Who should Democrats run in 2024?

Just shifting the parking enforcement budget to another department is reducing 'police' funding, but not really changing anything.
 
But for most people it means reduce spending on police departments: fewer cops, fewer programs. It is a terrible slogan. "Fund Law Enforcement!" would be better.

Triple the training? As in, police officers in the US have the shortest amount of training in the OECD sphere, before being let onto the streets.
 
Triple the training? As in, police officers in the US have the shortest amount of training in the OECD sphere, before being let onto the streets.
Certainly could be part of it.
 
Triple the training? As in, police officers in the US have the shortest amount of training in the OECD sphere, before being let onto the streets.

Wait, American cops get training? /s

I feel like they also need a new slogan. "To Serve and Protect" isn't accurate anymore. "To Serve and Protect who we feel like" seems more on point.
 
The point is that the tasks that should be handled by say mental health profesionals is currently being handled by police. So while there SHOULD not be overlap between these roles there currently is, and "defund the police" is one solution to that.

But for most people it means reduce spending on police departments: fewer cops, fewer programs. It is a terrible slogan. "Fund Law Enforcement!" would be better.
I agree 100% w bird, it's a slogan guaranteed to be inflammatory and invite misinterpretation and backlash.
 
He's kind of like Abraham Lincoln, allowing all variety of dissenting voices to be heard. :D
 
He's not qualified.
 
joe rogan should run, he was a berniebro

that would cause some partisan heads to explode
I didn't realise being a Bernie supporter was inherently a positive qualifier in terms of Democratic leadership candidacy. Didn't a bunch of them then go and vote for Trump? :D

Of course, given that Sanders himself didn't get the nomination, I don't see the Democrat Party aligning themselves behind Rogan, as much as Berzerker thinks it would be some kind of massive own.
 
Well, I just read it and it strikes me as more like something a student union would produce to show willing than an honest and productive solution from the most powerful people in the world to humanities most pressing problem. Whether anything more useful would have been possible is another question I guess.
That makes sense it was written by a bunch of 20-somethings. Who cares, people don't understand beyond a student union anyway. The bill is all the good things, like straight up feasible and Utopian like everything good we were doing mid century for the new millennium.
 
I read the title of it!
 
He's not qualified.
After 2016 I don't think people care much about qualifications. 2024 president could be some currently unknown person who blows up on Twitter over the next two years.

'Qualified' people have gotten what done exactly?

Can't find it on YouTube but there's a compilation every US president I think since Carter talking about environment/climate change and their ambitious plan as emissions continue to rise and every middle aged lady drives an SUV cause it makes her feel 'safer'.

I'm not suggesting Rogan for president, he's a bit too easily influenced for my taste but I'm not too fussed about needing a 'career politician'.
 
It's funny how qualifications never matter, until they directly impact the people claiming they don't matter.

It's not so much what the qualifications do when it comes to politics, imo. It's more the additional damage done when electing people who lack them. It's "competence", basically. Not necessarily a shiny piece of paper saying you're qualified in something. When people say "not qualified", they're often talking about competence.
 
Objecting to thread title: the "Democrats" don't run anybody. Various people run for the Democratic nomination and then primary voters pick which of that group they prefer. The candidate emerges not as a result of any intentional process, but from the hive-mind.

That out of the way, if Biden doesn't run, Harris can put herself up. Various of the Dems who didn't get much traction in 2020 might emerge. Harris, but she's got to do something as VP or it actually becomes a liability for her. People like Swalwell, who will have as their main advantage just being younger, and will have the reputation as having publicly stood on the side of right against Trump, maybe even prevailed against him in a court case. Every blessed person is tired of the fact that all we have as options are people well into their seventies. Just looking young will count for a lot.

But, as warpus says, it's way to early to be thinking about this.
 
I didn't realise being a Bernie supporter was inherently a positive qualifier in terms of Democratic leadership candidacy. Didn't a bunch of them then go and vote for Trump? :D
If a large number of working class voters find populist candidates more appealing than establishment candidates regardless of partisan affiliation, shouldn't that be an opportunity rather than a problem? If Rogan is the guy who could bring in these voters- and I'm not pretending that he is, I'm not insane, but let's entertain the hypothetical- then couldn't the potential merits of a candidacy be reasonably explored?
 
After 2016 I don't think people care much about qualifications. 2024 president could be some currently unknown person who blows up on Twitter over the next two years.

'Qualified' people have gotten what done exactly?

Can't find it on YouTube but there's a compilation every US president I think since Carter talking about environment/climate change and their ambitious plan as emissions continue to rise and every middle aged lady drives an SUV cause it makes her feel 'safer'.

I'm not suggesting Rogan for president, he's a bit too easily influenced for my taste but I'm not too fussed about needing a 'career politician'.
I care. But I do agree, not everyone has to be an insider. I was considering Yang last time around (I won't be going forward), and generally speaking, in Ocasio-Cortez's case, people don't consider members of the House.

But I would like someone whose trained intuition allows them to be affective across the different roles. Much of being president is knowing what jobs the president has and who to appoint for each one, a few positions down the line. I think Governors of big states are going to be better for that.
 
But for most people it means reduce spending on police departments: fewer cops, fewer programs. It is a terrible slogan. "Fund Law Enforcement!" would be better.

If you have to explain it you've already lost.

In America use the ferals to stomp on the ferals ftw!!!! Yeeeee Ha.

Anyway someone young (40''s or early 50's). white, male that's charismatic ideally a national profile.

Or a celebrity. Policy doesn't matter. Democrats suck at winning they're playing chess (badly) while the GoP are eating the pieces.

Bidens to old and will probably be a lame duck after mid terms.
 
I didn't realise being a Bernie supporter was inherently a positive qualifier in terms of Democratic leadership candidacy. Didn't a bunch of them then go and vote for Trump? :D

Of course, given that Sanders himself didn't get the nomination, I don't see the Democrat Party aligning themselves behind Rogan, as much as Berzerker thinks it would be some kind of massive own.

Rogan is a good way to get Bernie supporters back. He can unite the populists with independents and the middle while pissing off the establishment wings of both parties (ie Wall St, war profiteers, etc). Republican voters stood up against their corporate overlords and nominated Trump while Democrats gave us Hillary and Biden. Stop nominating corporate whores and you wont have to rig elections.

Rogan/Tulsi in 2024!
 
I agree 100% w bird, it's a slogan guaranteed to be inflammatory and invite misinterpretation and backlash.
It's the stupidest slogan in the history of slogans.

It's a slogan that doesn't understand sloganeering

It's a positively counter-productive slogan.
 
Top Bottom