So do you think Vance will win in 2028? Or somebody else?

historian said:

---

So do you think Vance will win in 2028? Or somebody else?

---

Both Vance and Rubio will have too much Trump stink on them. Hopefully we will elect someone new. I am still holding out hope for Ron DeSantis.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

historian said:

---

So do you think Vance will win in 2028? Or somebody else?

---

Both Vance and Rubio will have too much Trump stink on them. Hopefully we will elect someone new. I am still holding out hope for Ron DeSantis.

---

I like DeSantis. Not sure he has the gravitas.

Initially I liked DeSantis over Trump. But he's done many great things in both his terms. If the economy is strong in 2028, anyone from his cabinet would have a better chance.

The fascists, in contrast, have a bunch of crazy morons.

historian said:

---

So do you think Vance will win in 2028? Or somebody else?

---

The 2028 election will see the percentage of boomers in the population drop to 17%. It will be fundamentally different than what you've seen in 2024, 2020, and 2016. What happens in 2028 is directly related to the current war, its downstream economic damage, and how long that lasts.

The last I heard from Vance is that he isn't running in 2028. I suspect that after the 2026 cycle where Ramaswammy likely loses his bid for governor to Amy Acton, Vance goes back to Ohio and maybe runs for governor there.

This would leave Rubio as the "name" candidate for the GOP who gets the establishment endorsement, and he loses the general election. Maybe Desantis runs, maybe not. Maybe Massie runs, maybe not. There are probably a few other lesser names who will throw their hat into the ring as a resume enhancer. If Rubio gets the nomination, he probably loses the general.

If you look at Ballotpedia's list of potential candidates from both parties, it's a pretty weak bench.

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

So do you think Vance will win in 2028? Or somebody else?

---

The 2028 election will see the percentage of boomers in the population drop to 17%. It will be fundamentally different than what you've seen in 2024, 2020, and 2016. What happens in 2028 is directly related to the current war, its downstream economic damage, and how long that lasts.

---

Very misleading data cite.

1) Presidential elections are won at the state level not based on national stats.

2) 2028 is the final election where the Blue Wall matters most.

3) Pennsylvania upends your point. In Pennsylvania, the 65+ age group is BY FAR the fastest growing demographic group. The bubble high point on age lies at the X meets Boomer meetup point (55-64).

4) Pennsylvania is at (and has been for some time) effectively zero population growth. That reality is misleading as it doesn't reflect legal status (illegal influx).

5) the economy always matters most. But to lean into a Die Out of Boomers as the fundamental difference is utter nonsense.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

1) Presidential elections are won at the state level not based on national stats.

---

True.

Quote:

---

3) Pennsylvania upends your point. In Pennsylvania, the 65+ age group is BY FAR the fastest growing demographic group. The bubble high point on age lies at the X meets Boomer meetup point (55-64).

---

Pennsylvania, Maine, and Florida are already some of the states in the US where the population trends older. Florida is a bit of a unique situation because historically people have moved there to retire so there has been a continual replenishing of the 65+ population not seen in northern states.

Pennsylvania was sitting at 21.5% of the population being 65+ last year and is only estimated to grow to 22.5% by 2028 as its native population ages. Adding 1% to that group as the native population there ages doesn't scream fastest growing.

Quote:

---

5) the economy always matters most. But to lean into a Die Out of Boomers as the fundamental difference is utter nonsense.

---

Relying on Pennsylvania to prove your point doesn't really do it.

It's too early for anyone to do anything but guess about 2028. We don't have any idea who the candidates for either party will be. Right now it seems like the GOP will choose between Rubio & Vance but it could easily be DeSantis, Hegseth or someone else. And with the fascists it's a crap shoot. If the best they have are Newsom, AOC, Pritzger, Buttigieg, Booker, & Warren we are all in trouble. They will reject Shapiro because he's Jewish and he's no better than the rest anyway.

AOC is a bigger threat than some realize. You may not like her politics (I don't), but that's different from thinking she's not a sharp political operator.

Don't underestimate her as a presidential candidate. She will be orders of magnitude stronger than Harris.

Realitybites said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

1) Presidential elections are won at the state level not based on national stats.

---

True.

Quote:

---

3) Pennsylvania upends your point. In Pennsylvania, the 65+ age group is BY FAR the fastest growing demographic group. The bubble high point on age lies at the X meets Boomer meetup point (55-64).

---

Pennsylvania, Maine, and Florida are already some of the states in the US where the population trends older. Florida is a bit of a unique situation because historically people have moved there to retire so there has been a continual replenishing of the 65+ population not seen in northern states.

Pennsylvania was sitting at 21.5% of the population being 65+ last year and is only estimated to grow to 22.5% by 2028 as its native population ages. Adding 1% to that group as the native population there ages doesn't scream fastest growing.

Quote:

---

5) the economy always matters most. But to lean into a Die Out of Boomers as the fundamental difference is utter nonsense.

---

Relying on Pennsylvania to prove your point doesn't really do it.

---

You argued that the % of Boomers was dropping. I pointed put that national stats do not matter in the electoral college (you agree) and point to Pennsylvania as an example where not only are Boomer % of eligible voters not dropping but are in fact increasing (you acknowledge increase but deny that is proves the point).

Explain how an agreed increase doesn't disprove a decrease?????

historian said:

---

It's too really for anyone to do anything but guess about 2028. We don't have any idea who the candidates for either party will be. Right now it seems like the GOP will choose between Rubio & Vance but it could easily be DeSantis, Hegseth or someone else. And with the fascists it's a crap shoot. If the best they have are Newsom, AOC, Pritzger, Buttigieg, Booker, & Warren we are all in trouble. They will reject Shapiro because he's Jewish and he's no better than the rest anyway.

---

Rubio would be the best choice for the GOP, but it would depend on Vance stepping aside - maybe he would with young kids and all. Vance has a kooky underside, and Rubio is more mainstream - plus the Latino last name will (slightly) help with the T'RACISM charges.

Not sure who the nutjobs will nominate ... I think it will be really hard for a straight white man to get the nomination - to much identity politics. I think Sandy Cortez will be up there - she's a moron but so are 1/2 the Democrat voters.

Quote:

---

You argued that the % of Boomers was dropping. I pointed put that national stats do not matter in the electoral college (you agree) and point to Pennsylvania as an example where not only are Boomer % of eligible voters not dropping but are in fact increasing (you acknowledge increase but deny that is proves the point).

Explain how an agreed increase doesn't disprove a decrease?????

---

The % of Boomers is dropping. Citing a 1% increase in a single state does not refute that fact. Pennsylvania's importance in 2024, largely driven by Charlie Kirk's effort, was likely a one off. That 1% will be irrelevant in 2028.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

You argued that the % of Boomers was dropping. I pointed put that national stats do not matter in the electoral college (you agree) and point to Pennsylvania as an example where not only are Boomer % of eligible voters not dropping but are in fact increasing (you acknowledge increase but deny that is proves the point).

Explain how an agreed increase doesn't disprove a decrease?????

---

The % of Boomers is dropping. Citing a 1% increase in a single state does not refute that fact. Pennsylvania's importance in 2024, largely driven by Charlie Kirk's effort, was likely a one off. That 1% will be irrelevant in 2028.

---

Drop + Fundamentally Different + Not a Drop but an Increase = Irrelevant.

Sure you want to quadruple down rather than take an easy and visible off ramp?

Realitybites said:

---

AOC is a bigger threat than some realize. You may not like her politics (I don't), but that's different from thinking she's not a sharp political operator.

Don't underestimate her as a presidential candidate. She will be orders of magnitude stronger than Harris.

---

Maybe. But she has little appeal outside NYC and younger adults who vote at low rates. She would have to appeal to broader demographics, including many who smart enough to see through her schtick. Also, she's still a n ignorant moron. If she were actually a nominee then the attack ads would write themselves. She would provide her opponents new material with every public statement. And she's a terrible public speaker and debater. For all the flaws of GOP candidates over the years, and there have been plenty, at least most were reasonably intelligent and articulate. The best the fascists have come up with this century was Barack, a terrible speaker.

historian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

AOC is a bigger threat than some realize. You may not like her politics (I don't), but that's different from thinking she's not a sharp political operator.

Don't underestimate her as a presidential candidate. She will be orders of magnitude stronger than Harris.

---

Maybe. But she has little appeal outside NYC and younger adults who vote at low rates. She would have to appeal to broader demographics, including many who smart enough to see through her schtick. Also, she's still a n ignorant moron. If she were actually a nominee then the attack ads would write themselves. She would provide her opponents new material with every public statement. And she's a terrible public speaker and debater. For all the flaws of GOP candidates over the years, and there have been plenty, at least most were reasonably intelligent and articulate. The best the fascists have come up with this century was Barack, a terrible speaker.

---

Imagine what Rubio or Vance would do to her in a debate. Sweet Jesus.

It would be entertaining!

historian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

AOC is a bigger threat than some realize. You may not like her politics (I don't), but that's different from thinking she's not a sharp political operator.

Don't underestimate her as a presidential candidate. She will be orders of magnitude stronger than Harris.

---

Also, she's still an ignorant moron.

---

You're doing exactly what I warned you not to do.

Giving an honest assessment of an inexplicably prominent political figure? I don't remember any such warning nor do I see any reason for it.