AOC vs Vance 2028…..

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

She won’t be nominated.

Neither will Vance.

BOOK IT, Dan-O!

Oddly . . .I can agree with that.

I think the Democrat's power brokers are far more likely to run Newsome or about any other mn than they are to nominate another woman for president at this point.

On the Republican side, Vance is adbvertsly tied to Trump in the minds of many, making other front runners such as Rubio and DeSantis . . .or someone else.

[pxmcc]

after what happened in 2016 and 2024, AOC has no viable path to the Oval Office. part of the outcome in 2024, imo, was Latino men simply refused to vote for a woman.

[elghund]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

IMHO a Vance/Cortezx election could go either way. My remarks below could easily apply to any head to head comparison between AOC and any of the other Republican root runners at this time too.

In a debate fae off, She is about as personable in person as Vance is . . .and I mean that in contrast with Harris . . .but Vance has the edge in poise and rational presentation. Cortez often resorts to loud and righteous indignation, with inflammatory name calling. Tthat is my observation, not a declaration of fact. Others may find her to be articulate and forthright etc . . .

I do think that Vance has the edge in that while he will (I hope) continue to espouse much of the Trump agenda, he will present himself in a far more rational and n on-hysterical manner. It is my expectation that Vance will not publicly call a reporter "stupid" to their face on live TV.

As many here will recognize, my bias is towards Vance and/or any of the other Republican front runners . . .but my assessment of the next presidential election is that AOC could very well be the winner. After all, Joe Biden won.

While I don’t necessarily agree with some of your thoughts, this is a well thought out appraisal of what could be coming.



elg…..

[elghund]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Oddly . . .I can agree with that.

I think the Democrat's power brokers are far more likely to run Newsome or about any other mn than they are to nominate another woman for president at this point.

On the Republican side, Vance is adbvertsly tied to Trump in the minds of many, making other front runners such as Rubio and DeSantis . . .or someone else.

That’s the big question….who outside of Trumplandia could get that nomination?
Vance and AOC need a lot of ground work to get those nominations.

I think people will be far more tuned in to debates now the the last two senile fools are not running. It will be nice to hear some intelligent debates .

Maybe the next nominees will not be extremists In their thinking.


elg……

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by elghund

That’s the big question….who outside of Trumplandia could get that nomination?
Vance and AOC need a lot of ground work to get those nominations.

I think people will be far more tuned in to debates now the the last two senile fools are not running. It will be nice to hear some intelligent debates .

Maybe the next nominees will not be extremists In their thinking.


elg……

If there is any soul left in the necrotic Republican Party, they’ll remove MAGA from any further consideration and nominate someone who can Actually serve Americans both foreign and domestic.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

She won’t be nominated.
Neither will Vance.
BOOK IT, Dan-O!

Agree.
Both parties need to come up with someone new instead of presenting proven losers as the next useless talking head.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

If there is any soul left in the necrotic Republican Party, they’ll remove MAGA from any further consideration and nominate someone who can Actually serve Americans both foreign and domestic.

"Make America Great Again" . . .anathema to progressive liberal Democrats . . . .

So then, maintaining and expanding the nation as a world power in manufacturing, trade, diplomacy or in any other aspect of national effort . . feel free to add to that list . . ..none of that is worth pursuing?

Neither India nor China feel the need to pull back from striving in every sector. It takes national effort to merely maintain let alone progress in today's world. There is an apocraful passage in"Alice In Wonderland" (or perhaps "Thrue the Looking Glass") where all the characters are running but not really getting anywhere. The Red Queen remarks to Alice that one must run twice as fast to get ahead.

And so it is with Nation States now inched, the last half of the third decade of the twenty-First Century.

One may not like the political connotations of the phrase "Make America Great Again" or it's acronym, but I am convinced that the fundamental sentiment is crucial to the future of the Inited States.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Agree.
Both parties need to come up with someone new instead of presenting proven losers as the next useless talking head.

I would quarrel with lumping President Trump with the other useless talking heads . . .but I do agree that there have been some really useless losers on both sides in the past thirty years or so.

Mr Trump may be objectionable in his public manner or character, but I support much of his policy agenda.

In the recent past, the Republicans seem to have nominated whoever was the oldest white guy in the room, just because it was his turn. I name Dole, Romney and McCaine.

We can quibble over others on the Democratic side, but Biden and Harris, to me, seem obviously useless. Talking was not a strong point for either of them.

[elghund]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I would quarrel with lumping President Trump with the other useless talking heads . . .but I do agree that there have been some really useless losers on both sides in the past thirty years or so.

Mr Trump may be objectionable in his public manner or character, but I support much of his policy agenda.

In the recent past, the Republicans seem to have nominated whoever was the oldest white guy in the room, just because it was his turn. I name Dole, Romney and McCaine.

We can quibble over others on the Democratic side, but Biden and Harris, to me, seem obviously useless. Talking was not a strong point for either of them.

What very few things I agree with Trump on, gets eliminated by the borderline lawless and insane way he conducts himself in trying to accomplish things.

One example….Greenland. Increases in military size and power there, I agree with. Alienating an ally who will grant us anything we ask is stupid. Buying Greenland under threats is even dumber, not even to get into the horrible costs of taking over the infrastructure and well being of the citizenry.

Now, this from Trump today, re: Greenland……


“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace……”

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/greenl...sia-rcna254765

Basically saying give me a Nobel Prize and I will drop the Greenland issue…..



elg……

[Yssup Rider]

Of course, Denmark doesn’t have jack shit to do with the Nobel.

Again, Trump, if nothing, is a very very stupid man.

You support this? Then you’re in the same leaky boat.

[elghund]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Of course, Denmark doesn’t have jack shit to do with the Nobel.

Again, Trump, if nothing, is a very very stupid man.

You support this? Then you’re in the same leaky boat.

Me? I support virtually nothing about Trump. Sheesh…..

elg….

[ICU 812]

The topic of the OP is about Vance and Cortez . . .and perhaps who actually will be the nominee the democt=ratic and Republican parties in 2028.

Somehow we got off on Trump and his shortcomings . . .again.

I apologize to all for whatever part I may have played in this hijack and withdraw any remarks I may have made that contributed to this sidelining of the topic in the OP.

[RX792P]

Currently, my bet would be 'none of the above' for 2028 Presidential nominees.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by elghund

Me? I support virtually nothing about Trump. Sheesh…..

elg….

Not you! LOL!