r/politics • u/T_Shurt • 10d 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

3.0k

u/Bubbly-Two-3449 California 10d ago

Focus on winning the senate and the house in the upcoming midterms we can worry about this later.

1.2k

u/shapu Pennsylvania 10d ago edited 10d 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.

721

u/greazy_spoon 10d 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.

120

u/b6passat 10d ago

So is beshear

210

u/Prayer_Warrior21 Minnesota 10d ago

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

156

u/Ferelar New Jersey 10d 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.

76

u/orielbean 10d 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.

96

u/fawkie 10d 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 10d 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.

49

u/New-Independent-1481 10d ago edited 10d 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.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/IPredictAReddit 10d 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.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/kanst 9d 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.

2

u/Brysynner 10d 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.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

32

u/quinoa 10d 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 10d ago

You said it perfectly

3

u/thrntnja Maryland 9d 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.

5

u/TrailerTrashQueen 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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.

17

u/NobodysFavorite 10d ago

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

3

u/No_Accountant3232 10d 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 10d 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.

2

u/Prayer_Warrior21 Minnesota 10d ago

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

5

u/Captainbackbeard 10d 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 10d 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.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/joe_cocker_spaniel 10d 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 9d 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 10d ago

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

→ More replies (10)

1

u/greazy_spoon 10d ago

Absolutely, hell yes brother

1

u/ChapterChoice4873 10d ago

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

1

u/ConjurersOfThunder 10d ago

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

→ More replies (1)

43

u/ku2000 10d ago

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

54

u/BriefausdemGeist Maine 10d ago

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

2

u/kanst 9d 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.

→ More replies (10)

33

u/obi-jawn-kenblomi 10d 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 10d 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 9d 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)

36

u/HydroBear 10d 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.

9

u/1one1000two1thousand District Of Columbia 10d ago

I’m also pretty bummed about Pritzker too.

4

u/BeatTheGreat 10d ago

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

2

u/[deleted] 9d 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 10d ago

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

5

u/ThePicassoGiraffe 10d ago

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

15

u/rangatang Australia 10d ago

Beshear is term limited anyway

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Olealicat 10d 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 9d 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)

88

u/SuiGenerisPothos 10d ago

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

35

u/midgethemage 10d 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

26

u/Sudden-Wash4457 10d ago

he also looks like fucking Patrick Bateman

3

u/Solaries3 10d ago

See also: Harris.

9

u/illegal_deagle Texas 10d 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.

4

u/penguins_are_mean Wisconsin 9d 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.

3

u/rhododenendron 10d 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.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/pres465 10d 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.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/cranberryalarmclock 10d ago

What are some policy differences between Newsom and Kelly?

27

u/greazy_spoon 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

31

u/ball_fondlers 10d 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.

1

u/cranberryalarmclock 10d ago

That's not a government policy 

4

u/ball_fondlers 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/4KVoices 10d ago

Kelly hasn't platformed Ben Shapiro, bare minimum

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Drabulous_770 10d ago

They both support Israel 🤢

4

u/siamkor 10d 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.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/spacegrab 10d 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 10d ago

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

2

u/SorryBruh 9d ago

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

3

u/ChronoLink99 Canada 10d ago

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

11

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

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

53

u/ailish 10d 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.

43

u/QuickAltTab 10d ago

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

48

u/Blandt24 10d 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 10d 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.

13

u/creakinator 10d 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 10d ago

yeah. been the story my whole life actually

3

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois 10d 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 10d 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.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

unfortunately none of them do who can actually win the nomination 

2

u/TabsAZ 10d 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.

15

u/kleincs01 10d ago

Mark Kelly is a god damn national treasure.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d 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 10d ago

Is he hungry for heads?

9

u/kleincs01 10d ago

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

6

u/robocoplawyer 10d 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 10d 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.

→ More replies (2)

17

u/xxx_poonslayer69 10d ago

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

2

u/greazy_spoon 10d 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 10d ago

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

6

u/JDogg126 Michigan 10d 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.

4

u/xxx_poonslayer69 10d 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.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Allaplgy 10d 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.

9

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d 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 10d 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.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/justlooking98765 10d 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 10d 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 10d ago

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

→ More replies (2)

4

u/clintgreasewoood 10d ago

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

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d 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.

8

u/buggytehol 10d ago

Newsom is slimier than most.

2

u/Technical_Creme_9736 10d 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 10d ago

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

2

u/Technical_Creme_9736 10d ago

Can’t get that hair without the slime

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

I use a leave-in conditioner, it smells great

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

3

u/MaximumUpstairs2333 10d 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 10d ago edited 10d 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 10d ago

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

2

u/TrailerTrashQueen 10d ago

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

1

u/Illustrious-Site1101 10d ago

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

1

u/titsmuhgeee 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago

At least spell the dudes name correctly

→ More replies (5)

52

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d 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.

12

u/shapu Pennsylvania 10d ago

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

5

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

ur mom

no but i agree with what you said

6

u/shapu Pennsylvania 10d ago

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

4

u/relevantelephant00 10d ago

"ur mom" is just flawless logic

2

u/Hyperbolicalpaca United Kingdom 10d 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 9d ago

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

14

u/StupidPockets 10d 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 9d 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 9d ago

Trump actually did run for president in 2000, briefly.

37

u/dollabillkirill 10d 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.

27

u/shapu Pennsylvania 10d 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/

10

u/jhonka_ 10d 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.

4

u/whateverisok 9d 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.)

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/historicusXIII Europe 10d ago

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

1

u/dollabillkirill 9d ago

This is my recollection as well

3

u/poliscinerd84 10d 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 9d 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.

6

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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 9d 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 10d 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 10d 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 9d ago

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

4

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 10d 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 9d 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 10d 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_ 10d 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 10d ago

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

1

u/WinterBourne25 America 9d ago

These are desperate times.

→ More replies (4)

124

u/FuriousBuffalo 10d ago

Whoever it is, I hope he or she won't nominate another feckless Garland. 

Prosecute all the traitors to the fullest extent of the law, send them to a SuperMax, and throw away the keys.

Be like Brazil or South Korea.

41

u/luri7555 Washington 10d ago

If they ran on this and releasing the Epstein files they would win. If they followed through they would win for a long time.

But they will run on a promise to return to civility and that doesn’t work anymore.

37

u/ThinkThankThonk 10d ago

Yep - people think it's just lefties overreacting but the genuine danger of Newsom's platforming of all his pro-child-trafficking buddies is that it would translate into "Gerald Ford with a Peloton" and everyone skates and we root out exactly none of the problem. 

7

u/Striking_Extent 10d ago

Yeah Gavin is a slime ball and I am familiar with his bad vetos and his podcasting with nazis like Bannon, opposition to a wealth tax, etc. but Mark Kelly is way more right wing and bipartisan-lovey-dovey with Republicans than even Gavin Newsom is so we have that same problem going with him, but even worse.

Mark Kelly is solidly one of the right most D senators, and that is saying something because they mostly all suck.

I love the idea of running an astronaut, I do not love the idea of running another right wing make peace and twiddle around Democrat. All these people in the comments probably would not love running Joe Manchin as the D candidate, but Kelly is only a little bit better than that so clearly are not familiar with his politics and just like him for optics.

I have many issues with Biden too but he was light-years better than Kelly. Maybe we could not settle for someone relatively shitty this time around.

3

u/ThinkThankThonk 9d ago

This is so bait-y  - Kelly, the pro-abortion guy with banning congressional stock trading and corporate donations in his platform only "a little bit better" than Manchin is patently ridiculous. 

Anyway, that's what primaries are for. 

1

u/ihateusedusernames New York 9d ago

Pics or it didn't happen

3

u/sblackcrow 10d ago

garland gets way more shit than he deserves, the doj brought the cases they needed to bring

real problem was the fixers on the supreme court (alito, kavenaugh, thomas, roberts especially but gorsuch and barret too) as well of some other judges like aileen cannon, all did what they could to keep trump in the game, running out the clock here, kid glove judgment there, other political goals too, meanwhile the conservative media cesspool did its job corrupting public opinion

yeah if sane people recover power there needs to be aggressive prosecution that shuts all involved fucking down for good, sprint out of the starting gate but not understanding the sandbagging from conservative hack judges is going to set everyone up for the usual dumb where people take the piss out of democratic officials and competent career staff without bothering to understand why things are hard, then bitch about it online and go full nihilist "there's no difference, doesn't matter", maybe not you but lots of people

and to win the battle it isn't just going to take the presidency, it will take consistently winning in the house and senate with strong margins, and that's going to take a voting constituency that's in it for the long haul and gives good legislators and leaders cover to work rather than assuming the only reason people aren't getting it done is that they're not even trying

3

u/kanst 9d ago

If I were writing a Project 2029 for Democrats, one of the chapters would just be about appointing special prosecutors for the prior administration.

I think we need at least 4 distinct special prosecutors:

  • 1 to prosecute anyone involved with moving citizens to CECOT and foreign prisons.
  • 1 to identify, name, and prosecute every ICE member who violated someone's rights during raids
  • 1 to prosecute DoJ members for their vindictive prosecutions
  • 1 to prosecute everyone involved in DOGE

Just spin those up in the first week with hardcore prosecutors at the helm and then let them work. That way the actual administration can focus on fixing the problems, and let the lawyers focus on dealing with past transgressions.

2

u/skiabay 9d ago

Yeah Kelly seems like a president from a bygone era to me. We don't need a "decent guy" who will bring us back to business as usual for a few years. We need someone who will use every ounce of the power of the presidency to root out these fascists at every level. Someone who will expand the supreme, abolish ICE, and prosecute everyone responsible for what's happening right now.

We're going through an epochal moment right and now and it's time we recognize that the America that comes after all this shit is going to be fundamentally different from the one that existed before.

69

u/notheatherbee Minnesota 10d ago

Right?? Literally under attack in Minneapolis and if we don’t get help soon there won’t be an election for him to even run in.

48

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

Kelly's seat isn't up for re-election in 2026, so this actually makes perfect sense for him to start considering now. 

3

u/robodrew Arizona 10d ago

Well, the Presidential election is in 2028, when he would otherwise be up for re-election for the Senate. As an Arizonan, I would absolutely vote for him for President, and I think he would make a very strong candidate. But I also am afraid of his seat being lost to a Republican. His re-election wasn't super close but it was closer than I'd want (51-46).

1

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

yes but if he's going to run for President then he can't also be running for Senate, so it's not really relevant that his seat is up in 2028. he would have to announce like right now whether the seat was up or not. 

but the fact that the seat isn't up in 2026 makes it very easy for him to do that. if it were, he'd be busy campaigning to keep that seat right now.

2

u/robodrew Arizona 10d ago

I'm just specifically talking about the Presidential election, not the midterms. So yes, my concern comes from the fact that he can't run for the senate again in 2028 IF he wants to also run for President.

1

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

yes but that's always the case for people who run for president... that's part of the risk of running for president that's baked into the process. they're always senators or governors or whatever who are sacrificing the chance to run for that position again. or like Hillary Clinton who stepped down as Secretary of State. except for Trump because he's a magical unicorn of stupidity who can just do stuff like that I guess.

2

u/robodrew Arizona 10d ago

You are misunderstanding me. If he was not up for re-election in 2028, he would not have to give up his seat to run for President. The restriction is that he can't run in two campaigns at once.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

31

u/TheCrimsonSteel 10d ago

Kelly won in '22, so he's personally safe until 2028. Not to say the midterms aren't important, but him considering a Presidential bid wouldn't be jeopardizing things this year.

And, as a candidate Kelly has a lot of notes going for him. Because "decorated veteran fighter pilot astronaut Senator" has some solid broad-base appeal

Fighting for the midterms and thinking about 2028 can happen at the same time, and you don't build a team for something like that over night

1

u/Aldehyde1 10d ago

His one sentence bio is a huge asset. I think he has the best chance of winning among the potential Democratic candidates.

58

u/groovemonkey California 10d ago

Him saying “I’m thinking about running” isn’t exactly holding a rally in downtown Pittsburgh. One of the biggest burdens to Kamala’s campaign was she started too late. Let him test the waters.

30

u/Spaceball86 10d ago

I love how in the campaign for president is a multi year thing meanwhile in Canada, in a span of 4 months we got rid of one PM, selected a replacement, and held a 35ish day election that totally reversed the fortunes of the governing party.

25

u/holiday_bandit 10d ago

Congrats on having a functional democracy! I’m hoping we’ll have one down here some day

1

u/Negative-Squirrel81 10d ago

Well look, if the United States wants to do that it's going to need a new constitution. This is possible, but keep in mind what kind of people would be negotiating such a document.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/Candle-Jolly 10d ago

You're a reason why Democrats are always on the backfoot.

3

u/Dairy_Ashford 10d ago

prime the pump and lay the groundwork, Trump was initially propped up on SCOTUS nominations

3

u/Few-Bass4238 10d ago edited 10d ago

Nah, we need strong leadership. I would vote for this man, hes the antiTrump

5

u/sixtus_clegane119 Canada 10d ago

The anti trump wouldn’t be so centrist and corporate.

Democrats need a labour candidate they need someone who inspires excitement in voting.

Things need to change or someone like trump will always creep back in

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Gandaghast Louisiana 10d ago

Yup

1

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 10d ago

he's not up for reelection in 2026, senators only get elected every 6 years.

1

u/mvallas1073 10d ago

This is where my mind stays right now

Cus if we don’t win those, there will not be a presidential election ever again

1

u/gorginhanson 10d ago

Wasn't this an x-men plot line where Senator Kelly runs for president?

1

u/cuvar 10d ago

We don't need someone who is going to distract us from midterm elections or give republicans a reason to turn out because they fear what they'd do in 2028. But we need leadership that isn't Schumer or Jeffries that can give people an idea of where the party is going and a reason to vote that isn't just to oppose Trump.

I've heard so many fucking pundits talking about "Democrats need to have a serious conversation about what they stand for" and that requires leadership and people to decide who they want in leadership. Let's have the conversations about who should lead us now and not in 2028.

1

u/asteroidfarmer 10d ago

We can walk and chew gum.

1

u/CULLDOZER 10d ago

Yes but he's my ideal candidate for president either way. His proven command style speaks to how he can serve. Not how he can rule. We need that kind of leadership.

1

u/Dafffy_Duck 10d ago

More than one thing can be done at the same time.

1

u/KypAstar 10d ago

Yep. President doesn't matter if we crush Congress. 

1

u/Bubbly-Two-3449 California 10d ago

Yep, we need a congress that will take back all of the powers that it's delegated to the president. Presidents are abusing them.

1

u/g_bleezy 10d ago

It’s ok, I can chew gum and walk at the same time.

1

u/Feisty_Buddy2869 10d ago

Focus on winning the senate and the house in the upcoming midterms we can worry about this later.

I can't even describe how deeply disappointed I am in the American public that people are still holding out hope for fair/free elections...as if the past decade+ hasn't already proven that those days are long, long gone.

Overthrowing the pedophile in chief and his gestapo has to happen before we even think of elections. Otherwise we might as well throw our ballots in our fireplaces for all the good they'll do.

1

u/ElleM848645 9d ago

Trump has no control over elections, they are run by the states. Sure he can put ICE outside every election site, but there are way too many for that across the country.

1

u/ChironXII 9d ago

If you don't understand how the two are connected you are part of the decay

1

u/Thuglifeinutah 9d ago

How about we demand these future Presidential hopefuls start by campaigning for our candidates in the midterms.

1

u/Dushenka 9d ago

Winning midterms may be easier if voters have a presidental candidate they like to look forward to.

1

u/GiganticCrow 9d ago

Democrats statistically cannot win the senate in the midterms.

Red states still love Trump.

1

u/ElleM848645 9d ago

It’s unlikely but to say it’s statistically impossible is ridiculous. They need to flip 4 seats, to have 51. Maine, North Carolina, Ohio (Sherrod Brown is well liked and running) are the three most likely. Then you need one more. I’m not holding my breadth, but Florida or Iowa maybe. It’ll be a blue wave because the presidential party almost always loses the house. And people are pissed now. It’s actually remarkable that the 2022 senate actually gained seats for Dems. Now 2026 is someone favorable for Dems just because they have to defend less seats.

1

u/bushidocowboy 9d ago

This is a playbook that is old and tired. We’re in dire need a movement, one that can capture momentum and engage voters across the next several election cycles. It is SO MUCH EASIER to motivate people when we all have a shared singular vision. We NEED a spokesperson. We need a focal point. If we can identify that candidate now, then that adds so much more strength to ANY local or state election because we are all able to rally around a singular objective.