I’m interested to see what lemmy thinks of this, I honestly haven’t kept track of the potential options.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Mark Kelly.

    Astronaut, has absolutely been an amazing husband to Gabby Gifords, impeccable background that is literally the American Dream, and untouchable character.

    He would absolutely destroy Trump.

    • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not even an American and I would be so psyched by a Mark Kelly run for president.

      Then all we would need would be to get Chris Hatfield as or PM up here and it would be an intelligent astronaut super hemisphere.

    • warbond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      And he has a twin with a nearly identical pedigree, it’s insane. But I’d love to see a Harris/Kelly ticket.

      • neidu2@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Any order is fine by me, but part of me wants some retired cop to see that the guy he dragged away from civil rights protests in the 70s is now president.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Let’s be brutally honest here, those cops will have long since died of alcoholism.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think she’s awesome in general. I think her service record and voting record make her a palatable or even desirable candidate for a wide swath of the population, not just Democrats — I’m not one myself, though I vote for more Democrats than any other party’s candidates.

        • Maeve@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Thank you for replying. I considered her for my primary vote, when she ran, but ultimately wrote in my candidate.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      I like Porter. AOC needs a rest, I think.

      I used to be really captivated by her leadership, but in the last few years, I think things have gotten complicated. Perhaps I’m being too forgiving, but during Biden’s presidency it seemed like she lost her nerve to stick her neck out for what she believed in more and more. Maybe I’m inventing things, but I get the sense that January 6th scared the fucking shit out of her. I think her life flashed before her eyes, and afterwards she felt like being among the most progressive voices while trying not to rock the boat too much or draw too much personal attention from the right was enough, and that challenging Democrats on their bullshit was too stressful and risky.

      If that’s the case, I don’t blame her. I still admire what she’s done, but she does not have the spark she once did.

  • Ledivin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I like Buttigieg the most, but I don’t think he has enough time to be built up for this election. I’d be excited to see him as a VP ticket, or for next election.

    I think that Kamala is our best choice, but I worry that our country isn’t ready to vote in a female president. We’re still so ridiculously misogynistic that it would be comical if it wasn’t such a fucking travesty

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Pete needs to go mayor some more. He had a few good ideas during the primary, but as Transportation Secretary I’m astounded at his lack of ambition.

      There are a handful of administration officials – Lina Khan first among them – who’ve learned to use their power assertively to make changes to broken systems. And Pete… he seems like he just pops up when another piece of infrastructure breaks to let us know that he’s on it. Maybe he’s doing something more, but if so he’s doing it very, very quietly.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Bro… Lina got put in place to show that feds are “trying”

        The judiciary is clearly not impressed.

        Wall Street Pete is there to cover up railroad accidents and Boeing bullshit. I don’t think he even has good intentions, just management consulting zombie being put in place to do corruption for the elites.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          If I can be frank, I’m reading from your tone that you’re not here for polite, factual persuasion. But if I’m wrong, or someone else sees this, I gotta drop a fact check on the ‘Lina can’t win cases’ myth:

          https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/out-with-a-bang-as-ftc-beats-the

          More practically, this loss discredits the main argument from Wall Street. Dealmakers, and thinkers like Larry Summers, have often said that while Biden antitrust enforcers are aggressive, if corporations are willing to go to court, the government is likely to lose because judges won’t let them rewrite the law. This narrative was so strong that Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter were questioned in Congress as to whether they were even trying to win. It’s always been a narrow and bad faith critique, but this victory, plus, the win in the Fifth Circuit over Illumina, should put that narrative to rest. Antitrust lawyers will tell their clients to go to court at their peril.

          It’s kind of a deep dive, but it’s worth it.

          • sunzu@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            This issue won’t be solved via executive agency.

            It requires an act of congress since the current regulatory regime is broken.

            She just got put in place for act like feds are doing something. It is a circle jerk.

            I get that y’all spinning anything you can latch on as a W for the Democrats such as people are making more money under biden … lol

            If you think that limp dick FTC has the power or the legal underpinning to regulate mega corps in 2024… Have fun!

            • Andy@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              You know, for a guy with the username “Sunzu”, I feel like you’re demonstrating a remarkable lack of vision of power dynamics.

              First, I’m not a Democrat. I’m not invested in holding up that party.

              Again, I’m talking more to any audience than you in particular: when someone says that any attempt to use power creatively is a waste of time, I think that is either ignorant or in bad faith. The SIZE of any given effect or the use of resources in one place or another can be certainly debated, but the logic of the revitalized antitrust movement is very, very sound. Power has been left unused, and now people like Khan and Jonathan Kantor are learning how to use it again, and showing others.

              The logic you’re outlining runs in contradiction to what we might call “The Bork consensus”. A lot of the issues we face WERE developed through regulatory capture rather than legislation, led by Robert Bork under Reagan. If you don’t want to use that power for anything, feel free, but I’m going to evangelize using every tool available. And these are pretty big ones.

      • batmaniam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        This was sort of my impression to. Like I loosely liked him, but couldn’t really tell you what he’s directly responsible for. Which isn’t a bad thing on its own and doesn’t mean he wasnt doing a good job, just that I don’t know much about him.

    • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would disagree. The only reason the last woman to run for president failed was because she was Hillary Clinton. If she’d have been virtually anyone else, she’d probably have won.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Anyone under the age of 50

    Why? Because they will have the energy, experience and ability to take on such an important position.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t think that there are any that I would back 100%. There are a lot that I could support 90% or more, like Sanders and Warren. Even AOC.

    OTOH, I also strongly believe in 2A rights–in addition to freedom of/from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, etc.–and there simply are not any Democratic candidates that I’m aware of that support 2A rights. They always say, “I support 2A rights, but…”, and that “but” immediately precedes ideas to restrict 2A rights in significant ways. (“I support 2A rights, but I just don’t think that anyone needs a gun other than a muzzle loading Kentucky long rifle.”)

    In short, I’ll never support any Republican more than, at most, 40%. I have yet to find any Democrat that I can support more than 90%.

  • toomanypancakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Maria Branyas.

    I think age is important, and Biden just didn’t have the necessary life experience to be a successful candidate 😉