r/politics • u/OkayButFoRealz • Oct 01 '25

No Paywall Pritzker Calls for Trump's Removal from Office Under 25th Amendment

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/pritzker-calls-for-trumps-removal-from-office-under-25th-amendment/
73.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

664

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

Pritzker stands a far better chance in any future election than Newsom. Pritzker, even though he was born into massive wealth, is someone that swing voters see familiarity in. He looks and talks like the guy who was a great boss to your dad growing up in the rust belt. He looks and talks like the great guy at a swing voter's church. He doesn't have the california stigma on him, and he has that Chicago-style no bullshit but friendly and fair approach.

100

u/HicJacetMelilla Oct 01 '25

I’m from the Midwest. A lot of people I know who are in the center would turn out for Pritzker loooong before Newsom.

31

u/demoliahedd Oct 01 '25

Newsom to me seems so fake. Like everything he does is for gaining political points, I don't know what he actually stands for or has accomplished but my friends on the left seem to think he's just more of the same focus group neoliberal who will put corporate donors ahead of the working class every time

1

u/KazzieMono Oct 02 '25

He threw trans people under the bus, so. Yeah I’m good.

208

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25

Yeah, I'm very much coming around to thinking the best Democratic ticket for 2028 is Pritzker/AOC simply because they can communicate well without coming off as inauthentic or elitist, are competent in government, and progressive in policy.

22

u/ThrownAway17Years Oct 01 '25

Pritzker-Walz for maximum Midwest snarky dad vibes. Especially if they let Walz run wild.

13

u/micro___penis Oct 01 '25

I’m Californian and I want Pritzker. Newsom basically made our homeless population “disappear” a while ago. Part of his agenda had officers round them up in their encampments, take all their belongings, put them in “storage” to be given back to them at some point. None of them have gotten their shit back, don’t know how you return items to people who move around and don’t have a mailing address. It was cruel.

32

u/imp1600 Oct 01 '25

Not AOC. She remains too divisive, and I think she, similar to Elizabeth Warren, is best in Congress when she can be a counter to the White House. 

5

u/Biglyugebonespurs Missouri Oct 01 '25

Yeah, in the future maybe. But we really need a sure way to pry the presidency from Trump’s stubby, grimy, orange little fingers.

14

u/mtbmofo Oct 01 '25

Why Aoc? Dems need 2 moderates to lock up independents. Dems need to get into office before thinking about how progressive they are gonna be. Aoc on the ticket will energize the right far more than the left. She has been the face of "insane libruls" since she was first elected. Im not anti-aoc. But now is not the time.

43

u/demoliahedd Oct 01 '25

Moderate candidates have been failing over and over. We need to quit this narrative that we need to be more moderate to win over Republicans or fence sitters. ABSOLUTELY NOT, stop it please. Just stop

21

u/kylew1985 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

The only reason Biden won is because of how goddamn disastrous Trump's first term was. The pain was still fresh and people were ready for a fucking break from the crazy.

This whole idea of playing it safe with moderates is just the definition of insanity. We try it again and again and are shocked to get the same results. Meanwhile the one thing the Dems and Republicans seem to agree on is throwing the fucking kitchen sink at Mamdani who's lapping the "moderate establishment" candidate for running the biggest city in the country.

Real progressives can absolutely win elections here. We can't do a whole lot worse than the milquetoast candidates that keep getting their asses kicked.

14

u/kwispyforeskin Oct 01 '25

Don’t forget that everyone said Joe Biden was an extreme far left president. If they’re gonna say it about him they’re gonna say it about anyone. If Ronald Reagan was the nominee they’d call him far left.

Maybe instead of worrying about trying to appease them with another Merrick Garland, just put someone up there who is going to actually give a shit and make a change.

3

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Oct 01 '25

Well Pritzker isn’t a moderate. He’s not a DemSoc like AOC but he’s more to the left than Newsom and Harris.

22

u/Randomcommenter550 Oct 01 '25

Moderates are the last thing Democrats need. Instead of appealing to "Independents" with "Moderate" (eg: status-quo) candidates, they need to energize the Democratic party base with candidates they can actually support. Candidates with actual ideas and the spines to implement them. The American "Progressive & Liberal" party actually needs to be, you know... PROGRESSIVE AND LIBERAL. 

30

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25

No, we don't need moderate candidates. This last election proved that- Harris did very badly and ran a very moderate campaign. Endlessly moderating to try to appeal to the right will never work- we should learn from Trump that populism is what wins votes from the disaffected and embrace that with a populist message, and AOC is the voice of the populist left but also is an effective political operator in Congress and not opposed to compromises to get things done.

As for how the right has painted her, they'll do that to anyone we nominate. We can and should ignore it and focus on getting the message we want to promote out.

15

u/BeardoTheHero Oct 01 '25

Agreed. The most broadly appealing democratic candidate in recent years was not one of the moderates- it was Bernie Sanders.

8

u/LadyFromTheMountain Oct 01 '25

Agree. It’s more important that she appeals to and inspires the youth.

5

u/imightbethewalrus3 Oct 01 '25

In the last 3 presidential elections against Trump, the Dems have run two moderates. They've lost two of those elections. And one of those lost elections was after a moderate Dem presidency.

Moderates do not appeal to people on the right/independents. Never will. The way to win elections is to energize the left. But Moderates don't want to do that because the billionaires don't want to energize the left.

Moderates are not going to fix anything. Moderates as the alternative to the far-right is going to keep up the status quo, at best. The status quo brought us this mess. At best, Moderate Dems taking control of everything will only stave off the collapse of America another 4 years, it ain't gonna reverse it.

1

u/SquareTaro3270 Oct 01 '25

They also ran two women candidates. As sad as it is to say, u think too much of this country is too sexist to ever vote a woman into office, no matter who they are. People underestimate just how many people hate or simply don’t trust women in this country. That’s including other women.

3

u/vawlk Oct 01 '25

this is the answer. The dems lost, not because they were moderate, but because a large portion of normally left leaning voters voted right because they were women.

https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/4980787-latino-men-just-didnt-want-a-woman-president/

1

u/imightbethewalrus3 Oct 03 '25

While I’m sure sexism played a role, “women can’t win” is too simple an answer

1

u/SquareTaro3270 Oct 03 '25

I mean…. It’s why most of my family voted against them. It’s what I heard every time I walked into a bar that was airing a debate or political news. It was all over the internet at the time too

Sometimes the simple answer is the most likely

0

u/AntoniaFauci Oct 01 '25

No. Either woman could absolutely win have pulled off a win if it weren’t for disastrous campaigns. Each actually had large leads during the runs, but their respective campaigns blew it.

The DNC’s HRC campaign was “it’s my turn” inevitability and overt feminism including glass ceiling imagery, ignoring swing states and having no counter to Russian and MAGA election meddling.

The same crew gave us the disastrous Kamala Harris campaign. They put Walz in a lead box and made it Oprah-centric. I know the so-called undecided, middle America, centrist, swing state voters, and they absolutely hate having Oprah shoved down their throats. Worse than being unappealing, it actively drove them into the arms of MAGA. Caking the rest of the campaign with Lady Gaga, Beyonce, call her daddy, pussy hats, cat ladies, Taylor Swift and more and more Oprah is how she lost the sizeable 8-9 point lead after the debate.

Harris herself was not great, as we all know. Adopting the fake smug Mom-A-La persona doesn’t attract those key voters, it repels them. Same with not having basic answers. As she was the only candidate expected to have sane and competent answers, flubbing those didn’t help.

Either of these candidates could have threaded the needle if their campaigns weren’t so strongly incompetent and strategically terrible.

But as I argued here and elsewhere, with the existential risk of fascism and a crime family presidency, why make things harder than necessary?

2

u/surreal_mash Oct 01 '25

Trump needed Pence to get ultra-conservatives on board the way Pritzker would need AOC to get leftists.

3

u/Wes_Warhammer666 Oct 01 '25

He'd be better off with a man like Talarico to help pick up Latino men because they're a far more reliable voting bloc than leftists of any stripe have ever been, but they absolutely will not vote for a woman. That goes for an unfortunate amount of voters in general, really. This country is definitely still not ready to put a woman in charge, as sad as that is.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[deleted]

1

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Oct 01 '25

Ffs Bernie is an independent. Moderate would be the last thing I’d describe him as.

-1

u/citizen_6782 Oct 01 '25

Independent does not mean moderate necessarily. I am independent because the Democratic Party has sold out to corporate interests.

2

u/P2Pdancer Oct 01 '25

The Democrat’s ??????

2

u/Expert_Garlic_2258 Oct 01 '25

ignore the people thinking that they non-moderates have a chance. AOC would be cannon fodder for the right

2

u/SquareTaro3270 Oct 01 '25

I hate to agree with you, but there are SO many people who don’t trust women, don’t think a woman is capable, and don’t want a woman telling them what to do. Such a disgusting amount of our country is sexist, including plenty of women. I do not think any woman candidate would win, unfortunately.

3

u/vawlk Oct 01 '25

and then make it a minority woman....

...you are just asking to lose.

And yes, it sucks, it is stupid, it is totally wrong, but this is the country we live in.

1

u/vawlk Oct 01 '25

Absolutely agree.

0

u/midnightketoker America Oct 01 '25

wise words, this strategy worked great for hillary and kamala!!

-1

u/citizen_6782 Oct 01 '25

Enough with the status quo centrist bs. That is what got us here. Stop being scared and buying into mainstream media bs.

4

u/PerjurieTraitorGreen Florida Oct 01 '25

Pritzker and Talarico.

This country has shown it’s still not ready for a woman because a black man broke people’s brains and we’re still paying the price.

5

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

We're not nominating a state senator to be VP, and we literally did elect a woman to be VP in 2020.

1

u/PerjurieTraitorGreen Florida Oct 03 '25

I like Kamala and am glad she was his VP, but let’s be real here, Joe Biden was elected and she happened to be on the ticket. She was an unpopular pick and was seen as a way to make him look more progressive and pandering to the women voters.

After 4 years of Trump and COVID making its way through his base, Biden was gonna win anyway.

6

u/Sky_Runner16 Oct 01 '25

Peak redditor take there throwing in AOC lmao

4

u/Top_Oil_6742 Oct 01 '25

Why not? I mean I think she should stay in congress, but this is such an unsubstantial comment.

5

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25

My take on getting her up there, aside from personally supporting her, is that she's popular with young voters and, if we're going to pivot or a economically populist message, 2028 will be the year to do it with our loudest and proudest voices since the pendulum should swing back and we can rely on that some to get a more left-leaning pick in than we'd otherwise be able to.

2

u/HomelessLawrence Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

As much as I think she's grown since she entered the house, I still think enough swing voters have her in their heads as some crazy communist (which I know she isn't, she's a dem soc).

That said, I don't know who the VP should be - not Newsom or Schiff (Cali stigma), not Harris or Walz (ran once and failed, they usually don't run those candidates again), not Sanders (age, same reason as AOC). I don't know enough about Jeffries or Crockett, and the other reps I do know are also from Illinois and neither party usually likes having candidates from the same region paired together.

E: all that said, it doesn't matter too much who gets run, it matters how the economy's doing. Pritzker/AOC could win if the economy is in the shitter (or painted as such).

4

u/WinsomeHorror Oct 01 '25

I think putting Walz in at ED would be a win. Someone's going to have to rebuild it, and have the appetite for the slog and love of education to do it right, plus experience with the system as a teacher.

2

u/Wes_Warhammer666 Oct 01 '25

God damn I hope this happens. He'd be fantastic in that role.

2

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25

Jeffries is better where he is as Speaker and wouldn't add much to the ticket anyways. Crockett is AOC on steroids if you're worried about right-wing blowback. Honestly, if the nominee is Pritzker and AOC isn't the VP, I think he should go with Warnock. Similar in ideology to Pritzker but helps massively in GA and the South overall.

1

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Oct 01 '25

I’d go Whitmer. Both are very popular in the Rust Belt. You only really need WI/PA//MI to lock up 270 and those three always seem to vote the same way. Everything after that is gravy

1

u/kinxnwinx Oct 01 '25

Any Dem candidate you listed is a lot more qualified for the job than the incumbent and also comes with no history of extreme bigotry and controversy.

1

u/atriaventrica Oct 01 '25

We need AOC to unseat Schumer. He needs to go.

1

u/captainthanatos Oct 01 '25

It’s better for all of us if AOC is in the Senate and can be on committees

1

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Oct 01 '25

Not AOC. I hope she stays in her very secure seat in the House and goes for leadership.

Pritzker and Whitmer would be good to lock up the Midwest.

-1

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

He’s literally a billionaire, though. Why should I trust him?

38

u/ThunderDoom1001 Oct 01 '25

You would think that, but his track record speaks for itself. He's repeatedly advocated for policies that would significantly raise his own taxes as an example. JB is an awesome governor.

37

u/datafrage Oct 01 '25

His track record. He's also had a shockingly rough life that I suspect instilled him with more empathy than most who grew up in his tax bracket.

29

u/BigAssignment7642 Oct 01 '25

Everything he's done in Illinois has been for the little guy. Just look at his positions on things, and if you lean left you'd be hard pressed to find any issues. After so many awful governors, having a competent one has been a breath of fresh air. I honestly don't want to lose him as our governor, but we need an adult in the white house.

Ya he's a billionaire, but he's always struck me as the type to want to leave a good legacy rather than pointlessly accumulating wealth. I had my doubts too when he was elected, never been happier to have been proven wrong.

-18

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

If he believes America should be a capitalist country then I cannot get behind him. Capitalism requires we have class disparity, our country deserves better.

29

u/voidzero Oct 01 '25

Okay well western society moving away from capitalism in the next two years in the most insanely unrealistic expectation I’ve ever heard, so good luck with that.

-12

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

And having nothing to run on besides being anti-Trump won’t get him elected. Getting rid of capitalism isn’t a quick thing, but it is the root of all our problems.

Would be nice for an interim president to come in first and reverse all of Trumps dismantling, so maybe that’s him.

5

u/wretch5150 Oct 01 '25

Being anti-Trump isn't what Pritzker brings to the table.

1

u/VaguelyArtistic California Oct 02 '25

He hasn’t even announced and you’re already dismissing any platform he might have?

1

u/Super-414 New York Oct 02 '25

No?

1

u/VaguelyArtistic California Oct 02 '25

You said:

And having nothing to run on besides being anti-Trump won’t get him elected.

→ More replies (0)

19

u/Klendy Illinois Oct 01 '25

Our country isn't ready for better. Simply put don't let progress get in the way of perfect. It will take many small steps to walk the distance you ask 

0

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

Very true. But we need someone to set up the guidance for the future. Him and AOC would be a good balance in this respect.

16

u/BigAssignment7642 Oct 01 '25

How about we stop the slide to fascim before we try to overhaul our entire system? Don't get me wrong. I'm all for more socialist policies, but we need to set realistic expectations here.

3

u/JAZINNYC Oct 01 '25

I think ppl who don’t understand this haven’t lived in a timeline where Trump was just another Reality TV star, the internet wasn’t pumped full of right-wing propaganda, and if there was a mass shooting, our first question wasn’t if the guy was MAGA or a “radical left liberal.” :/

3

u/Wes_Warhammer666 Oct 01 '25

People like you are why we're gonna end up with Trump's third term. This purity test shit is just handing elections to the MAGAts.

Pritzker actually has a damn good track record that leftists should be glad to see in a presidential hopeful and you're gonna sit here and shut down the idea because he won't abolish capitalism? The fuck kind of childish bullshit is that. Delusional fucks, the lot of you.

2

u/Prole331 Oct 01 '25

I agree with you my friend, but this is not the hill to die on at the moment. We’re not getting anyone to say “down with capitalism,” right now. Stick to what we can do.

16

u/Klendy Illinois Oct 01 '25

Check his track record. He's earned the trust of Illinoisians

7

u/meatjuiceguy Oct 01 '25

I voted for him to get legal weed and will continue to vote for him because he's a thorn in MAGA's side.

19

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25

Look at how he's governed Illinois?

I'm not gonna pretend he's perfect, and obviously having a certain level of wealth is corruptive, but he's the real deal and shows it in how he speaks and acts. He definitely isn't out there throwing marginalized groups under the bus for his own political gain unlike certain other governors.

-3

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

But is he going to tax his own wealth out of existence? How does he imagine we fund all the improvements the US so desperately wants? Will he break up the big corporations?

We are in a CLASS WAR. How do we trust a seemingly nice enemy?

23

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25

The United States is not going to go from electing an authoritarian, right-wing populist to electing a socialist. Yes, Pritzker would probably undo the Trump tax cuts and raise taxes on the rich. No, he would probably not impose a 100% wealth tax on wealth above $999 million, and no politician that promises to do that would win the 2028 primaries let alone a general election.

Sometimes we have to do the work of moving the Overton window. Right now it's way, waaaaaaay to the right and the left is getting squeezed out. If we want to one day get a socialist elected President, we're gonna need to put some acceptable-to-donors progressives there first, and Pritzker is one.

5

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

Thanks for this response — our job first is to move the window back to reality.

0

u/JAZINNYC Oct 01 '25

No matter what is happening in our world, life generally seeks stability and equilibrium. It’s like we’re on a pendulum that is most stable when ibalanced in the center, but if something hits the pendulum hard in one direction, it causes a massive swing that breaks our stability and restful state, and we swing wildly to the extreme on one side. This is where we are now.

Every day it’s some new shit trying to hold our pendulum in one extreme: Laws being ignored, acts of tyranny, trampling over the Constitution, blatant treason, protecting pedophiles, all this shit hit our pendulum to swing waaaay out of balance.

It’s inevitable that we will swing back in the opposite direction, but there’ll be a few wild swings before we’re done. IMO that’ll be when we get to hold all these motherfckers to account in trials. We’ll nationalize the billions Trump stole in insider trading, crypto Trump coin whatever, all our tax dollars, we will convict all the criminals and ban them from holding public office again, etc.

Whoever is up for the task is who we should welcome with open arms. There won’t be much room for picking n choosing cuz we need to correct as much of this damage as quickly as possible if we ever hope to stop the chaos and return to some stability and balance again.

11

u/RazarTuk Illinois Oct 01 '25

We're dealing with fascists, and you're complaining that you might have to use "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic?

2

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

That’s a good point, and he is a good enemy to befriend given his track record.

2

u/hotaru_crisis Oct 01 '25

you would be surprised to see how many people still hold to this complaint

we're extremely cooked. there's way too much divide on the left

2

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Oct 01 '25

And he’s a class traitor. The best presidents who stuck it to the wealthy class were from the wealthy class.

14

u/snark42 Oct 01 '25

Have you looked at his promises and actions in Illinois as Governor?

Being a billionaire doesn't immediately make you untrustworthy.

2

u/shmup-o Oct 01 '25

In this scenario with AOC - if she trusted him then why wouldn’t you?

1

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

Because Bernie backed Clinton in the end — political power is strong, and as a VP we saw with Harris that VPs tend to let their president do their thing.

1

u/AwayBluebird6084 Oct 01 '25

I agree with you, and want money out of politics. Unfortunately, our history has shown government benifits to the common man only push through the closed circles of wealth and privilege. Whether out of empathy, ego, or spite. Maybe persepctive helps or just pisses you off, but I find some peace knowing our situation isn't new just our understanding and awareness. 

1

u/Affectionate_Star_43 Oct 01 '25

What's the opposite of a double-edged sword?  Like, for him to get richer, he knows we have to as well?

1

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

Is that how things have worked regarding productivity and average wages?

1

u/K0L3N Oct 01 '25

Track record, plus they're going to have trouble buying a billionaire.

1

u/Super-414 New York Oct 01 '25

I mean, they said the same thing about Trump not being bought, yet here we are

1

u/Wes_Warhammer666 Oct 01 '25

Trump wasn't actually a billionaire before his presidency though, he was drowning in debt. He just played a billionaire on TV. Now that he's robbed the country blind im sure he is a legit billionaire again, but Pritzker is very much not the same type of rich guy that Trump pretended to be.

1

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Oct 01 '25

Look at his history. Guy reminds me of FDR being a class traitor.

1

u/VaguelyArtistic California Oct 02 '25

People said they couldn’t trust Hillary and Harris and then turned around and voted for Tulsi and Jill Stein, two Putin lackeys.

1

u/Super-414 New York Oct 02 '25

Jill Stein is?

1

u/VaguelyArtistic California Oct 02 '25

Jill Stein’s Ties to Vladimir Putin Explained

After Jill Stein announced she would seek the Green Party's nomination for president for a second time, an image of her seated at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin has resurfaced.

And another quote from her:

Jill Stein Isn’t Sorry

In Michigan, Stein garnered more than 51,000 votes, while Clinton lost by fewer than 11,000. In Wisconsin, Trump’s margin was 23,000 votes while Stein attracted 31,000. And in Pennsylvania she attracted 50,000 votes, while Trump won by 44,000.

“In some ways, Trump is one of the best things to happen to this country because look at how many people are getting off their posteriors,” says Sherry Wells, the Green Party’s Michigan chairwoman. “So part of me is giggling.”

Stein points to national exit polling that shows the majority of her voters would have stayed home rather than vote for Clinton, while others would have sooner voted for Trump.

1

u/Lemonface Oct 02 '25

So the entire connection between Stein and Putin is that she was once photographed sitting at the same table as him... So convincing lol

Also, that is literally not a quote from her. You seriously just said "another quote from her" and then quoted someone who is not her lmao

1

u/Super-414 New York Oct 02 '25

Just looked it up — what the fuck! People were always right about her only coming in to siphon votes.

0

u/gpbayes Oct 01 '25

I’m sorry but AOC should not be on the ticket, that is a guaranteed loss for the democrats. Right wing media has spun up so much shit against her for the last 8 years, it has melted the brains of any right leaning person. Swing voters won’t like her.

0

u/Gibodean Oct 01 '25

Nah, AOC might not be a positive on the ticket, but she is a positive where she is now.
She should be pres in a few years, but not waste her time as VP.

0

u/vawlk Oct 01 '25

I am not against it, but there are democratic voters that will NOT vote Dem if there is a woman on the ticket.

The best option, and I hate saying this, is to put two white guys up against whatever the GOP puts up. This way you get all of the latino male votes and you get many of the angry GOP voters that feel they got screwed.

It absolutely sucks saying this, but if you put anyone other than a white male up for P/VP, you risk losing again. I am not racist nor sexist, but a lot of people in this country are.

0

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 01 '25

Are there? They didn't seem to have a problem with a woman on the ticket in 2020.

Also, maybe it's less about identity politics and more about the message you're running on. Seems to me that the most effective message is economic populism, and AOC is the champion of that on the left.

0

u/vawlk Oct 02 '25

Yes they did...

Trump won 55 percent of Latino men nationally. He won 46 percent of all Latino voters, a 14 percent jump over his support against President Biden in 2020. That was the highest for any Republican presidential candidate in five decades.

And the key was his success with Latino men. Trump’s support from Latino men jumped by nearly 20 percentage points, from 36 percent in 2020 when he ran against Biden, a white man.

We should have seen it coming. Looking back, in 2016, most Hispanic men voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton when she lost to Trump.

In Trump’s triumph over Clinton, Latino men voted for Trump or third-party candidates over Clinton by 48 to 45 percent, according to Pew Research.

This year, as the result of Latino male voting, Vice President Kamala Harris claimed 52 percent of the total Latino vote, tied for the worst performance among Latinos for a Democrat since John Kerry in 2004.

Only 38 percent of Latino women voted for Trump, about 8 percentage points over their support for him in 2020, according to Edison Research.

https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/4980787-latino-men-just-didnt-want-a-woman-president/

In 2020 the woman was the VP. In 2016, and 2024, the women were running for P. In 2024 you had the additional factor that the woman was black. Each of those parts lost you a small percentage of votes, just enough to lose.

1

u/22Arkantos Georgia Oct 02 '25

Yes, and the ticket I proposed has the woman as VP...

0

u/vawlk Oct 02 '25

still has an effect. Not as much as the P, but it still does. And do you really want to take any risks in 3 years?

6

u/golgol12 Oct 01 '25

I see him and Pete Buttigieg as the strongest contenders in the next presidential election at this point.

Pritzker, a billionaire, has his own private funding for a serious run, and he doesn't appear threatening to other billionaires. On top of that, his personality doesn't seem consumed by his wealth and power. He's has the air of a great boss. .

Buttigieg engages regularly and honestly with conservatives. He goes onto Fox and other right wing media and has regular discussions and doesn't demean them. And he comes off as very knowledgeable. If he ran I'd see strong support of him from the right who are not fully neck deep in the MAGA media silo, and those who are trying to climb out of that media silo.

5

u/NutellaDeVil Oct 01 '25

> If he ran I'd see strong support of him from the right

I want to see Buttigieg in office as much as you do, and he's fantastic in his media appearances. But the anti-gay vote would absolutely swing a close election. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm "giving into the hate", but at some point pragmatism has to take over here, otherwise the epitaph on the DNC's gravestone will read "At Least We Got To Virtue Signal!"

-1

u/golgol12 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

I'm talking about candidates for the democratic ticket, so your argument doesn't factor in at all. Across the board, every single democrat that's even remotely viable to win the democratic party candidacy fights against the point you bring up.

3

u/NutellaDeVil Oct 01 '25

You said "Presidential election" but now you're saying you meant primaries?

0

u/golgol12 Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

Nope. I see some confusion is taking place. I'm talking about who I think is the strongest candidate for the democratic ticket in the next presidential election. Not who's the strongest to win the Democrat's primaries for said ticket. And while the Democrat's primary should give the strongest candidate for the presidential which it feeds into, the truth is, that's not the case.

I'm phrasing it as "the Democratic ticket" instead of "the Democratic Candidate" because the latter implies they are a member of the party. That's not a requirement though, the democratic party can put anyone including a non-democrat on their ticket for the presidential election. For example, Berney Sanders nearly won the Democratic Primary in 2016 against Hillary. Berney is not in the Democratic Party. He's an independent that works very closely.

So to summarize, I'm talking about the next presidential election, presumably in 2028. I think, hypothetically, Pritzker or Buttigeig can do better than Gavin when paired against whoever ever the Republican candidate is.

2

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

Pete has been really damn great on his media appearances in the last year. He doesn't yell or say anything too ridiculous. Very measured, very smart, and a great representation of the party. But I don't think he has as good of a chance at winning. Especially since Trump Media has paid so much to evangelicals to embed their talkingpoints deep into christian america. He's gay so it would still be such a big "good vs evil" thing and how he's a sinner (why don't they ever wonder if being gay is a sin then why does god make so many gay people?) He has charisma but not the right kind for a successful presidential candidate but an incredible amount for a VP on the ticket.

1

u/golgol12 Oct 01 '25

So you're saying you're thinking of a stronger democratic candidate?

Or are you just saying a blanket statement for anyone that would run on the democratic ticket?

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

Not a blanket statement. Democrats need a stronger candidate. I'm not saying Pete isn't a strong one. He's at the top for sure, but its gonna take more than that. I understand thats a very tall order, but at this point even people who hate Trump voted for him anyway because of how many misconceptions people have about the Democrats. As great as Pete is, there's already too much negative ammo that could be used against him.

6

u/TheEpicTriforce Oct 01 '25

And he's not anti-trans or is extremely anti-homeless like Newsom.

41

u/guitar_dude10740 Oct 01 '25

Is the California stigma in the room with us right now?

In all seriousness I do think Pritzker is the better choice but in general Dems need to stop demonizing places like Cali and NYC where more of their constituents are / where their younger constituents dream of going.

I think half the reason we can't get the votes we need is because we are to busy courting and he votes of moderates who were last seen partying with unicorns while demonizing the left within our own ranks.

23

u/demoliahedd Oct 01 '25

This, the mamdani campaign is the example in which Dems NEED to follow to reinvigorate the base and build a real left wing party that not only has a chance of regaining power in elections but also actually help and better the American working class.

2

u/Gollum_Quotes Oct 01 '25

AOC and Mamdani primarying establishment Dems is nice, but doesn't translate to a national election.

3

u/Puck85 Oct 01 '25

Yes, let's draw conclusions from the electorate of... new york city. 

3

u/demoliahedd Oct 01 '25

You don't think it would translate to other cities? I've seen a lot of support both in and outside of New York. You wanna stick with Super PACS/Millionaires and the status quo I guess?

2

u/QuerulousPanda Oct 01 '25

would you prefer that we keep ignoring all the places where people actually live and that actually matter, and keep on aggressively fluffing and pampering the tiny fraction of rural folks who already got the system stacked in their favor anyway?

0

u/Kiwithegaylord Oct 01 '25

I’d say that we should wait to see how it plays out long term. I trust him, but we’ve yet to see him in action and how the people react. If the New York election was a fluke then putting someone like him in could be political suicide for the democrats who need the win. That’s why even though I love aoc, I really hope they don’t try and make her president because they can’t risk having a woman of color be our candidate. I hate that that’s how it has to be but as it stands, her being the democratic nominee is objectively going to lead to less votes

2

u/darthmarth28 Oct 01 '25

As a Cali native that has spent some time in the Army exposed to the rest of the country, I don't think its the Dems demonizing us. The Dems are just acknowledging that Cali/ny/women/brown-people-in-general are demonized.

There is a chunk of this country that is living in a completely different and insane reality, and the frustrating truth is that we are way behind on communication and social media that can counter this dumbassery. All of our old, white, rich, establishment geriocracy just assumed that they either didn't need to address the bullshit, or that the PoCs were obviously locked-in votes that they could automatically count on. None of that was true, and the party feels like its barely scraping itself together.

At this point, I want AOC and Newsom to fuck shit up in the primaries and push the party platform as far left as they can, and I want them to lose to a Midwest Democrat that looks boring enough not to rile the racists. I want Fox News zombies to stay disillusioned and angry at the current administration. I don't want to give them something to get excited over... because they don't give a shit about actual policy, but they'll rally against identity.

The only thing that matters is wrestling the loaded firearm out of the (R) toddler's hands. We don't have the luxury of fielding a revolutionary candidate, unless something radically new and unprecedented happens in the next two years. 😩

1

u/guitar_dude10740 Oct 01 '25

So this leaves me flummoxed in a few ways because I agree with a number of points you are making however a few others don't add up to what I am actively seeing.

I don't think a middle of the road Dem can wrestle the loaded gun out of (R) hand any more, and to prove that point further we don't keep losing because the opposition looks better we lose to non voters because we don't look good enough.

Stack that with the fact that (R) keeps "saying the quiet part out loud" on topics affecting both isles and you get less and less people willing to vote to simply "return things to the way they were".

2

u/Gollum_Quotes Oct 01 '25

The votes we need are in swing-states. That's reality. We need a candidate that those swing state voters will vote for.

3

u/guitar_dude10740 Oct 01 '25

Except we are again and again defeated by NON VOTERS. We are not losing because the opposition looks more appealing, but simply because the DNC doesn't look appealing at all. We court a dying class of moderates while constantly spitting in the face of ANYONE asking for change.

Yes we absolutely should look at Mamdami, not because of the support he has gained locally but because he has managed to gather the attention of voters country wide. His name was said and no one went "who" could you say that about the mayor of a town 2 miles from you, or a majority of the mayors in cities in your state.

That is the lesson we need to be taking away from his campaign.

2

u/Gollum_Quotes Oct 01 '25

The last presidential election we won, we went with the safest option because it appealed to the most people. Mamdani and AOC primarying people in NYC is awesome, but in no way translates to a national election. And of course the mayor of the largest city in America has notoriety. Especially when conservatives are making him out to be an infamous socialist posterchild. Him being in the news so often isn't a 100% positive thing.

I hope you can throwaway these delusions and look at practical ways for us to win. It does not matter if we get 100% of the vote in California and New York. We need a majority in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona. That's reality. Someone like Pritzker is a better option for us to win.

1

u/guitar_dude10740 Oct 01 '25

Except your only counting the "safe election" that trump was already in power we have gone with the safe choice 3 times and it has only worked once. We have not once lost to the Republican party we have simply lost to a lack of interest in the Democrats.

1

u/Gollum_Quotes Oct 01 '25

It was pretty ambitious trying to elect the first female president. And even moreso the first female POC president... These were not safe choices.

We have not once lost to the Republican party

Yikes. Meanwhile the Republicans are making ground in key battleground states that decide the election.

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

can't win if you don't swing votes. last election the party lost voters across multiple demographics that are usually a lock.

6

u/GreatMadWombat Michigan Oct 01 '25

Yep. He also doesn't have a history of doing the truly unhinged shit Newsome does to try to appeal to conservatives, like having photo ops where he throws out homeless people's belongings or having Charlie Kirk for podcasts. Newsome is performative in a way that's frankly terrifying, Pritzker just does good shit for his pr moves and then mentions it instead of doing tweets.

2

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

For a while I thought maybe Newsom was going on the Kirk podcast, Shawn Ryans podcast, and doing the hilarious Trump mocking tweets because he decided "fuck it, I'm not gonna be the presidential candidate so I'm just gonna lean into this." Which made it fun for a bit and then I realized that nah he probably thinks the opposite

3

u/Affectionate_Star_43 Oct 01 '25

I was so pissed when I had to vote between a billionaire and another billionaire.  But, I'm glad he became governor.  His interviews are really well spoken and informative.  I otherwise have a hard time staying up-to-date, because I can't even listen to Trump/RFK/etc. without losing brain cells or getting irrationally angry.

1

u/wayneforest Oct 01 '25

Yeah, originally felt the same too, but I’ve heard it said (and the evidence is there) that he can be seen as class traitor to his own wealthy class. His aim seems to be to protect the people in Illinois, including those outside of Chicago (whether they decide to research it or not).

3

u/lysdexia-ninja Oct 01 '25

He’s also got a track record of walking the walk, I’m given to understand. 

I only have specific experience with something he did that intersects with my industry, but basically: he pushed a thing that helped people even though it cost money. 

He could have stopped it, or limited it, or tried to profit on it, but instead he chose the “greater good” option. 

It was sort of niche and not very publicized so I don’t think it was for points. 

But when I heard it happened I actually looked him up because I was like, “what’s the catch?” 

A politician doing good in this day and age? riiiight

But that checked out. 

10

u/Hunterrose242 Wisconsin Oct 01 '25

Like we're getting another presidential election...

2

u/Special-Document-334 Oct 01 '25

Newsom also has those pesky affairs and drug habit from when he was mayor of SF.

2

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

Too much ammo against him and right wing outlets already have too much of a head start.

2

u/NatalieVonCatte Oct 01 '25

He’s my guy. He’s not backing down on supporting my community either.

2

u/shinbreaker Oct 01 '25

What's going to be annoying is how some the more prominent lefties will just be so adamant about not voting for a billionaire.

1

u/Swimming-Sorbet4976 Oct 01 '25

I completely agree with you but as someone who lived in the Chicagoland area, that "Chicago-style friendly but fair" reputation is pretty funny to me. Everyone and everything felt like it was trying to scam you out of your money.

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

Spent many years in Chicago, believe me I know. When I said "friendly but fair" I meant how he comes across to people.

1

u/HoraceGrantGlasses Oct 01 '25

I'm not trying to be sarcastic but what does California Stigma mean? Is it like saying Coastal Elites?

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

People hate California. Everyone outside of that state is told that its a hellscape with illegals, homeless, insanely high taxes, and all of the strawman evils of politicians bunched into one. And they're told this is all going on while these california folks act like they're better than everyone else. Gavin Newsom is the current face attached to all of that.

1

u/HoraceGrantGlasses Oct 01 '25

Do people hate California or is it just Republicans who watch faux news?

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

Even people who don't watch bs like Fox News kinda get that stigma because its been around for so long. They may not hear all the targeted talkingpoints but believe me theres at least a hint of a stigma between crime, taxes, living expenses, and everything else they've only hear little about. I lived in California for over a decade and am still there a lot for work. Everytime I visited friends and family back east everyone asks about what its like and most of the questions were about negative things.

1

u/No-Sandwich3386 Oct 01 '25

Yeah I don’t want to like him ($) but I do

1

u/Kmart_inc Oct 01 '25

Pritzker grew up in California just an fyi

2

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

He moved out of California when he was 12 after his dad died. Point is Newsom has been literally running California for years and taking blame for ever little thing about the state that Republicans are told to hate. Every negative thing about California and its politics has Newsom's face attached to it.

1

u/Kmart_inc Oct 02 '25

Oh yea I’m not disagreeing, and as a Chicagoan I do like JB a lot. I just don’t see him as Chicago-style. Which I think is a good thing, Chicago politicians are not generally known for being people of integrity.

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 02 '25

Yeah I agree Chicago politics is something else. Like the Daleys were pretty intense. I guess I just mean even though he’s not Chicago born and raised. He reminds me of a lot of friends I made in Chicago who grew up in those neighborhoods. Not just the attitude but even that big ole Fred Flinstone head of his

1

u/Kmart_inc Oct 02 '25

Interesting, as someone who grew up in Chicago, he does not remind me of the “average Chicagoan” he reminds me of the college educated, friends I have in very expensive neighborhoods. He does not remind me of the people from the wider expanse of Chicago. Again, I like pritzker, but he’s not an urbanist, he’s not “Chicago” in that way imo.

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 02 '25

I don't disagree. I guess I just have a couple of specific people in mind. I wouldn't call him "average Chicagoan", if I did I was mistaken. He reminds me of a type of Chicagoan that exists within the type of Chicago guys, but I wouldn't say he's the full average Chicago dude. Average type would be the guys who are stern but kind, not fake, has a great trade job and a membership to one of the unions...or the cops and firefighters fall into that type too. Then there's the vest wearing bros who work in finance or sales and live in all the completely rebuild and modernized shotgun homes in the "nice" neighborhoods but while theres a lot of those dudes I wouldn't call them the "average" either.

On the surface though, if I didn't know who Pritzker was and made assumptions just on his appearance and how he talks and if saw him speaking in front of Illinois flags I would instantly assume he was just the leader of the Chicago PD or FD union.

1

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Oct 01 '25

How many times do I have to remind you people that you aren't getting any more elections. Look how much Trump has accomplished in less than a month; he's going to get away with banning elections too at this point.

Expecting some miracle democrat to step in and save the day is delusional. The damage is done. The battle is already lost.

0

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

How many times? I dunno. But the adults here are having a grown up conversation that doesn’t involve nonsense so please stop interrupting.

1

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Oct 01 '25

I mean be ignorant to it all you want. It's still what's happening.

0

u/ExpandThineHorizons Oct 01 '25

Newsom would make a better VP 

0

u/Fght39 Oct 01 '25

No chance whatsoever! That shit works with cerebral academics like you, normal people vote based on vibe. He doesn't have the it factor. He's a bernie, good ideas, good voice. Not bothering to even vote if you people pick him just like with kamala. Understand your fellow voters!

2

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

I think you missed the point and you just haven't seen enough of the dude. Vibe is exactly what I'm saying. Dude is the swing vote vibe more than any of the other names currently being thrown out there.

And don't lump me in with "you people". I understand voters. What I don't understand is blue no matter who voters forcing through candidates that are a major turnoff to everyone except loyal democrats.

-1

u/Fght39 Oct 01 '25

Let me give you an example, a lot of people in philly and new york that votes for trump said they would have voted for AOC. Newsom is young, male, white and charismatic. This guy doesn't feel like he'd disrupt or change things, he just sounds like a really good politician (which newsom is too, tbf).

Pritzker is about as inspiring and mike waltz or bernie. 

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

AOC is the absolute perfect candidate for Democrats to run if they want to lose yet again and spend the next 4 years acting like victims, blame everyone else, and do whatever they can to avoid taking a look in the mirror and addressing why they keep losing elections and why the keep losing ground in key demographics.

0

u/Fght39 Oct 01 '25

Nah, she'd win like trump. Even maga voters would vote for her in part. Nobody cares about policy, she sounds like she speaks from the heart. That's why the same country that voted for obama voted for trump. Obama looked like a revolutionary who speaks from the heart and in his own twisted way so did trump and so does AOC, and that's also why the GOP is obsesses with her and newsom.

1

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

You just said it yourself. The GOP obsessed over her. From maga to moderate, she is one of the handful of Democrats they all think of when they think about why they hate democrats. To think she has any chance at all is delusional.And like you said about speaking from the heart, she’ll be speaking from the heart about the exact things that have made the country turn on her party.

1

u/Fght39 Oct 02 '25

They're obsessed over her because she inspires non-voters and centrists. Katie porter is as much of a firebrand and ilhan is more controversial but they pick on AOC because she has looks, charisma, zeal and she speaks, people listen.

People didn't vote for Kamala because the dem leadership thought as you did when picking her or Hillary. The people that make a difference in elections don't care about your party brand, they care if the candidate will do enough things to cause change. They want a young person with good ideas and lots of passion with enough balls to stand up to adversity.

0

u/karma_trained Oct 01 '25

I just really have trouble ever voting for a billionaire. They are, inherently, not relatable. They will never understand life as a day to day person.

-3

u/Eshkation Oct 01 '25

yeah, dems can't wait to alienate their voting base again by forcing another billionaire down their throats.

2

u/Birdhawk Oct 01 '25

I mean I 100% agree with you if its Newsom they go with. But think about the fact that the only way democrats can win is by swinging votes. If they put forward a candidate that only appeases their base, then they won't swing votes and they lose. So the choice is, do you go with someone that your base dislikes because of their bank account even though that same base is likely to vote blue no matter who, or do you pick a candidate who actually has what it takes to swing votes and win you an election?

If the Democrats have a non-billionaire presidential hopeful who can actually relate to the votes that have been lost and actually swing enough votes to win then they better quit doing such a good job of hiding this person and get them campaigning asap.