United States Politics Thread 47

[malloc]

Platner has suspended his senate campaign. Good riddance to bad rubbish, if nothing else. He had some good policies but also an entire catacomb in his closet.

[Ares Land]

I'm also skeptical of how long not allowing people to say things actually works. If we allow the right to dominate populist discourse, will that actually help the left? The problem with this post is that it seems to assume total social control as the default position. We can't stop Trump-like figures from talking. If the way they talk works, we can only emulate them or not. We can't determine the total state of society from the top and make everyone behave to begin with. This seems to be a problem with the way many smart people think. They think you can tell humans to do the right thing, and they will listen. The reality is that they won't.

Populism is at heart, telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it makes sense. How does that help?
Electorally it would work in theory, except that the right-wing has a twenty year headstart.

But let's assume the left could make it work (even though it can't): a left-wing loud narcissist telling people what they want to hear isn't much of an improvement over a right-wing one.
People assume you can have the big loud mouth without the character issues. I don't think it works that way.

I'm just like everybody else is that I want my side to win, but not at the cost of having to root for an incompetent narcissist.

[zompist]

But let's assume the left could make it work (even though it can't): a left-wing loud narcissist telling people what they want to hear isn't much of an improvement over a right-wing one.
People assume you can have the big loud mouth without the character issues. I don't think it works that way.

I'm just like everybody else is that I want my side to win, but not at the cost of having to root for an incompetent narcissist.

It's ironic reading Orwell's comments about the 30s and 40s, because things seemed to be reversed. In general right-wingers might be evil but were competent and understood how power worked, while (Western) left-wingers were completely irresponsible and had no idea how to actually do things.

Basically a reminder that history is fickle, and expecting things to stay the same forever, whether in good times or bad, is foolish.

[Ares Land]

It's ironic reading Orwell's comments about the 30s and 40s, because things seemed to be reversed. In general right-wingers might be evil but were competent and understood how power worked, while (Western) left-wingers were completely irresponsible and had no idea how to actually do things.

Basically a reminder that history is fickle, and expecting things to stay the same forever, whether in good times or bad, is foolish.

Do you have a reference? Orwell's comments seem interesting but rather surprising. Arguably 1930s right-wingers projected competence, better than the left - but it's a perennial problem; there's always a sense that the left is not legitimate.

In actuality, the far right was incompetent. Mussolini didn't really make the trains run on time; I don't think the fascists were good at anything but street violence. The Nazi state was a swamp of bureaucracy and favoritism that was only good at destruction and genocide. Franco did better in that he stayed in power - and I suppose that's who Orwell was thinking about (it's a measure of success, I guess) but kept his country impoverished.

[Raphael]

Do you have a reference? Orwell's comments seem interesting but rather surprising. Arguably 1930s right-wingers projected competence, better than the left - but it's a perennial problem; there's always a sense that the left is not legitimate.

The standard Orwell piece on the time would be the pamphlet "The Lion and the Unicorn", which, written during the, from the British perspective, scariest time of World War 2, argued that a socialist revolution in Britain would be necessary to give the country any chance of winning the war, because fascism was supposedly so efficient, socialism might be efficient, too, but conventional conservatism was hopelessly inefficient. History hasn't been kind to that idea, to say the least, and as you point out, fascism wasn't that efficient. And I think in the text, he sometimes mistakenly describes things, both good and bad, as typically English, that existed and sometimes exist in some other countries, too.

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part14

A bit earlier, there was "The Road to Wigan Pier"

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200391h.html

Both works, like most of Orwell's writings, are written from an "I think the Left is mostly right on most things, but it would be better if they'd drop their more nonsensical aspects" perspective.

[zompist]

It's ironic reading Orwell's comments about the 30s and 40s, because things seemed to be reversed. In general right-wingers might be evil but were competent and understood how power worked, while (Western) left-wingers were completely irresponsible and had no idea how to actually do things.

Basically a reminder that history is fickle, and expecting things to stay the same forever, whether in good times or bad, is foolish.

Do you have a reference? Orwell's comments seem interesting but rather surprising. Arguably 1930s right-wingers projected competence, better than the left - but it's a perennial problem; there's always a sense that the left is not legitimate.

Try "England,Your England", or his essay on Kipling. His dispatches during the war are also good.

In actuality, the far right was incompetent. Mussolini didn't really make the trains run on time; I don't think the fascists were good at anything but street violence. The Nazi state was a swamp of bureaucracy and favoritism that was only good at destruction and genocide. Franco did better in that he stayed in power - and I suppose that's who Orwell was thinking about (it's a measure of success, I guess) but kept his country impoverished.

You can be incompetent and yet succeed for a few years-- a lesson for Trump-worshippers. But even that wasn't clear in 1941, when both those essays were written. Things looked pretty different when fascism had taken over most of Europe and only the UK resisted. (The US of course only got started in 1942.) And Orwell had faced the fascists in Spain, at a time when it was easy to conclude that only the totalitarians, of both kinds, were efficient.

[Raphael]

An interesting take - not sure I agree with it - by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, arguing that the Democrats in the USA don't really have a single "base". It's half-way pay-walled with a gift link by him himself, so just to be on the safe side, I guess you should go to his Bluesky post and then from there to the piece itself:

https://bsky.app/profile/joshtpm.bsky.s ... aejp7vtk2q

To quote:

The closest thing the Democratic Party has to a base is Black people. They make up between 20 to 25% of its voters. Their attachment to the party is consistent, intergenerational, communal and deeply embedded in historic strategies of communal self-protection going back well over a century. But a quarter of the party’s voters is still not that large. And even more important the Black community is still very different from the rest of the Democratic Party — demographically, ideologically, religiously and combining these all together just in terms of historical and present-day lived experience.

To pick just one of potentially countless examples, white liberals are among the least churched people in American society. Black people are among the most churched. And they are key pillars of the same party.

One can also argue that the modern Democratic Party is a basically female party. Its voters are disproportionately female. Its mores, iconography, ideas about power, aggression, empathy are increasingly gendered, whereas the GOP is increasingly organized around a kind of hyper-masculinity, or, less generously, rapists. But again, this can’t be a party base since a huge minority of women consistently vote Republican. And the partisan split is heavily dependent on race, religiosity and marriage.

To the extent that anything unites these groups it is that they, as groups, at least historically, are mostly outside the country’s core centers of power.

Why does this matter? Certainly every party or large societal group has various factions and pressure groups. It matters because lots of groups have the sense that the Democratic Party is fundamentally theirs or that they should have some pride of place in its direction. But in a purely descriptive sense this is simply not true. And that leads to what we might call chronic discourses of betrayal running through all its factional struggles.

On a linguistic note, this is not the first time I see it (I think), but I still find the use of "churched" as an adjective interesting.

[bradrn]

arguing that the Democrats in the USA don't really have a single "base".

But then neither do Republicans, though, I’d say? To me this is simply the inevitable result of a two-party system — everyone is forced to align themselves across a single division, no matter how many natural groups they actually form.

[zompist]

arguing that the Democrats in the USA don't really have a single "base".

But then neither do Republicans, though, I’d say? To me this is simply the inevitable result of a two-party system — everyone is forced to align themselves across a single division, no matter how many natural groups they actually form.

Yeah, in a two-party system a party is always a coalition. Republicans have their own divisions: theocrats, business, libertarians, MAGAhats, etc. They've provided ample evidence of this over the past two decades, and in fact the Reps in Congress are putting on a display of it right now.

I still find the use of "churched" as an adjective interesting.

I think "unchurched" is more common— Evangelicals like to use this for their targets.

[Raphael]

arguing that the Democrats in the USA don't really have a single "base".

But then neither do Republicans, though, I’d say? To me this is simply the inevitable result of a two-party system — everyone is forced to align themselves across a single division, no matter how many natural groups they actually form.

Yeah, in a two-party system a party is always a coalition. Republicans have their own divisions: theocrats, business, libertarians, MAGAhats, etc. They've provided ample evidence of this over the past two decades, and in fact the Reps in Congress are putting on a display of it right now.

Marshall's reply to that likely objection is to argue that the core base of Republicans are white conservative Christians. Yes, some Republicans are not white, some are not Christians, and perhaps there might even be some left who are not conservatives, but pretty much everyone agrees that in order to be a Republican, you have to accept that white conservative Christians are the people who are running the show there.

I still find the use of "churched" as an adjective interesting.

I think "unchurched" is more common— Evangelicals like to use this for their targets.

Thank you, interesting to know!

Perhaps a bit as a counterpoint to the above, Brian Beutler has a post, unfortunately on Substack, laying out a general theory of how the history of the last 20 to 30 years in the USA led to the current rebellion of many Democratic Party primary voters against their own party's leaders: https://www.offmessage.net/p/insurgency ... d?r=6t55js

[bradrn]

unfortunately on Substack

What’s wrong with Substack, if I may ask?

[Raphael]

unfortunately on Substack

What’s wrong with Substack, if I may ask?

A lot of people see it, effectively, as a Nazi bar: https://werd.io/leaving-the-nazi-bar/

[bradrn]

unfortunately on Substack

What’s wrong with Substack, if I may ask?

A lot of people see it, effectively, as a Nazi bar: https://werd.io/leaving-the-nazi-bar/

That feels weird to me. It’s always struck me as being as a hosting service more than a form of social media.

[Raphael]

A lot of people see it, effectively, as a Nazi bar: https://werd.io/leaving-the-nazi-bar/

That feels weird to me. It’s always struck me as being as a hosting service more than a form of social media.

Among the people I follow online, there are both some who see still being on Substack as completely beyond the pale, and some who still are on Substack. That makes me have conflicted feelings about the matter. The sort-of compromise I've agreed on with myself is that I'm still willing to read stuff there if it's interesting or informative enough, but I wouldn't pay for a subscription there. But I'm not trying to tell anyone that that is the "correct" stance. That's why, when I link to something on Substack that I find interesting, I try to give people a fair warning, just in case that they're stricter on the matter than I am.

[zompist]

Yeah, in a two-party system a party is always a coalition. Republicans have their own divisions: theocrats, business, libertarians, MAGAhats, etc. They've provided ample evidence of this over the past two decades, and in fact the Reps in Congress are putting on a display of it right now.

Marshall's reply to that likely objection is to argue that the core base of Republicans are white conservative Christians. Yes, some Republicans are not white, some are not Christians, and perhaps there might even be some left who are not conservatives, but pretty much everyone agrees that in order to be a Republican, you have to accept that white conservative Christians are the people who are running the show there.

One, I'd note that (these days) Americans always find the other party scary and monolithic. I've seen people from both parties complain that their own party is a circular firing squad. And one result of polarization is that party discipline is stronger for the Democrats than ever before, arguably stronger than for the Republicans.

Two, of course some people are going to be in charge, But we always have to remember that prototypes are not generalizations. A prototypical bird is a small songbird, but penguins, chickens, and ostriches exist. Maybe 75% of the time the internal divisions don't matter to outsiders; but the cracks are essential for actually understanding what the Republicans do, and more importantly what they can't do.

[jcb]

Mitch McConnell is possibly dead, and the Repubs might be hiding it to stop Thomas Massie from nabbing or disrupting the seat in a special election to fill the vacancy.
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art ... 27625.html
- https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2073623242162450709
- Edit, The Daily Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQNrPxiSJoE

Weekend at Mitch's, anybody?

[Raphael]

Mitch McConnell is possibly dead, and the Repubs might be hiding it to stop Thomas Massie from nabbing or disrupting the seat in a special election to fill the vacancy.
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art ... 27625.html
- https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2073623242162450709

Weekend at Mitch's, anybody?

Yeah, exactly!

[malloc]

What would it take to convince you that the situation is well and truly cooked for the US if the current wave of crises does not? In my estimation, if the Republicans win the mid-terms, that will mark the end of any hope of removing them. They will have the perceived mandate to force anything they want through and no reason to fear they will pay any electoral cost. Meanwhile the liberal opposition will become too demoralized to resist and fade into history.

[bradrn]

What would it take to convince you that the situation is well and truly cooked for the US if the current wave of crises does not?

Why should we want to be convinced of that? Do you want us to give up and stop fighting and just roll over and let the fascists win?

[Raphael]

Assuming for a moment that things are very close to being cooked, but not completely there yet...

This might really annoy some people, because to some extent it's the dreaded horserace way of looking at politics, which has done and is doing a lot of real harm. And it's very early for this anyway. And we don't know what might happen later this year. Or the year after it. Or the year after that. So this is all just hyper-premature sillines.

But, you know, I still just want to get all this off my chest. So here are some thoughts on possible 2028 US presidential contenders. Only Democrats for now. I may or may not snark about the other side at some point in the future.

I'm starting out from two basic assumptions: First, it's really very important that the Democrats win in 2028, and second, the Democratic nominee really really really shouldn't be Gavin Newsom. So I'll mostly judge potential candidates among the Democrats, other than Newsom himself, by three basic standards:

1. Could they beat Newsom in the primaries?

2. Could they win the general election?

3. If they end up as POTUS, could they actually achieve stuff and, then, get people to notice that they've achieved stuff?

That last part is important because, if there's a POTUS from the Democratic Party again at some point in the future, and if, then, that POTUS ends up being generally seen as a failure, then everything would be even more toast than it already is.

I'm mainly listing people I've seen talked about as potential candidates who seem plausible to me, plus two people who I think might be potential candidates whom I haven't seen talked about.

So, without further ado...


Gavin Newsom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom

Born 1967

Current and outgoing Governor of California; before that, Lieutenant Governor of California; before that, Mayor of San Francisco.

During the 2008 primaries, someone somewhere on the internet compared the Republican primary candidates of that year to various Buffy villains, and wrote that Mitt Romney would be really a lot like The Mayor. I think The Mayor's resemblance to Gavin Newsom is even more striking. (Romney himself, on the other hand, reminded me more of the teenage version of Principal Snyder from Band Candy.)

I can't really think of much to say about this guy that hasn't been said before. And I don't think I really want to, either. He's doing really well in the polls. Then again, so did Rudy Guiliani in the runup to 2008. Still, there's a very real risk that he might be the nominee. Brrrr.


Kamala Harris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

Born 1964

Former Vice President of the USA; before that, Senator from California; before that, Attorney General of California; before that, career prosecutor; lost the general election in 2024.

Unlike some other people, I don't really have anything against her as a person. I think she might beat Newsom. I think she might win a general election. But I'm not sure about either, because I'm not really convinced that she's good at getting people fired up.

And, given her, in terms of career and personality, fairly conventional background (her family background is a different matter), I suspect that, if she'd somehow end up in the White House, she'd eventually be perceived, fairly or unfairly, as a dud. Which would be very bad.


Pete Buttigieg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Buttigieg

Born 1982, which, back in 2020, made him the first half-way serious presidential primary candidate from my generation.

Former Secretary of Transportation; before that, a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries with a little bit of success; before that, Mayor of South Bend, which is a small city, or, if you have stricter standards in that regard, a mid-sized town, in Indiana.

Seems to have gotten himself a bit of a reputation for being blunt and outspoken about opposing Trump and Trumpism, which, other things being equal, would be good. But other things aren't equal.

My own bias here is that back in 2020, for a short time, I was quite excited to see someone roughly my own age make a serious run. And I don't mind that he jumped into the race right from the city hall, either. Yes, major politicians should have some serious relevant political experience. But spending years as the full-time mayor of an, at any rate, larger-than-tiny town meets that requirement, IMO.

Another factor is that I'm seriously annoyed about the attacks on him by various more-LGBTQ+-than-thou people for supposedly being The Wrong Kind Of Gay, apparently because he doesn't dress or style himself like a member of the Village People or something. While I don't have a dog in internal fights of the LGBTQ+ Community, I do hate it when the Cool Kids get very selective about who is or isn't allowed into their Super Secret Special Tree House. And this seems to be one specific case of that. Live and let live. It takes all types. Even the somewhat boringly conventional ones.

But, all that said, I can't get over the fact that he used to work for McKinsey. Yuk. Yuk. Yuk. I simply don't see anything good coming from someone with a background like that. And last but not least, the reports that apparently, during his time as mayor, he had fairly bad relations with the local Black community are a pretty big red flag. So no thanks, I guess.

In case anyone's wondering, his name's Maltese.


Ruben Gallego

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Gallego

Born 1979

Senator from Arizona; before that, Member of the House from Arizona.

Apparently one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls who threw trans people under the bus to show how Very Serious they are. Apparently made comments complaining about men in his party looking like women and women in his party looking like men. Though for some reason, as I write this, his Wikipedia page doesn't contain any information about what he did or said related to LGBTQ+ issues. Very mysterious.

Additionally, during the 2026 electoral cycle, he endorsed Eric Swalwell for Governor of California until Swalwell had to drop out over a rape allegation scandal, and endorsed Graham Platner for Senator from Maine until Platner had to drop out over a rape allegation scandal. This is starting to look like a rather disturbing pattern.

Enough said.


Mark Kelly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kelly

Born 1964

Senator from Arizona; before that, astronaut and Navy pilot; husband of former Member of the House Gabby Giffords, of "survived getting shot in the head by a mass murderer during an assassination attempt" fame.

Has been pretty clear in expressing his very low opinion of Donald Trump and the people around him. When he pointed out that under US military law as it officially stands, members of the US military are theoretically required to disobey illegal orders, the Trump Administration threatened to call him back up for active duty and then have him court-martialed. And given that his wife once almost got murdered by a man who, though his political views at the time were kind of a confused mess, had still emerged from the same fever-swampy parts of the internet which, not that much later, would produce major parts of the Trump movement, he clearly has a strong personal motive to seriously fight against Trumpism.

Has shown that he can get elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago. And yes, my inner little boy thinks the idea of an astronaut POTUS sounds pretty cool. Plus, Gabby Giffords as First Lady would be a nice fuck-you note to certain people.

But, well, while his actual policy stances are pretty good on gun policy, they appear to be rather moderate or conventional on everything else. I'm not convinced that this would either fly in the primaries or in a general election, and I'm not at all convinced that it would lead him to deliver enough good results to be seen as a success if he should end up in the White House. And as I said, I think it's very important that the next Democratic Party POTUS is generally seen as a success.

People might also argue that anyone who can get themselves elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago should stay in that office until they either want to retire or their voters get tired of them.

Fun fact: not too long before I wrote this, he posted a photo of his wife and himself at some kind of major public event on the internet, and one of the brilliant mastermind geniuses among the Republican-friendly internet influencers asked who the woman in the photo was, apparently assuming that Giffords had been in a coma since her assassination attempt and couldn't possibly appear at public events.


Ro Khanna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro_Khanna

Born 1976

Member of the House from California; before that, minor administration official in the Obama Administration and corporate intellectual property lawyer.

Judging from what I've heard about him, he seems to be to a large extent a corporate Democrat with a focus on carrying water for the tech industry, but with the additional secret superpower that he's fairly good at convincing some members of the Bernie corner of the political spectrum that he's one of them.

The focus on being tech-friendly might be inavoidable, given that his electoral district is basically Sillicon Valley, but then again, he originally won that district by beating a previous incumbent who seems to have had less of a reputation for being close to the tech industry in a Democrat-against-Democrat contest.

While I worked on this piece, he reported having been "detained" for a while by armed Israeli settlers in the West Bank when he visited a Palestinian village they had destroyed. This may or may not make up for his closeness to the tech industry in primary voters' minds.

Nevertheless, even aside from the question of whether he should be POTUS, I don't see how his career and political background would play well in the current anti-"AI" climate.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka AOC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

Born 1989

Member of the House from New York.

Probably no introduction necessary. Has been one of the main stars of the left wing of the Democrats for about eight years now. Self-described democratic socialist. Comes across as clearly pretty smart to most of those people who do not assume as a matter of course that someone with her political views couldn't possibly be smart.

Hm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmm. I'd say nominating her would be what's commonly called a high-risk high-reward move.

Her policy positions are too left-wing for my taste on security-related matters, but otherwise really great. And I think she's smart enough that she wouldn't do anything politically stupid in foreign policy. Perhaps most importantly, she's clearly a fighter. If she'd end up in the White House, she'd definitely do stuff. Even if she'd run into trouble getting laws passed, she'd still do as much as possible through executive actions. And she'd make sure that people hear about it.

But, well, nominating her would be a really big risk. Which might pay off - but then again, it might not. We'd be talking about a woman, a Puerto Rican, a self-described socialist, and someone in her late thirties trying to win a nationwide election in the USA. After her previous electoral experience was entirely in a very solidly Democratic congressional district in New York City.

Not to mention that during the 2026 electoral cycle, she pulled the "brilliant" move of both endorsing and praising an unrepentant Stalinist who even has some other pretty repulsive positions on top of being an unrepentant Stalinist. Not sure if she'll ever get rid of that albatross.

On the other hand, there do seem to be some people in her district who voted both for her and for Trump. To some extent, important divides these days are as much about establishment versus anti-establishment as about left versus right. And, there always seem to be substantial numbers of people who find it impressive if someone comes across as standing for something, even if they don't completely agree with that something themselves. So the risky move might work. But it would be a disaster if it wouldn't.

Reportedly, at one point, she posted a link to a poll showing her ahead of JD Vance in a hypothetical one-on-one contest for the US Presidency. That's a bit reassuring, but not that much. Beating JD Vance in a one-on-one poll among the general public isn't that impressive. I could probably beat JD Vance in a poll among the general public if I'd be an eligible US citizen. I'd just have to legally change my name to "Not JD Vance".

A smaller aspect is that it would be a very good idea if someone would challenge Chuck Schumer in the 2028 New York primary for US Senator. Some people might say that she should be that someone. She might want that - or she might aim higher right away. If she would challenge Schumer, she'd probably win both the primary and the general election. And the specific results, especially how well or poorly she's do in various not-solidly-blue places, could be an important indicator of what her chances at the nationwide level might be.

So, all in all, I have fairly mixed feelings about the idea of her running.


Jon Ossoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Ossoff

Born 1987

Senator from Georgia; before that, involved in documentary filmmaking behind the scenes; before that, congressional staffer.

Made himself a name for his outspoken opposition to Trump and Trumpism on social media. That's why I'm listing him here.

Has explicitly said that he doesn't want to run. But, well, as much as I like a lot of what I've heard about him so far, he's still a politician, so, you know, grain of salt.

Seems to be generally more politically moderate than AOC, but still a fighter. That might be exactly the combination that's needed, to stop Newsom in the primaries, to win the general election, and to avoid being seen as a failure if elected.

On some points, he's too moderate. He's opposed to abolishing ICE, for instance, and wants to base health policy on expanding on the ACA. Progressives would certainly hold that against him. Though he might, as they say, "evolve".

Then again, he has shown that he can get elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago.

Given that his mother's Australian, and that he used to be a dual citizen, he might end up getting hit with serious amounts of birtherism by the more evil clownish parts of the political spectrum, based on arcane interpretations of what the phrase "natural born citizen" means, despite the fact that, by reasonable people's standards, he's a white man.

Some people might suspect him of being too friendly towards Israel given that he's Jewish. Well, judging from his Wikipedia page, his record on the matter seems to be mixed. He's voted for some and against some other failed measures that had been intended to exert some pressure on Israel, and said some more worrying and some more reassuring (from the perspective of people who are critical of Israel) things. Perhaps another opportunity to "evolve".

It should be noted, though, that if he should end up as a household name, he'll probably get a fair amount of hostility from certain people in Israel. Partly simply because he's a Democrat, and has voted differently from how they would have wanted him to vote on some occasions, and partly because he's from a mixed marriage - he himself became Jewish when he converted in preparation for his bar mitzvah, and he's Reform, so many Israelis would not see his conversion as valid. That means that some of the people currently running the show in Israel probably think that his parents' marriage was invalid and generally bad, that he himself should never have been born, and that, by their standards, he's literally a bastard. And from what I've heard about these people, if he should ever seriously show up on their radar, they'll probably tell him that very clearly.

So if there should be a need for him to "evolve" on Israel, many Israelis themselves might well supply him with plenty of motivation to do so.

I wonder about whether his background in documentary filmmaking might be relevant. He seems to have been mainly involved in production. Those of the documentaries he contributed to seem to have dealt with some pretty serious things happening in Africa and the Middle East. Perhaps that might give him a bit of a global perspective which might in useful in navigating the world. And it might be interesting to see a POTUS with IMDB credits for something else than acting or reading the audiobook version of their memoirs.

And, yes, to be completely honest, on a purely personal note, it would be nice to see a fellow half-and-half in the White House.

Some things I've read about his life do, however, make me wonder if he might be a bit too much of a stereotypical child prodigy or boy wonder. There seem to have been at least two occasions in his life when, while he was very young, he made a good impression on an adult VIP, which then later helped him get somewhere in life: in high school, he did an internship in the office of John Lewis, who, then, later recommended him to Hank Johnson, for whom he worked as a staffer in his 20s. And also while he was in high school, his family went on a vacation to France, where they met a British journalist with whom he stayed in contact and who eventually helped him get into documentary filmmaking. I hope that the times when he was apparently seen as such an impressive nice young man by older and more prominent people didn't go to his head too much, and that they don't put off too many voters.

One additional complication is the question of what would happen to his Senate seat (assuming he gets reelected) if he should end up as POTUS or VP, or even just with some other Administration post. Some background for people who might not know that much about the more obscure details of the US political system: US law generally bans people from holding two public offices at the same time. And vacancies in the Senate usually sooner or later require a special election - when exactly depends on the state. But in most states, including Georgia, the Governor gets to appoint a replacement for the time until the election. In Georgia, if a Senate seat should become vacant in 2029, the appointed replacement would serve until an election in late 2030.

At the moment, the Governor of Georgia is a Republican. There's some chance that the Democratic nominee might win the 2026 election. In that case, she could theoretically appoint a Democrat to a vacant seat in 2029 - unless the Republicans in the State Legislature manage it to get the relevant state laws changed. So it's all pretty shaky for now.

And, as with Kelly and (yuk) Gallego, people might argue that anyone who can get themselves elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago should stay in that office until they either want to retire or their voters get tired of them.

One last, comparatively trivial problem: on some photos of him that I've seen, his facial expression seems to look a bit creepy.

All that said, I think that it might be better if he would be on the ticket in some spot. At least if AOC isn't. There should better be at least one millenial with a serious social media presence and a position of unapologetically taking the rhetorical fight to Trump and the larger Trumpist movement on the ticket.

(...to be continued...)