84
I’d vote vote for anyone (Mark Kelly) over anyone who protects pedophiles. Plain. Simple. Straightforward.
Honestly, I'm just happy if theres an alternative to Newsome. Kelly isnt a progressive, but hes not a full blown corpo shill that the DNC would happily shove down our throats if unopposed.
Either the next president will be a Democratic Socialist, or it will be a fascist. Democrats need to get back 20% of their base, plus the margin they need to pick up in the places they need to make up the differences they'll need to win the big house.
Ask yourself this without looking at this announcement: Can a corporate Democrat do that?
I'm telling you now, either the next president will be a Democratic Socialist, or the Republicans win. No amount of glazing liberals is going to make them capable of winning an election.
load more comments
(17 replies)
He might have to clarify a lot of his stances to get widespread support. For examples,
he opposed the Republicans tax bill giving cuts to the rich, but he has no comments on Kamala's proposed unrealized gains tax for the rich
he has a 100% scorecard from reproductive freedom advocates, but exactly how far he supports bodily autonomy and by extension trans rights is unknown
Sadly one thing he has been clear and consistent on is when the war in gaza began several years ago, he supported aiding Israel and moving a carrier group to threaten Iran and Houthis into deescelating. He still as recent as January promises to continue "aiding" Israel despite acknowledging the carnage.
Honestly, I don't like the idea. But he's a little better than Newsom and he's 10,000x better than Trump.
So basically, just another dem. I'll vote for whoever wins the primary, but he probably wouldn't be my first choice.
I will vote for anyone that promises to hurt Republicans
Personally, what I am hoping for is a ticket with AOC as president, and Mark Kelly as vice. He can help AOC with military issues, while she can guide the nation towards some flavor of Democratic Socialism.
I think we will see a civil war, so we definitely need a military expert in a major role. Kelly should do nicely.
And I will seriously consider voting for just about anyone else left of him in the primary. No offense to him, he seems like a very solid dude, but the time for half-measures, centrists, and people that believe institutions will save us is well beyond over.
You nailed it on the head. If AOC runs, I’m absolutely voting for her. If not, Kelly seems a lot better than Newsom.
Yeah Kelley seems to be a centrist with a soul. I don't want another fucking centrist but I really must insist on a candidate with a soul
Ya I'm not compromising. Leftist or nobody
You are the reason Trump won.
LMAO if even you clown. I played it safe with the Democrats non nominee the last two times Trump won. They still had their asses handed to them.
Done playing it safe. I do blame Trump's victory on The pro Palestine protest voters though. Maybe you should be mad at them. They stayed home. I at least tried. You're a fucking joke. This isn't reddit noob This isn't a safe space for dem neolibs
I love AOC, I think she's the future of the country, but please please PLEASE do not nominate another candidate with a vagina in 2028. We're just not ready for that.
I am selfish as a New York State resident and want to keep her, and give her Chuck's seat in 2028. Maybe after a term or three in the Senate we'll be ready to elect someone without a penis as President.
What utter BS. We have progressive women winning races in the house and Senate so the problem isn't having a damn vagina. The issue is the last two women presidential candidates were neoliberal jackasses that had crappy policies and dismissive attitudes toward their electorate.
Sure be selfish and say you want to keep her representation local but piss of saying a woman can't win and then say don't even try.
The Presidency is a bridge too far, though.
Ask yourself: why did Joe Biden, of all people, win, where Clinton and Harris didnt? It certainly wasn't because he had fewer "crappy policies" than they did.
America, as a whole, is simply too misogynistic to elect a woman as President right now but, they are at least self-aware to know they can't say that out loud. So we get excuses, instead, like "I don't like her laugh" or "I just don't agree with her".
My favorite was a dude who said "I can't vote for Harris, she reminds me too much of my ex-wife". At least he's honest.
Yeah, going to call bullshit again here.
Let's take a look at the 2016 election
Popular vote was 65 million Hillary to 62 million to Trump.
Let me repeat here, Hilary, the vaginal candidate, WON the popular vote.
She lost because she didn't listen to Sanders and other Democrats that told her don't do your quixotic Southern strategy and listen and talk to your disillusioned working class voters in the rust belt.
And because she's was a stubborn, neoliberal ass hat that thought she knew better, she lost the electorial college.
As for Harris, fuck, there's so many things she just did wrong along with Biden.
So again, with all due Internet respect, get out of here with your anti woman BS and America as a whole won't elect a woman. We just need a non-shitty neoliberal one.
Both she (and Harris) lost because their votes were not in the right zip codes. Biden got those votes. Biden was not a magically better candidate than either woman. There's only one explanation that makes any sense at all.
Some voters may not even be aware of it. They might not even realize they are giving male candidates the benefit of the doubt, while assuming the worst about female candidates.
Did anyone ever say they couldn't vote for Bill Clinton or GWB because they didn't like the way they laughed?
Okay, so let's get some data behind your Ludacris' Area Codes Theory of Misogynistic Voting caused the loss of the 2016 and 2024 elections then.
You're anecdotal evidence of some guy who said they would never vote for Hilary or that one guy who went and said they didn't like her laugh, the only thing that proves is that America has people that are misogynistic, which of course is true, but isn't proof of your premise that women can't win elections. I can point out people that said they wouldn't vote for her because Harris was black but that doesn't provide enough of a basis that she lost due to racism. Anecdotal stories does not equal causation.
Here's some more supporting evidence that Americans are becoming more open to women in office.
https://www.genderontheballot.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-GOTB-Deck-c4_release.pdf
Some highlights because I'm sure you won't read:
- four in 10 Americans personally know someone who would not elect a woman to the White House
- 83 percent of people polled think it's important to elect more women into office.
- 82 percent are open to a qualified woman candidate for president.
So again data allows that women still have a hurdles but supports that a woman can win the presidency and I'll continue to vote for a qualified progressive women in the primaries to counter your misogynistic vote.
AOC does not move me honestly. I would vote kelly over her. Maybe yang.
Ew
He seems ready to fight, and seems fearless. He has my vote if he starts demanding trials, convictions, and jail time for the traitors and pedophiles.
ITT: People placing their hopes on a presidential race when they don't even know if they are even going to be able to have a legitimate rollover on the midterms.
Worker led revolution please this system doesn’t serve us.
I am hard pressed to think of a democrat I would vote for in a primary over him.
A lot of lefties going to complain about his support for israel, even if modest. But honestly I cannot see another viable candidate in the wings. We have a couple years still but things are getting scary in terms of actual prospects and we're going to have to throw our hats in with someone (other than Newsom) so Kelly is probably going to be a great bet, he appeals to the largest swath of moderate America who are tuned out and just want to hear that someone strong and professional will keep them in their comforts, and he has enough established clout with the legislative branch that he already has political capital, they won't be afraid of working with him.
And he's seen Earth from space, and had to be a caregiver for a wife who was the victim of a political assassination attempt, I imagine that builds all the best kind of character and empathy.
Yeah that was something before trump got in but for democrats like myself the only thing that matters now is getting our house in order. Even then it was not like my top concern more of a hey why are we even involved in this bs but now its something that just is not part of the equation for me. I mean its a strange comparison but its somewhat like obama. Character, intelligence, ability. Honestly the age thing is likely the biggest factor but hoowee compared to we have been having he will still be a pup but who knows how the next two years will go.
i like mark kelly and gabby would be a fantastic first lady but please not right now; we need a radical to clean up the mess.
We need a Warrior, who will go after MAGA's crimes likes it's personal. I don't care who it is, old, young, man, woman, black, white, anybody, everything else is on the back burner. We can't get this country on any kind of a track until we ruthlessly crush MAGA, purge it from our government and our country, and harshly punish them for their crimes. Only then, can we start to make plans to redeem our Nation in the eyes of our citizens, the world, and history
I'll vote for anybody who pledges to make that their primary priority as POTUS.
Remember MAGA chanting "lock her up"? We need that energy now for the Democrats, lock Trump up ... imprison all of these corrupt pieces of filth and seize their grifted assets.
I'm totally with you, brother.
So if he wins he will be at retirement age when he is starting? Are you sure he is old enough for American voters?
He's not nearly senile enough
Honestly I'd love for him to run in the primary against a progressive.
He's left of center centrist to be sure but miles ahead of that slimy ass Newsome.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
84 points (98.8% liked)
politics
29617 readers
123 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS