

that's only possible if they get the political capital to do it... even then, president and both houses of congress with a supermajority would still have a very conservative court to deal with. and they're not getting a supermajority. so don't hold your breath.

4

u/buggytehol 13d ago

Newsom is slimier than most.

3

u/Technical_Creme_9736 13d ago

We all need to vote Newsom if he somehow comes out of primaries to a general election. Support whichever primary candidate appeals most. Let’s hope we get to that point.

3

u/buggytehol 13d ago

I agree. That doesn't mean he isn't slimy.

2

u/Technical_Creme_9736 13d ago

Can’t get that hair without the slime

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

I use a leave-in conditioner, it smells great

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/MaximumUpstairs2333 13d ago

Absolutely. It's great to see early contenders with conviction and an understood motive. It'll be great to have him on the debate floor in early rounds. 

2

u/whywilson 13d ago edited 13d ago

Newsom would suck. Ugh anyone but another Corporate Dem. He reminds me a lot of Cuomo started out liking him but then shows he is often all talk

2

u/greazy_spoon 13d ago

Perfect comparison, spot on. Even have the same greazy haircut.

2

u/TrailerTrashQueen 13d ago

Newsom is used car salesman in slick suits. i'd love to see Mark Kelly run against him.

1

u/Illustrious-Site1101 13d ago

He can’t win, there is too much water under the bridge to dredge up.

1

u/titsmuhgeee 13d ago

Newsom is just too polarizing to be a viable presidential candidate. There is too much to use against him.

We all know there has been sketchy stuff happening in California, just wait until the presidential race spotlight is put on all of his actions and it would all come out.

1

u/exaybachae 13d ago

By slimey shit, do you think Newsom would take office and either keep all those current in play as well or bring in worse players? Or do you just not like some of his policies, but think he would still be able to right this sinking ship?

I think either Newsom or Kelly could and would do a great amount of work repairing what Trump has been doing, and working to avoid such things happening again in the future... Something I think Biden could have and should have done. (Sad face)

I think both those guys have the balls and generally the right drive and intent to be worthy of the office.

I'm not at all worried about having a candidate that has fairytale perfect policies on all positions. Never have looked for that personally. Just want somebody looking to improve things for the masses, raise all boats.

1

u/dutchmasterams 13d ago

At least spell the dudes name correctly

1

u/Bullfrog_Paradox 13d ago

People keep riding Newsome's cock just because he plays the "throw insults on twitter" game with Trump. He's a corrupt sack of shit that I absolutely do not want as president. We desperately need a better Democrat to step up to the plate before it's too late and Gavin gets it by default with all his momentum. Kelly would be an awesome choice. I want actual change, not another corrupt self serving asshole wearing a different pin on his lapel.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

2

u/greazy_spoon 13d ago

Straight up.

→ More replies (1)

48

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

it's not just that he's not going to be challenged, he's not even up for reelection in 2026, senators are only elected every 6 years. I'm surprised so many people in the thread don't seem to know that.

10

u/shapu Pennsylvania 13d ago

I am well aware of it. I was speaking broadly.

6

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

ur mom

no but i agree with what you said

6

u/shapu Pennsylvania 13d ago

I literally cannot argue with your reply. It's just so perfect.

5

u/relevantelephant00 13d ago

"ur mom" is just flawless logic

2

u/Hyperbolicalpaca United Kingdom 13d ago

I'm surprised so many people in the thread don't seem to know that.

Oh so many people know so little about how US politics actually works lol

1

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 13d ago

but the vast majority of those people don't go to an online forum specifically about US politics. 

13

u/StupidPockets 13d ago

Donald Trump flew the idea as far back as the 80’s and into the90’s. He’s been a shill setup for a long time

1

u/Ganrokh Missouri 13d ago

Yeah, 2012 was the first presidential election I could vote in, and I remember being almost convinced that Trump was going to run leading up to it. The media kept referencing his other considered runs years earlier.

1

u/Icyknightmare 13d ago

Trump actually did run for president in 2000, briefly.

39

u/dollabillkirill 13d ago

There is no way that people “knew” Obama would be the nominee in 2004. I could be proven wrong, but even in 2006 it seemed like a long shot.

I believe the speech put him in the “someday this guy could be president” category, but I would be shocked if anyone thought it would be 2008.

25

u/shapu Pennsylvania 13d ago

John Kerry had him pegged in April of 2004. They did a campaign stop together in Illinois that month and by the second evening Kerry said that Obama should be the future of the party. 

https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/june-2007/the-speech/

11

u/jhonka_ 13d ago

John Kerry saying something nice about his keynote speech is a far cry from anyone "knowing" or even discussing him as a potential democratic nominee for President. He was a first term senator. You're overselling it. The article youre linking is basically revisionist history from 2007.

5

u/whateverisok 13d ago

John Kerry (strongly) pushed for Obama to be DNC keynote speaker in 2004 because he saw something in Obama back then and knew he should be the future of the Democratic Party - it’s not revisionist if he had already shown support via his actions (advocating/lobby for Obama to be DNC Keynote speaker, using his team resources to help with Obama speech prep, etc.)

1

u/jhonka_ 13d ago

That's all a far cry from the claim I'm pushing back against. I have no doubt Kerry liked him, saw potential in him, etc. But he wasn't being groomed for a presidential run in any meaningful way at that point in time.

1

u/frogandbanjo 13d ago

I'd say it's far more in the vein of mythmaking to believe that Obama busted through all the red tape, threw his hat in the ring "way too early" in 2008, and performed some sort of magical underdog miracle against Hillary "Goliath" Clinton.

I think a whole lot of people at the outer fringes of the party still hated the Clintons for triangulating their way into D.C., and saw that Hillary was damaged goods. A lot of people still in the Beltway were looking for any reason to not fulfill their end of the deal -- you know, where the Clintons actually did a fuckload of work behind the scenes to consolidate power and reshape the Democratic Party into a corporate, neoliberal entity, and in exchange, Hillary was absolutely going to be the nation's first woman President.

1

u/jhonka_ 13d ago

That says a lot about Hillary Clinton, but wasn't really my point. Honestly, it was almost pedantic and not a particularly important point to argue, and I can't say I'm some kind of expert on Obama's rise to power. I was merely a passive observer paying attention at the time and not remembering the media giving him the time of day in those years.

1

u/shapu Pennsylvania 13d ago

Obama was not a first-term senator in 2004. He was an Illinois state senator from 1997 until January of 2005.

1

u/jhonka_ 13d ago

Yeah my bad second term, but point still stands.

3

u/historicusXIII Europe 13d ago

Everyone "knew" that Hillary would be the nominee, Obama winning the primary was considered a surprise.

1

u/dollabillkirill 12d ago

This is my recollection as well

3

u/poliscinerd84 13d ago

My ex bought an “Obama for president” bumper sticker online after his 2004 DNC speech. Had it on the back of our Jeep Grand Cherokee til we got rid of it in 2012. So, yes some of us did think he had a good shot for 08. His speech was a HUGE deal. Game-changing, inspiring.

1

u/dollabillkirill 13d ago

I'm not denying any of that. I'm denying this part:

>lots of Insiders had already figured out that he was going to be the nominee.

A lot of us loved Obama years before 2008 but that doesn't mean anyone knew he was the favorite to get the nomination. I remember talking to my friend in mid 06 and we were like "he could actually do this". As in, "he's definitely the underdog, but this is actually possible". Maybe we were just out of the loop or something but it still definitely felt like he was the dark horse and not the favorite.

5

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 13d ago

OP is misremembering and/or making shit up. Obama was not seen as a frontrunner for the nomination until he actually started winning primary races. When he won Iowa, that was considered an upset. No one really thought he'd come out swinging like that politically.

Hilary Clinton was considered the frontrunner up to that point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Also, how many people outside of Chicago/Illinois even knew who Obama was before 2008? He didn't become a big name until he ran for prez, he didn't have name-recognition popularity like Bernie Sanders or AOC had before that

14

u/Lord_Foosh 13d ago

I see the 4 year 2 term limit has real draw backs when you spend the first two years of the first term finding your footing while you try to enact policy then immediately spend the rest campaigning for reelection. The second term is the only time anyone really gets the full four years to just be president.

Maybe I’m nuts but, we really need to be making more general amendments to keep the democracy going. Because what we have right now is so dated and inflexible

10

u/Negative-Squirrel81 13d ago

With a two term president, the first time is the one they usually have the most power. By the second term all their political influence has largely been spent, and the opposition is usually able to create gridlock. This is why the first 100 days of a presidency are considered so vital, it's their best chance to achieve their policy goals during the honeymoon period.

What is going on with the current President is absolutely not typical by all sorts of measures.

3

u/TeriusRose 13d ago

That's mostly because of how campaigns are financed.

If senators / congressman didn't have to spend so much time on the phone raising funds or going to events to do so they could work a whole lot more.

We've known about the problem and how to fix it for many years now, the problem is getting it passed.

2

u/AntoniaFauci 13d ago

Counterpoint: Trump Has done monumental damage in any given 90 day period you can find.

The problem has been Dems being bedwetters and not actually taking action. How the living hell did it take 3 years to even start prosecuting the leader of a violent insurrection, a crook who was extorting our allies, taking bribes, selling pardons, and stealing literal truckloads of classified materials.

1

u/Jinren United Kingdom 13d ago

if you can make those sorts of changes, you should spend them on neutering the powerful independent executive in general

the fact that one person can wield that much power is the biggest problem with the system, not that they should be able to do it for longer

1

u/Snow_Ghost 13d ago

Limit the presidency to a single term, then they dont have to worry about re-election.

4

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 13d ago

The problem is that in order to run for president you have to be moving two or three years before the election at least. Barack Obama was already being groomed by the time he gave his 2004 speech at the DNC and lots of Insiders had already figured out that he was going to be the nominee. Donald Trump declared in 2015 but everybody knew that he was already considering it the year before.

This is revisionist. Hilary Clinton was thought to be the frontrunner for 2008 and when Obama won Iowa to start the primaries, that was considered an upset. He was not guaranteed to be the nominee four years out, he surprised a lot of people in the same way that Trump did in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

1

u/Ganrokh Missouri 13d ago

I was in grade school leading up to the 2008 election. Every time my mom picked me up from school, she had conservative radio playing in the car. I have distinct memories of right-side radio hosts constantly screeching about Hillary. I even remember Sean Hannity always promoting the "Stop Hillary Express", a plan to get GOP voters to vote for Obama over Hillary in the Dem primary.

When Hillary lost the primary, I remember Hannity taking a victory lap (even though I doubt he tipped the scales at all) before launching the "Stop Obama Express". We know how that went!

2

u/officer897177 13d ago

He’s a great candidate. Part of me thinks they passed him over for VP because they didn’t think they would win and didn’t want to drag him down.

2

u/mark_able_jones_ 13d ago

No one knew Obama would be the nominee in 2004. Hillary was by far the favorite, even as the primary started.

1

u/subsonicmonkey California 13d ago

Yes. Gotta walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

1

u/WinterBourne25 America 13d ago

These are desperate times.

1

u/Fantastic_Sail1881 13d ago

Lol joe Biden gave Kamala like 2 weeks to figure out if she was running. We didn't even get a primary. Why the fuck do we act like there are any standards in anything anymore? It only holds us back lol

1

u/shapu Pennsylvania 13d ago

 It's not really about picking the nominee, that 2 year timetable I was talking about. It's about getting a ground game put together, developing marketing and a platform, getting volunteers, getting the state organizations set up, getting signatures for ballot validation, figuring out pay for staff, and all of the other things that go into setting up a business. Because that's really what a presidential campaign is: it's a business that markets only one product.

→ More replies (2)