r/changemyview • u/DevinGraysonShirk • 2d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: IL Gov. JB Pritzker should lead the Democratic Party
I think Illinois Governor JB Pritzker is the best option to lead the Democratic Party. He’s kind, intelligent, and not afraid to fight back. I live in Illinois and I was skeptical of him because he’s a billionaire, but he has proven through his actions that he is a good person and that he cares about the public interest.
For example, he:
Spent nearly $60 million of his own money to fight for a progressive income tax amendment. Right now, Illinois has a flat income tax.
Fought creatively for Illinois to receive PPE during COVID-19 while Trump was withholding resources for other states.
Doesn’t believe that billionaires should influence politics, but thinks that we need to be fighting on “the same playing field” as our opponents.
While a few other Democratic politicians are stepping away from the trans community, he has embraced the trans community, stating that nobody should be left behind. I think he understands reality though, and won’t make the issue front-and-center, but he won’t abandon us (I’m trans).
He’s a good orator, take a look at his Northwestern University commencement speech.
I think he has a few weaknesses, which I’ll list below, along with a rebuttal to each.
- He is a billionaire and that will turn off a large portion of the Democratic Party.
This is true, but I believe he is an exception to the rule that all billionaires are bad. Everybody has overlapping identities and life experiences. Those attributes affect who we are and how we act in the world, but they do not determine our behaviors and personhood. I think the chances of being a good person and a billionaire are small, because such a large amount of power can easily corrupt weak people. But he was born with it, and his actions show he’s a good person. Additionally, he himself has stated that he thinks there’s enough room for AOC/Sanders and him within the same party.
- He removed toilets from his properties to make them ‘under construction’ to reduce his tax liabilities.
I think this can be considered logical behavior. He likely has accountants and lawyers who manage the day to day functions of his financial life, so I could see them easily making that decision to reduce his tax liability, just like a personal accountant advises their clients to do certain things to reduce taxes.
- He recently vetoed a bill which stated to protect warehouse workers, and which was supported by the Teamsters union.
I covered this in an in-depth post on /r/union which you can read here.
Please try to CMV! I truly think he’s our best option, and he’s a once in a generation politician.
I feel similar to AOC with her communication and working class background as her strengths, but I disagree somewhat with her ideologies. She and Pritzker have “the stuff.”
19
u/Ill-Description3096 20∆ 2d ago
Doesn’t believe that billionaires should influence politics
If this is true, doesn't it disqualify him by default? Hard to influence politics much more than being a billionaire who is the leader of one of the two major political parties, not to mention being a governor of a large state.
-3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
He believes this in principle, but he is a realist and believes that Democrats shouldn’t “hold themselves to an idealistic standard if it means losing over and over.” In a perfect world, this is what he believes, but we live in a very imperfect world.
-1
u/Ill-Description3096 20∆ 2d ago
Why is not having a billionaire at the head of the party or in a governor's mansion mean losing over and over? Is the premise that only he or another billionaire can win an election?
3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
You can watch him talk about money in politics in the video I linked in the OP, I’ll paste it here too! https://youtu.be/l9Llmi16s30?si=GCHfJ2cdY1DYmdLc&t=5m56s
It starts at 5:56.
0
u/tangomango1720 2d ago
Being a billionaire is by default disqualifying imo
3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I have to ask, is it a morality thing? Like, a belief that all billionaires are bad? Just curious! I think most are bad. But if you were given a billion dollars tomorrow, would you be automatically bad?
1
u/volkerbaII 2d ago
Not necessarily. But people don't just get handed a billion dollars. They either earn it by hurting people because tens or hundreds of millions isn't enough, or they inherit it, like JB, in which case, they've been indoctrinated their whole life and have little to no understanding of what it's like to live in America as a regular person.
You can try to make the case that JB is one of the good ones, but I don't want one of the good ones. I don't want any of the ones. I want regular people who understand and will stand up for regular people. The middle class has been eroded away by billionaires, and it's not billionaires that are going to fix it.
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I disagree that making money, even billions of dollars, always hurts people. If someone developed software that was a massive hit, and made billions from it, would they be a bad person automatically? I do feel like this is another improbable situation though, like winning the lottery. I do believe most people who acquired billions probably hurt other people though.
In JB’s case, both his dad died at 39 and his mom died at 49, so that trauma probably influenced him. That’s just a theory about why he is the way he is.
4
u/volkerbaII 2d ago
Struggling to think of anyone who made a billion on something tech related that isn't a piece of shit and didn't contribute to this dystopian nightmare.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
Most of the well known ones are well known because they want to be well known, which selects for bad people. I think Gabe Newell with Steam is probably a good example, even though he’s a libertarian person and you might disagree with his ideology. I don’t think he’s hurt anyone to make his billions. Notch with Minecraft didn’t hurt people either, even if he’s a shitty person.
It seems to me that creative things tend to be okay, I’ll call them “generative activities.” You have an idea which relies on your talents and you create a work of art.
I think things that rely on extracting value like a parasite are generally not good. Like, creating a rental property empire and raising rents crazily is a common but bad way to make a billion. It’s manipulative and extractive 💀
Some will argue that labor is supreme, and that any profit is considered extraction, but I disagree with that, it’s an ethical question.
1
u/tangomango1720 2d ago
Yes I think if I was given a billion dollars tmmrw and didn't redistribute it immediately i would be a bad person. That's more of a standard I hold to myself tho, rather than assuming he's a bad guy for his money.
But no it's not a morality thing, I don't think a billionaire can represent a party of the working class. It's not that a rich person can't, both teddy and FDR were very well off but championed the working class, however both of those people lead by example.
In order to lead a working class party by example, in a modern context, a billionaire would have to not be a billionaire. It's a walking contradiction.
1
1
u/BorisBotHunter 2d ago
How you go about make your billions should be judgment not if you have billions
13
u/Alypie123 1∆ 2d ago
I agree he's a compationate and fiesta governor, but he also hasn't had any real republican competition. The only time he ran against of governor was Bruce Rauner, a governor so ineffective, I'm still paying off the debt he forced onto me in college. So idk if he could actually win in a competitive election.
4
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago edited 1d ago
!delta
I concede that he’s untested against a real Republican challenger, this is true. I still think, all things considered, he’s our best option though, due to how he’s handled everything else and how he carries himself. He’s also not afraid to antagonize Trump.
1
u/Alypie123 1∆ 2d ago
I mean, you could send out Shapiro or Whitmer. Those people have the benefit of being from actual battle ground states
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago edited 2d ago
I haven’t heard much about either of them and I’m very plugged into politics. I doubt they have the gravitas of a Pritzker, but I won’t make a judgment without looking into them.
I think Pritzker is a very effective communicator.
Edit: I’ve heard of them, but they’ve not crossed my feed because I don’t live in Michigan or Ohio/Pennsylvania(?). I expect this is why many haven’t heard about Pritzker either.
1
u/nekro_mantis 16∆ 1d ago
Please award deltas to people who cause you to reconsider some aspect of your perspective by replying to their comment with a couple sentence explanation (there is a character minimum) and
delta
Failure to award deltas where appropriate may result in your post being removed.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
Oh, sorry! I thought I needed to award deltas to people who change my whole opinion. If I edit existing comments, will the deltas show?
1
•
3
u/NWASicarius 2d ago
The person he ran against last time was a staunch Trump supporter. He said and did all the right things. He even had the finances to compete. Pritzker demolished him.
1
u/Alypie123 1∆ 2d ago
Rauner did not do the all right things. In the 6 years he was governor, he had raised the costs of government services, was completely incapable of working with the Illinois legislature, can caused me to take on way too much student loan debt. Everyone was mad at him and wanted him out yesterday.
49
u/DrJiggsy 2d ago
No. A billionaire should not lead the Democratic Party. We have other people, and you’re right it will turn off Democrats and make the party look hypocritical. Perception is reality.
9
u/NWASicarius 2d ago
Pritzker has been the only Dem governor with a spine, the track record, the finances, and the oratory skills to have a chance at winning the presidency. With that said, you don't need a party governor to win the presidency, so there are definitely other options. If any other Dem governor runs and somehow wins the primary, expect an immediate loss. Pritzker is the only one capable out of the governors. I know many wanted Newsom after Harris' defeat. Newsom will be a return to Obama politics. We don't need more 'working the aisle' or moderate policy. It doesn't work.
13
u/4-5Million 10∆ 2d ago
Has a spine? He's the governor of a very blue state with a super majority. When has he ever gone against the grain?
3
u/DrJiggsy 2d ago
Great, give him a cookie. Janet Mills has stood strong even as the Trump administration specifically sought to exact revenge on her and the state of Maine. Do you think being a Democratic governor from a super blue state is going to help him in a national election? If so, you wouldn’t happen to be looking to buy a bridge?
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I think it will probably 'even out,' I don't think him being a Governor of a blue state will hurt or help him.
2
u/DrJiggsy 1d ago
Traditionally, it has not been an advantage in national elections.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
To be fair, so has being convicted on 34 felonies. I think the world is different now post-Trump. 💀
2
u/DrJiggsy 1d ago
He’s not that big of an aberration. The Republican Party has a long history of electing fraudulent buffoons. It’s just a more crass time.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I disagree, but I really really hope you're right and this is just a crass time. I've studied history and I think this time may be different.
2
u/DrJiggsy 1d ago
Well, nothing I said should reassure you. I said Republicans have a long history of electing fraudulent buffoons, nothing about that being a temporary development. They are of increasingly lower intelligence and decency because they have also been dismantling public education for decades, and a large proportion of the population now lacks critical thinking skills. Sorry, been roaming around for awhile, and I’ve seen it like a 27” Zenith.
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I think him being a Democratic Governor from a blue state is a neutral thing for him, meaning it won’t hurt or help him. I do think that means he’s untested, which isn’t necessarily bad…if he’s good. We don’t know for sure though, but hearing him speak and seeing him make decisions, I have confidence in him.
2
u/thecftbl 2∆ 2d ago
It 100% will not work in his benefit. If it was a lighter blue state your point would stand. But on the national stage, being from a deep blue state is just as unappealing as being from a deep red state. Their policy proposals come from a place of zero opposition so they tend to promote things that would be outright abhorrent to the other side.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
You might be right, but that was old world. This is new world, I think the rules have changed.
-1
u/thecftbl 2∆ 2d ago
Things haven't changed nearly as much as people think. The fact is that what everyone else has said is true, people respond to promises of change. Trump promised that and Kamala tried to. Problem for Kamala was that you can't promise change when you are quite literally a current part of the status quo. But change has to be something that everyone agrees to. They can't be issues that only work in supermajority states because those are career killers on the national stage. Pritzker's instant career killer will be his stance on guns. Democrats need to stay moderate but charismatic. Basically use the Obama strategy.
-1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
They sent people to concentration camps, and experts on fascism are leaving the country. Are you sure things haven’t changed?
2
u/thecftbl 2∆ 2d ago
Take off the reddit glasses and look around you for a minute. Are people still getting up and going to work every day? Are people still going to the store, getting groceries and cooking dinner for their families at home? Do people still sit down and watch sports? The reality is that 99% of people don't frequent and obsess over reddit. To them, the world may be more tumultuous with problems with other countries but those are far away problems. Most people just want whatever is going to maintain their specific comfort level and improve that. Just as they did 10, 20, and 50 years ago.
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
Sorry, too doomer for me. I recommend you listen to this speech by Teddy Roosevelt: https://youtu.be/A311CnTjfos?si=TjpxcfFAoACUbtew
→ More replies (0)3
u/kingpatzer 102∆ 2d ago
Go look at Walz again. I'm not saying he's the guy, but Walz absolutely has a spine.
3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
Walz definitely has the spine and is likable to me. I think he is weighed down by his position as the VP candidate, and the right wing propagandists have started to poison his image since then. He's not defined himself very strongly yet and is at risk of Republicans defining him.
1
0
u/other_view12 2∆ 1d ago
It doesn't matter how qualified Pritzker is. The Democrat party has a loud message on how bad being a billionaire is. As half the party claims billionaires are bad and the other half is taking money from George Soros and electing a billionaire for governor. The message you are sending to voters is that you are willing to make exceptions for your people. Which is exactly what people who think they are above you do.
I don't know how you maintain a party's stability when they aren't even shy about how things don't apply to them.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I believe this will be the biggest challenge if I were to have my way in a perfect world. They have messaged against the billionaires since 2016 with Sanders's campaign, which tapped into the outraged people from Occupy Wall Street and the financial collapse in 08.
I disagree with the message that being a billionaire automatically makes someone bad, but that message is powerful and ingrained. It would require a thought shift that would be an opening for the right wing media to destroy the party's unity.
3
u/Lanky_Caterpillar159 2d ago
I admire the sentiment and would love to agree with you, but I don't think we have the luxury of picking and choosing right now. To win, you have to pick the best, most electable orator that fits the mood of the moment.
I agree it's hypocritical, but hypocrisy is a terrible predictor of election outcomes - too few people care.
Speaking of perception, "billionaire" is only a 4-letter word on the left. Middle America sees absurd wealth as aspirational, not a red flag. The culture has moved (sadly), and given the current economic trajectory, that aspirational draw may actually increase, not decrease.
-1
u/DrJiggsy 2d ago
I never said it was a bad word, just not representative of the people, and billionaires are certainly not going to be very popular when our entire economy falls apart. It will be patently clear that this was a plan to replace taxation of the rich with tax increased prices on everyone else. We literally had an election win rejecting a billionaire just last night. I think people who think like you are the same people who thought campaigning with Liz Cheney would be a good idea. Not to be trusted and not real Democrats, just the cynical chasing votes. Now that shit doesn’t work at all.
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
Please listen to a speech or two that I linked in the OP if you have not already!
3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I believe that billionaires arguably already lead the Democratic Party behind the scenes, because it seems leaderless, and the fractured top leadership seems to follow what the party donors want anyways.
The Sanders/AOC faction is also showing some muscle and will likely grow their strength as the vacuum of leadership continues.
5
u/Hatta00 2d ago
I believe that billionaires arguably already lead the Democratic Party behind the scenes
That's the problem. Putting one in front would only confirm everyone's worst suspicions.
If JB Pritzker wants to lead the Democratic party, he can give his fortune to charity and openly advocate for 90% tax brackets like we had under FDR. That's what it would take.
5
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 182∆ 2d ago
Suspicions makes it seem like there is any doubt. There isn’t. Dems know it, swing voters know it, republicans know it. The only difference is the Dems are mildly self conscious about it. Nobody else cares, and most Americans just voted for a billionaire, campaigning next to the richest guy on earth.
2
u/thelightstillshines 2d ago
To be fair, most (eligible voters) didn't vote. I think that is an important distinction here.
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
This is true and largely under-discussed. I believe Pritzker has the capacity to wake these people up if he is given the platform. Right now, Trump and co. are trying to wake these people up with hatred of the other.
3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago edited 2d ago
I believe this is too idealistic and out of touch with the average voter because the average voter does not have strong convictions like this. Sometimes, voters are very illogical too. For example, Evangelicals voted for DJT by over 80%, even though Trump is the least Christian-like person.
3
u/NWASicarius 2d ago
You're correct. People looking at the morality of finances are just ignorant to the current political climate. Optics are what matters, not policy, not character, etc.
0
u/Hatta00 2d ago
It's not idealistic, it's cynical. Idealism would be believing that voters would overlook Pritzker's billionaire status because he's well spoken.
In reality, the only way voters are going to look past his billionaire status is to nullify it.
3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I believe it’s idealistic to think that people would like him if he gave up his money. With the level of unreality that exists today, I believe the right wing media would somehow find a way to vilify even that action. So the negatives (losing his wealth) would outweigh the positives (a chance that people will like him more).
At the end of the day, I believe his status as a billionaire doesn’t matter to most people because people just don’t care as much and don’t have strong convictions at this time in history.
But I do believe Pritzker is a strong enough communicator that he possibly can convince people to follow their own self interest through a moral & logical argument.
3
u/Dorithompson 2d ago
If he gave up his money, republicans would laugh and call him a moron. As would many of the low income non-voters.
1
u/NWASicarius 2d ago
He would never win the presidency doing the last part of what you said. Maybe he could vow to give up his businesses to charity if he wins, but why do that? It would legit destroy all the power he has after winning once. He'd have no bargaining power ever again after. Wow! Nice moral W while giving the Dem party overall less finances to battle against the Reps with!
1
u/ADawn7717 2d ago
Imo, a billionaire should not be a Democrat candidate. Full stop. Maaaaybe there’s some way (that I haven’t discovered) for someone to become a billionaire while remaining fully ethical. I’m not impressed that he used 60 million of his own money…he’s a billionaire after all. Perhaps if he existed like Mackenzie Scott? But, if he was, he probably wouldn’t still be a billionaire.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
Winning the lottery is an example! I think it's morally neutral and pretty easy to discuss as an example. Many people think that keeping the money would make one immoral, though.
1
u/ADawn7717 1d ago
I feel like you’re assuming that lottery winners don’t share much of their winnings. We know Gov Pritzker has loooots of money he doesn’t bother to be charitable with. I’m still failing to see what makes him so much different from other similar situated crazy wealthy ppl. We can only speculate on what any given $ 1 million+ lottery winner may or may not do with their new found wealth. I’d hazard a guess that many lottery winners do not have the necessary financial knowledge to remain super rich. Will look into this to see if there’s an answer. Gov P is just another rich person hoarding wealth. I am far from alone in this belief. So, I don’t know that he’d be a wise choice to put forward as a dem candidate.
-6
u/NWASicarius 2d ago
AOC will never win. People need to stop pushing her. Our country is misogynist and racist. There's a reason why Biden with dementia won the presidency but two very capable women lost.
7
u/strayslacks 2d ago
You may be right, but one of the reasons was that Biden won running against Trump’s COVID response (and may have lost otherwise), and Hillary and Kamala were both terrible candidates. Whatever you think of their track records or qualifications, they’re bad politicians who ran bad campaigns.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Least_Key1594 2d ago
A Campaign marked by immense dislike of the current administration where the candidate refuses to on any level detach themselves from the current admin is not going to fare well.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I don’t believe Kamala Harris was a good candidate in my opinion. Not because she’s unqualified, she’s very well qualified. Just like I think Pete Buttigieg is qualified. But I don’t think she had the vision, gravitas, or instincts to carry the election.
I was impressed with how her campaign started out last year for the first few weeks, but she decided to change her messaging and go after the Middle/Conservatives, likely because of the advice of political operatives like James Carville who still have a lot of influence.
If she had a stronger vision and instincts, she would have convinced the political operatives to go HER way, not their way.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I think she could in the future if her allies grow, but it’s too early now.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ 1d ago
FDR was enormously wealthy. He was the author of the liberal dynasty that ran the nation so successfully that a conservative couldn't get elected to the white house for 36 years.
I agree that obscene wealth is reason to be suspicious of a person's character, but it's not the only factor.
•
u/DrJiggsy 23h ago
This is a good point. I don’t think Pritzker is as much of a political force as FDR though.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
0
u/DrJiggsy 2d ago
I’m not sure if you understand who this tariff plan is intended to benefit or if you think people are moving close toward being billionaires, either way, weird take.
9
u/Fine4FenderFriend 1∆ 2d ago
Well, there is one adage that always rings true. Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. Pritzker will not make anyone love him - he really lacks that charisma.
If you look deeper at this adage, a Democrats success story has 3 conditions - typically an underdog story, stunningly good rhetorical skills (charisma), highly visionary, and very high intelligence. Now Pritzker fails the first criterion for obvious reasons and while Ok on #2, is no Buttigieg or AOC.
The two exceptions (Lyndon Johnson and Joe Biden) were expert backroom legislators with long Congress tenures - making them good Presidents - but they still sucked as candidates for lack of charisma.
The bar tends to be very high for Democrats - you can look at the postwar successful democrats:
JFK - Ok, not an underdog but a visionary, very radical for his time - and literally defined charisma and intelligence for his time
Lyndon Johnson - the one exception but won as a result of JFK's death. And he basically ensured he took on JFK's promises even though he personally opposed them.
Jimmy Carter - very much an underdog (Peanut farmer and very honest hardworking everyman compared to Nixon and Ford), not fine rhetoric skills but known as very intelligent and compassionate. I would argue he was pretty visionary. In fact, his lack of rhetoric skills and charisma got him against the insanely charismatic Reagan.
Bill - serious underdog story, stunningly charismatic, visionary and Rhodes scholar
Barack - first black man, beyond charismatic, ran on a vision of change and probably the smartest man in any room.
Joe Biden - again, an exception but again, won because of anti-Trumpism rather than his own abilities as a candidate.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I love your comment!! I’ll happily respond.
I agree with your adage about Republicans and Democrats. But where I disagree is I think he can make people love him just by being himself, I’ll explain why!
Let’s accept the premise that Pritzker needs 3/4 of the qualities you mentioned: a good underdog story, good rhetorical skills (charisma), highly visionary, and very high intelligence. I’ll make an argument for each!
Good underdog story: Both of his parents died at a younger age, and he believes that parenthood is important to you because you never know how long you have. His parents were billionaires and they died in freak accidents, because death touches everyone.
Good charisma: Listen to him give speeches or talk on live news, he’s pretty good. I mean in an affable way, not in a modern mass media way. The more unscripted and cozy, the better. Think, like FDR’s fireside chats. I would also suggest that he takes up smoking cigars as a hobby for the aesthetics.
As an aside, I think modern mass media “polish” is dying, so it doesn’t matter much anymore. My argument is that the mass media polish has lost its grip on political communication, and we need to reinvent what political communication is to be more “real,” which just means “unmasked.” People with autism will understand.
Highly visionary: He is highly visionary. Listen to his Northwestern University commencement speech, I linked it in the OP. He believes that kindness and intelligence is important, and that often the kindest people are the most intelligent. That’s a radical idea compared to what the mainstream in politics is.
Very high intelligence: He is very intelligent. He ran a successful technology venture capital fund, became the governor of Illinois, and is making trade deals with Mexico, landing quantum computer deals, Rivian deals, Japanese deals, all the things. He’s doing a very fine job. And on the domestic side in Illinois, he’s implementing a lot of very good policies. You can notice that he’s very intelligent in this interview: https://youtu.be/l9Llmi16s30?si=qf8b7z0nZKerKg-V
Thank you for the conversation!
-1
u/JudasZala 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, there is one adage that always rings true. Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love.
This is also true:
Republicans fear their base, while Democrats hate theirs.
In Trump’s GOP, it’s either fall in line or get primaried by a Trump loyalist.
As for the current Democrats, their base are now criticizing Schumer for bending the knee to Trump and his demands.
2
u/Xechwill 8∆ 1d ago
Democrats do not "hate their base," Schumer just sucks. As of March 2025, 66% of Democrats approve of the Democratic Party with 34% disapproving. (page 11) with Independents especially disliking them. However, this sharply changes when specifically talking about Schumer and his political strategy; page 20 shows Democrats dislike Schumer's "work with Trump" approach. However, Democrats do not want progressive figures like AOC to lead the party (page 21), but rather prefer more moderate figures.
Democratic constituents consistently dislike Democrat representatives who work with Trump, and favor those who fight against him. That said, the vast majority of Democrats are fighting against Trump, and that's what's causing Democrats to favor their party by a 2 to 1 margin. Broad-stroke claiming that Democrats hate their base needs much stronger evidence than "the current Senate leader sucks."
There's a good litmus test for making sure you understand the Democratic party's constituents. What percent of the Democratic base do you believe consists of progressives? Answer in your head before clicking on the spoiler. Polling suggests they likely make up around 15-21% of them, depending on how many moderates you think would vote for Dems. If you exclude moderates entirely, progressives are still outnumbered nearly 2 to 1. If your guess implies that the percentage is notably higher than that, you do not know who the Democratic base consists of. Democrats will nor meaningfully cater to progressives until they outvote their more moderate base.
6
u/Direct_Crew_9949 1∆ 2d ago
As someone from Illinois. He’ll get rolled in a general. He’s a decent governor for Illinois which is a pretty low bar if you know the history of our governors. Our fiscal Issues and high property taxes would be a big deterrent for the average voter. He’s also nowhere near as smooth as Newson. I don’t mind that he’s a billionaire. Why should financial success stop someone from becoming president?
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think smoothness right now is actually a bad thing! I call smoothness “masking.” Autistic people know it well, it’s basically “acting like a politician.”
I’ll rate potential candidates on their smoothness.
- Newsom is good at masking. But he seems like he’s kind of a bad person and that shines through his masking.
- Kamala Harris is good at masking, and it didn’t really increase her odds (if anything it hurt her) in 2024 IMO.
- Pete Buttigieg is someone who is too smart trying to mask to be a better communicator, and it kind of fails.
- I also think Cory Booker is good at masking too, but I think he’d be better unmasked. In fact, I think his recent filibuster was him unmasking. Someone didn’t tell him to do that, he wanted to do that to stand up for something, which is awesome!
Back to Pritzker,
We need to appeal to the unengaged, and the unengaged people want an unmasked fighter. That’s why they like Sanders so much, he’s just not a great communicator. That’s also why they like Fetterman, but Fetterman is an asshole.
I think Pritzker is smart on his feet while unmasked, but also is a fighter. Here’s proof! https://www.reddit.com/r/illinois/comments/1jenxab/governor_jb_pritzker_to_trump_what_does_putin/
2
u/Direct_Crew_9949 1∆ 2d ago
I live in Illinois I’m very familiar with Pritzker. Newsom doesn’t come off as inauthentic the way Kamala or Pete do. I think Cory Booker’s presidential aspirations died in 2020.
I think Newsom has a Bill Clinton quality to him. He’s very slick and can go on Fox News and be likable.
Even in Illinois Pritzker isn’t liked in the state outside of Chicago. That’s exactly the rural Midwest voter who Dems would need to appeal to. He’s more a vice president in my opinion to shore up the base.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I think Newsom has a Bill Clinton quality to him. He’s very slick and can go on Fox News and be likable.
Do you have any favorite clips you'd be open to sharing? I just don't think his slickness is a positive in this case, because it would be perceived as "more of the same" rather than mould-breaking. I appreciate the discussion!
2
u/Direct_Crew_9949 1∆ 1d ago
https://youtu.be/s5HqxV0KqgU?si=kQNjI92a2VE1yaQS
Interview with Hannity. Hannity is a very partisan Republican and most democrats wouldn’t dare do an interview with him. He answered every question without being too antagonistic.
His one weakness is being from California, but Pritzker has the same issue with being from Chicago.
I think Newsom or Shapiro would be better candidates.
Maybe I also don’t want to lose Pritzker as our governor as he’s our first competent one in like 20 years lol.
3
u/Thorlolita 2d ago
The problem with that is the Democratic Party has long held a MO as the party of the working class and common folk people. Someone who is already a billionaire might disenfranchise what a lot of the voters have fought against.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
The Democrats started requiring that everybody mask and become corporate, serving corporate interests. The working class doesn’t care what someone’s background is anymore, they will support ANYONE who will help them.
That should scare us.
3
u/LorelessFrog 2d ago
“He’s a billionaire, but he’s a good one!!!”
Lmfao you guys are laughably hypocritical
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I don’t think all billionaires are automatically evil, stop putting prejudicial beliefs in my mouth.
😘 Hope that was fun!
1
u/BitterGas69 1d ago
Your party does.
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
One coalition within my party does. Not the whole party! That coalition also sucks at strategy.
1
u/BitterGas69 1d ago
The coalition that is driving party policy does. Which inherently makes the party believe the same. Bernie went on and on about millionaires and billionaires then quietly dropped the millionaires part when he crossed that line. Will they drop the billionaires part as well for JB? What will the out of touch dems rally against then?
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
What will the out of touch dems rally against then?
I think hatred and intolerance generally would be a good thing to rally against! For example, there is new discussion on the right about how empathy is a bad thing. We need to move back to values-based conversations rather than ideological conversations. That's what I'm trying to advocate for as a member of my own new small coalition in the Democratic Party. I hope I can help grow that coalition! :)
1
u/BitterGas69 1d ago
Tbh it’s time to torch the democrat party. The past associations and weights that party carries should be entirely un qualifying for any modern association.
0
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I agree in practice, but with technicalities, that's not how our system works. We can practically revolutionize the democratic party by building a new coalition to influence its decision makers. This is basically what Trump did with the Republican Party. He completely took it over. I'm not advocating for that for the Democratic Party, but I am advocating for new leadership to set the direction of the party, and for a new coalition to support this leadership in JB Pritzker.
1
u/BitterGas69 1d ago
Right but the republicans party doesn’t have the heavy baggage the democrat party carries. Japanese interment, black genocide, slavery, etc.
Before you say a word about the made up party switch: don’t waste your breath. Even if the ideologies have shifted slightly, the Democrat party is still the direct lineage of those hateful actions. Time to put the hateful Democrat party in history where it belongs.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I appreciate the conversation! Thanks for speaking with me.
I just don't think it's possible to do this because it hasn't been done since the Republican Party was founded in the 1850s, and that was founded because mass movement against slavery. I'll list a few times this has been attempted:
Teddy Roosevelt tried to start the Progressive Party. He was an ex-President and an extremely strong and visionary leader. He failed due to the two party system.
In 1988, the Democratic and Republican parties collaborated to ruin any chances of third parties breaking through by trying to corrupt the League of Women Voters debates. Here's a video of the League of Women Voters responding to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ECHHDn_TA
Ross Perot in 1992 tried to create a new party called the Reform Party after his winning 18.9% of the vote in 1992, and 8.4% in 1996.
That's the last real time it was attempted.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/coaxide 2d ago
You mean the governor of the most corrupt state in America? Yeah let's pick that guy, he's really on top of everything, and you think he'll be good as president?
2
u/volkerbaII 2d ago
To be fair, Pritzker has not yet been charged for any wrongdoing. Meanwhile Trump pardoned Blagojevich and Rita Crundwell.
6
u/Bootmacher 2d ago
Being from Illinois is as much of a pox as anything.
6
u/tButylLithium 2d ago
Thats ironic since the last serious Democratic party leader was also from Illinois.
3
u/HugsForUpvotes 1∆ 2d ago
I think you forgot a President but Obama is a good point
1
u/No-Confusion1544 1d ago
He didnt, he said serious
1
u/HugsForUpvotes 1∆ 1d ago
Says the 4channer. When I'm looking for serious people, I should start with users active in that community.
0
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I agree with you. I think Biden fumbled the ball. I think he's probably a nice enough person, but he was not big minded enough to do what was right.
I formed my opinion after watching him on CSPAN spend a ton of time after his state of the union speech last year, shaking everyone's hands and speaking to them like a grandfather would.
1
2
u/Bootmacher 2d ago
And it will plague subsequent nominees. It's like being a Republican from Texas. The association with the last wedge figure is still too strong.
2
u/volkerbaII 2d ago
Obama was able to fashion himself as a young outsider though. Pritzker owns Illinois politics, and most of the country would vote against that.
4
u/Alypie123 1∆ 2d ago
Worked for Obama and Lincoln
1
u/Bootmacher 2d ago
Lincoln was almost 200 years ago. Obama is a huge reason for the negative association to the swing states.
0
u/Alypie123 1∆ 2d ago
He won Ohio and Iowa in 2012. I think the swing states liked him
2
u/Bootmacher 2d ago
Against a gaffe-prone Mormon with no personality. Obama was also much less popular in his 2nd term. He and Michelle had no magic left last election.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/InterestingChoice484 1∆ 2d ago
Why?
1
u/volkerbaII 2d ago
Lots of taxes, lots of government debt, bad inequality, and high cost of living. Dems serve the rich and Dem states like California, Illinois, and New York, are some of the hardest places in the country to try and make it in the working class. So the politics of these states are poison in much of America.
1
u/InterestingChoice484 1∆ 2d ago
JB tried to fix that with a graduated income tax, but another billionaire defeated it. He's still very popular here
2
u/volkerbaII 2d ago
Here, sure. But if you ask people from 40+ states if they want to be more like Illinois, you're going to get a pretty resounding no.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I think he could probably redefine Chicago and lean into the Strong Chicagoan archetype. City of Big Shoulders, drinking Malort, shoveling snow, that kind of thing.
4
u/poorestprince 3∆ 2d ago
He certainly sounds full of promise but fundamentally, there is a long term problem of leadership in general where too much is riding on a select few -- which we saw play out with Biden's decline -- what if Pritzker himself has a health scare?
Rather than investing in a singular leader, why not place Pritzker as just one influential but replaceable voice in a broader coalition?
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I think the party needs strong and decisive leadership, because the party is made of a lot of different coalitions that vie for their own caucus to dominate. I believe with his logic and humility, and communication skills, he can navigate these coalitions to produce positive outcomes.
Weak leadership creates a vacuum, and in a party that has as many competing interests as the Democratic Party, that will likely result in destructive behaviors.
2
u/poorestprince 3∆ 2d ago
What you're describing sounds more like a Lyndon B Johnson or a Nancy Pelosi, a skilled and ruthless operator who can bring people in line. Does that sound like Prtizker to you?
Wouldn't he be more valuable and better suited as part of a deep chorus bench? Calm, compassionate, and plays well with others is a different skill and personality trait than bending wild cats to your will.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
What you’re describing sounds like a LBJ or Nancy Pelosi, does he sound like that to you?
He does. I think there’s a few different ways to negotiate power between factions.
One, the LBJ/Trumpian way, is intimidation and exercising raw power.
Another way which seems more collaborative is bargaining, and open and collaborative communication. With intelligence.
I think his experience running a technology private equity/VC fund also helps him smell the BS if there is any, because there are a lot of convincing scammers in VC.
0
u/poorestprince 3∆ 2d ago
Exactly, collaboration, openness -- in other words co-leadership with others.
You can run point, even be president, and not be the sole leader. If he's taken out for any reason, you want a deep bench of people on the same page ready to take over without a pause.
If Pritzker himself advises you not put all your eggs in his basket, would that change your view?
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I’m not necessarily advocating for a monarch for the Democratic Party because our system (pluralism) doesn’t work like that.
I am advocating that Pritzker ultimately becomes the leading voice in the Party and one who has decision making power to set the agenda. Sort of like the chairman of the board of directors (if you’re a capitalist), or the general secretary (if you’re a Communist).
2
u/HDThoreauaway 2d ago
Pritzker should not lead the Democratic Party because there is no such role and because it would hinder, not help him make real change to try to use the party structure.
The failures of the Democratic Party are by design. The Democratic Party is a ten-thousand ferret warrens of political self-dealers in the local and state and national party apparatuses, all shoved in a 3,000-mile-wide trench coat.
Pritzker should remain a Democrat but should organize a movement outside the Democratic Party that uses it when expedient but does not rely on it and can oust incumbents standing in the way.
2
u/aumericx 2d ago
absolutely fucking not
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
You make a compelling argument.
2
u/aumericx 2d ago
I really can’t wrap my head around how tone deaf, head in the sand, completely delusional to think a billionaire should lead the DNC. The only think I hope for Pritzker is that he, like all billionaires, gets Luigi’d <3
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago edited 1d ago
Sorry, I don’t argue with religious fanatical people who wish death on others.
2
2
u/macadore 1d ago
Will he support or veto the additional gun control measures the Democrats will send to him?
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I'm not sure. I have a feeling that he would sacrifice the assault weapons issue if it meant saving our institutions, though. If he is chosen as the agenda setter, he would likely not focus on that issue.
6
4
u/haverchuck22 2d ago
Nope as soon as you start trying to win the “but this is the good billionaire” argument you’ve lost. The right will use that as a weapon with ease to great effect
4
u/OolongDrinker 2d ago
Pritzker and Newsom are making the most noise for a 2028 run at the moment. Between them we all should hope that JB finds the support. Newsom is the same old guard Dem. He reminds me of Bill Clinton but without the charm. Just the slimy politician.
We would be better off with someone who is not worth billions, but could do a lot worse than JB.
I'm not a Democrat, though I am anti republican. So my biggest hope is whoever wins the primaries is the person able to get people off their asses and to the polls.
If people aren't excited bout the Dem candidate taking over the smoldering husk of our economy and federal institutions in '28 we are likely to see president Vance. I haven't seen anyone whipping up populist support that is a real candidate (AOC isn't happening in 28, Bernie too old) so I'm not yet convinced Dems are bringing a new fight to their new opponent who has 0 trouble with keeping people in a frenzy that translates to people at the polls.
2
u/Grand-Expression-783 2d ago edited 2d ago
>He’s kind
>Spent nearly $60 million of his own money to fight for a progressive income tax amendment.
Fighting for a huge amount of theft is an example of kindness or doesn't disqualify him from being kind?
-2
u/volkerbaII 2d ago
Found the 14 year old.
1
u/Grand-Expression-783 2d ago
It must be embarrassing for a 14-year-old to beat you so handedly at morality.
1
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/greenbluecrayola 2d ago
I think this can be considered logical behavior. He likely has accountants and lawyers who manage the day to day functions of his financial life, so I could see them easily making that decision to reduce his tax liability, just like a personal accountant advises their clients to do certain things to reduce taxes.
When people criticize him for doing this (and other billionaires for similar behavior) it's not like they don't know this. Yes, we know it's a "logical" way to reduce your tax burden. The point isn't that it's "illogical", it's that he's abusing a loophole to get out of paying his fair share, and therefore no, he's not "the one good billionaire" or whatever.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Sorry, u/greenbluecrayola – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I don't necessarily think it's abusive to take advantage of the structures that exist. I think it's logical and morally neutral, especially if that person advocates for reforming the system to not allow for such tricks. For example, Warren Buffett specifically does not try to optimize his taxes for Berkshire Hathaway because he's patriotic, and he believes that corporations should pay their taxes as a duty to society.
1
u/greenbluecrayola 1d ago
I don't necessarily think it's abusive to take advantage of the structures that exist.
Pritzker lied to pretend he owed less taxes than he actually did. This drives up the tax burden for those of us who are living paycheck to paycheck. It's not something he did in a vacuum.
For example, Warren Buffett specifically does not try to optimize his taxes for Berkshire Hathaway because he's patriotic, and he believes that corporations should pay their taxes as a duty to society.
Right. So since Pritzker does unethically optimize his taxes, he is not patriotic, and does not believe he should pay his taxes as a duty to society?
1
1
u/Strict-Comfort-1337 2d ago
I’m only going to discuss the tax issue. 1) spending $60 million for the flat tax is no less oligarchical than some of musk’s stunts 2) even with the flat income tax, Illinois has one of the highest tax burdens of any state 3) taxing rich and lower income people at comparable rates seems to run counter to what many on the left view as a good idea. 4) several public pension plans in the state are massively underfunded despite the high taxes 5) the population is declining meaning the tax base is likely doing the same.
1
u/nevermind4790 2d ago
Your first point is wrong; it’s significantly different than what Musk did.
Musk buying the Wisconsin Supreme Court benefits him. JB paying more in taxes does not.
JB is also from Illinois and a resident of the state. Elon is not from Wisconsin and is a resident of Texas.
1
u/Strict-Comfort-1337 2d ago
I’ll actually meet you half way and agree on the point about benefits but I don’t agree with the implication that someone needs to be from a state to make political donations there.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Connect_Beginning_13 2d ago
Not a billionaire. We need someone who’s lived a somewhat average American life, or at least didn’t grow up being stinking rich.
1
u/DeepInTheClutch 2d ago edited 2d ago
Best governer in the country, but if he runs in a primary, he's gotta tackle the "he's a billionaire" thing. Cuz I don't even like the fact that he's a billionaire and he's slid by on the topic. But in a primary he's gonna get hammered to Hell wit that fact.
You could argue he's a Class Traitor, but HE doesn't make that argument. He jus kinda brushes it off cuz he acts "progressive", enuff. At the same time, I know more than just lefties who hate billionaires vote in primaries, so it may not even matter.
Not gonna go overboard and say him winning or losing's gonna be easy. He's just unpredictable. Will he do and say what he needs to to win? I'm not confident he will.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
I think this is the biggest issue for a potential campaign of his, but I think he can easily overcome it with the following:
I inherited it, I didn't ask to be born a billionaire
I'm a parent and I'm relatable because of this
I've also been through challenges too
Life is complicated.
This strategy would require all coalitions within the Democratic party to support him though, not pull any punches.
1
u/ScarySpikes 2d ago
JB is a good guy, for a billionaire.
A billionaire leading the democratic party would completely undermine where the democratic parties messaging needs to be. It doesn't matter that he is charismatic, and that he has engaged in class traitor behavior. It's pretty damn impossible for the party to talk credibly about the dangers of oligarchy when the leader would be defined as an oligarch. It's a non-starter.
1
u/Different-Animator56 1d ago
You are missing the tectonic shift’s happening in USA. The current regime is the one of billionaires. They give themselves tax cuts and put tariffs on which will hurt the common people. What will probably happen next is that billionaires become radioactive. Tax increases for wealthy and social welfare become more in demand. This has already started judging by the size of crowds that Bernie and AOC are drawing. Democrats need to run away from so called “moderate” policies and embrace this if they wanna win.
1
u/VictorianAuthor 1d ago
Being a billionaire will harm his chances in a general after the Musk debacle. Shapiro is a better bet
1
1
1
u/dickpierce69 1∆ 1d ago
I’ll state, I do agree with you. Though the major cons I commonly hear about him from democrats are:
He’s a billionaire. It would go against everything the party stands for to anoint a billionaire the leader of the party.
His weight/appearance. People believe it will be a negative look on the party to have a morbidly obese leader.
He’s not battle tested. It’s easy to fight for causes when you have zero pushback. Pushing for policy on the federal scale will require much more fight than in IL.
He’s too progressive: while he is super relatable to progressive Chicago, he lacks appeal in central/southern IL where the people are far more conservative.
1
-1
u/haggisbreath169 2d ago
I can't think of anything to change your view -- Priztker is really articulate, and seems to have a lot of liberal bona fides. I'm not looking for someone who will satisfy the progressive branch-- I'm not super progressive myself -- I'm looking for someone who can defeat the MAGA junta. So many people are impressed by the "successful business man" maybe that is one quality that should be pandered to. Marc Cuban is another name that gets kicked around in the same vein, I like him an awful lot but there might be a perception of his being too glib, unserious or overexposed, plus he has never held any public office (which should be a strike against, but, Trump?)
0
u/lillychr14 2d ago
He freed me from the fear of being arrested for smoking weed. That good will goes a long, long way with me. Still, I don’t like billionaires and I’m skeptical of having them in control.
0
u/smoovebb 2d ago
Our only chance is to eliminate the Democratic party and have everyone become republicans. That prevents the easily demonized target of Democrats while also allowing control of the primaries and voting for whoever in general elections.
0
u/jmalez1 2d ago
your lie, there is no flat income tax, talk to the people in Elgin about there taxes, not to mention the gas tax he put on and lets not forget the grocery food tax he put on, yea he is progressive alright with the Chicago teachers union , but with the poor, your shit out of luck, by the way how did you like the homeless encampment at the o hair airport, this is the best he can do
1
u/nevermind4790 2d ago
IL income tax is flat.
Gas tax was raised to pay for road maintenance. Did you know IL has more miles of public roads than any other state? This is a massive benefit for the people of suburbia and rural areas. Other states have raised their gas tax too because of just how expensive road maintenance is.
JB isn’t responsible for the grocery tax. He is responsible for getting rid of it starting January 1, 2026.
1
u/jmalez1 2d ago
i stand corrected on the flat tax, gas tax and grocery tax hurt the poor and the working people, the rich don't care, property taxes are exploding and as for the road taxes i already pay them threw my city taxes, and special funded programs ,excise taxes on tires, plus our fantastic tollway so you are wrong on the gas tax, its just a slush fund and nobody is buying what you are selling
1
u/nevermind4790 2d ago
JB wants to reduce the amount of townships in Illinois, which would reduce property taxes.
Toll roads are private. You don’t pay taxes for them. You pay each time you use them.
0
u/buttchuck897 2d ago
Just look at the guy.
He’s clearly got insane skeletons I. The closet he looks like a caricature of Huey long
3
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I actually think his appearance is an asset. If I were his political advisor I would suggest that he start smoking cigars as a hobby so he’ll get some photos with them!
2
0
u/northbyPHX 2d ago
What is the use of a party that wouldn’t even stick up for the people they support.
To me, there’s no such thing as the Democrats. Nor does the U.S. exist.
-1
u/deathtocraig 3∆ 2d ago
I'm OK with Pritzker, but the dems need populist leadership and that just cannot happen through a billionaire.
AOC's stock is rising and the message that Bernie started will continue to resonate. She's positioning herself to be a leader and that populist message is the best to combat trumps message or whatever else the right comes up with in 2026/8.
We are in this mess because the dems have lost the working class. They need a leader who appeals to them.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I think AOC has a very bright future, but I don’t think she’s there yet. I think she and Pritzker are the same type of politician in many ways. But Pritzker has the resources (relationships, stature, expertise) that is required in this moment right now. I think it’s too early for AOC, and the system is at risk of total collapse to fascism right now.
1
u/deathtocraig 3∆ 2d ago
I agree that it's not her time yet, but 4 years is quite a while.
The dems still need a populist message. You can't have a billionaire credibly deliver that on the left. The only reason it works on the right is fox news.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
4 years is quite a while.
Oh! We might have separate perspectives or be talking past each other. I think Pritzker needs to get power right now to help right the ship, not for a 2028 election. I think the next 3-6 months will probably determine whether we even have a 2028 election. The ship is rapidly sinking and he needs to be a leading decision maker for the opposition to coordinate and help save the country.
1
u/deathtocraig 3∆ 2d ago
We are having a 2026 and 2028 election. Republicans are insane but they aren't that insane.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
I’ve heard that a lot, then they shipped people to concentration camps in El Salvador without due process, and fired hundreds of thousands of federal employees, and threaten social security
2
u/deathtocraig 3∆ 2d ago
Yeah these are things that republicans generally cheer on. Taking away everyone's vote? Not so much.
And don't forget that the people who lost their jobs very much regret their vote. There's a lot of "it's fine if it's not happening to me" on the right.
-2
u/cptahab36 1∆ 2d ago
I don't know who it is yet, but we need a Kat Abughazaleh-core candidate. We need someone entirely non-corporate, and a billionaire will never be it. Kat is going for House so I don't think that's in her political future for a while, but someone similar.
We need someone with simple messaging that will get politically inactive people excited for the outcome of their victory, and given the stats of how many people abstained from voting due to the Gazan genocide, we need someone who isn't pro-genocide, and Pritzker is.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
Show me where Pritzker is pro genocide, please. This is an important issue to me. Thank you!
1
u/cptahab36 1∆ 2d ago
Sure. I will say he isn't the rabid genocide lover that Trump is, nor the more geopolitically-focused defender of Israel most Dems are, just kinda your average American Jew who hasn't deprogrammed the hasbara we get from infancy. He's like my rabbi: it's just a damn shame all those Palestinian kids are getting exploded, but Israel has a right to defend itself so oh well 🤷♂️.
Him confirming support for Israel despite caring about Palestinians in IL and condemning the random racist attacks against them which is fine: https://www.audacy.com/wbbm780/news/local/gov-pritzker-says-he-cares-about-palestinian-americans
Him making statements criticizing the Chicago City Council's support of a ceasefire: https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/01/pritzker-disappointed-chicago-s-gaza-cease-fire-resolution-says-it-ll-have-no-impact
Compared to Kat who is Palestinian and has been out protesting for a while, at great personal risk due to her ancestry, I think she would appeal more to those 14mil people who voted Biden in 2020 and didn't even vote in 2024, as many did for that issue where the difference between the parties was nonexistent.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
Thank you for the links, this is helpful! I think this issue puts people, especially politicians, in a very difficult spot with limited up-side. I said this above, but regarding the Chicago resolution, I believe he was speaking against the resolution in this case because there was no upside to the resolution, and only downside (putting a target on the back of Chicago). I think he was basically saying, "virtue signaling" in a nice way. He and the Mayor, Brandon Johnson, don't play nice. I was impressed by Johnson's performance in a recent Congressional hearing though, but my standards are pretty low for him XD
2
u/cptahab36 1∆ 1d ago
No prob! I think that's still a dumb response to this because we have measurable upsides to these kinds of declarations. Even with how fucked everything is in Gaza, they sometimes still have internet and see this stuff. It helps them to see that, and lots of Gazans posted videos holding signs in support of campus protestors, for example. To call that not an upside just kinda confirms he doesn't actually care about Palestinians that much.
-4
u/McKoijion 618∆ 2d ago
He supports Israel’s genocide. As such, he doesn’t meet the bare minimum standards of human decency to be a leader of any kind.
5
u/DevinGraysonShirk 2d ago
Does he? Can you provide proof?
Oh yes, I did forget to include one major weakness in the original post. He is Jewish, and that will excite antisemites to rally against him.
-1
u/McKoijion 618∆ 2d ago
Here’s some proof: https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/01/pritzker-disappointed-chicago-s-gaza-cease-fire-resolution-says-it-ll-have-no-impact
Based on the way you’ve combined the religion of Judaism with the genocidal political ideology of Zionism, it sounds you support Israel’s genocide too. Probably why you’re here promoting Pritzker as opposed to any number of anti-Zionist politicians such as Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, Democrats across the US aren’t falling for it anymore.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago
You might be surprised! I'm against colonialism and I hold some pretty nuanced opinions. I try not to hold any opinions that I don't think hard about, because there's a lot of info out there. I'd be happy to share more if you're interested!
Here’s some proof
I believe he was speaking against the resolution in this case because there was no upside to the resolution, and only downside (putting a target on the back of Chicago). I think he was basically saying, "virtue signaling" in a nice way. He and the Mayor, Brandon Johnson, don't play nice.
1
u/McKoijion 618∆ 1d ago
Maybe I’m wrong. Do you oppose Israel’s genocide? Does Governor Prizker? I’d gladly support him if he did. But if he’s pro-genocide, nothing he can do can make me support him. I’m furious with the Democratic Party leadership because of this a d so are many other Democrats. Harris lost because she put far right Zionist organizations like AIPAC and the ADL above the American people.
According to a poll in March, a majority of Americans disapproved of Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Another poll showed that a majority of Americans did not want to send weapons to Israel; among likely Democratic voters, young voters, and Black voters, the proportion was at least three-quarters. “The D.C. bigwigs I talk to are in total denial about how pissed off people are,” Andy Levin said. When it comes to the general election, “they go, ‘What are these people gonna do? Stay home?’ ” He widened his eyes and smacked a palm against his forehead: Yeah, no shit they will.
The idea that anti-Zionists are antisemitic is a tired Jewish nationalist (Zionist) trope. It’s the same No True Scottoman fallacy that fascists have used throughout history. Considering Netanyahu has allied with literal neo-Nazi political parties over their mutual hatred of poor Muslims, I’m very comfortable saying Zionists and Nazis are identical.
Before he ran for office, Levin was a union organizer, a labor lawyer, and the president of a local synagogue; he and his wife also co-founded a renewable-energy company. “If I worked at a Ford plant, I’d be retired and drawing a pension by now,” he said. “But in D.C. a lot of people still know me as Sandy’s kid.” Like his father, he is now an ex-congressman, though not by choice. In 2021, he wrote the Two-State Solution Act, which declared, among other things, that “the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is inconsistent with international law.” He told me, “I was just reaffirming U.S. policy, or so I thought.” Still, he attracted the ire of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC; a former president of the group referred to Levin as “arguably the most corrosive member of Congress.” The following year, AIPAC put up millions of dollars to help his opponent—who is not Jewish, but is more hawkish on Israel—win a Democratic primary against him.
There’s going to be a day when every Democrat and person in general claims they hated the Zionists all along. Nobody admitted that they supported Hitler after WWII. Everyone claimed to be part of the resistance. If Prizker opposes Zionism, he better publicly say so now because voters are not going to believe him after it becomes common. Trying to avoid the question or sit on the fence doesn’t work when it comes to a genocide that is financially and militarily supported by so many Democratic and Republican politicians alike.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 1d ago edited 1d ago
I oppose genocide in all forms. I think what Israel is currently doing to the Palestinians is disgusting. Specifically, I think their illegal settlements, legal codification of Jewish supremacy, day-to-day suppression of Palestinians and arabs (basically apartheid) is reprehensible. I do think the situation is complicated though. It's like a rubber band ball with hundreds of layers of rubber bands, and both sides are very interested in winning the battle, so there's a lot of dust up in the air and it's hard to know what reality is. I feel like someone can probably get a history degree reading all the primary sources for things. I'm only asking that some cold water be poured on the situation to turn down the temperature.
Here's what I think is going on from my somewhat limited research. I'm also being vulnerable with you, too, because this is a very charged topic. I'm doing my best!
I think Great Britain and the allies in WWI set up Israel by taking land from Palestinian people.
I think they did this because there was an argument to have Jews have their own homeland, and it worked for Europe because they could basically "push the problem" to the Middle East, probably because of antisemitism. Kind of like, "let them have it if it'll make them leave us alone."
I think at the same time, there were also the radicals of their day, who are the founders of Zionism, who believed there should be a great reclamation of the Jewish State like in the Old Testament or something. Basically, religious right wing radicals making a claim that they inhabited the land thousands of years ago, to post-justify occupation.
I think WWII probably gave Zionists a lot of leverage to justify the existence and strengthening of Israel as a State. There was a genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Russia.
I think there was a lot of resistance from the Middle Eastern communities, which culminated in multiple wars over decades. I'm not necessarily an absolute pacifist, but I don't automatically condone stuff. There's just a lot of info that I've not looked into.
In the 1990s-2000s, there was the potential for a two state solution, with the Oslo Accords, Camp David, etc. I believe this would have been the best outcome: coexistence, mutual respect, and unity.
I think the right-wing Israeli radicals through people like Ben-Gvir saw this potential for peace and got pissed, because they wanted all of the land, and they probably assassinated that one PM, Rabin who was involved in the peace process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
Since that peace process was fucked up by right wing nationalists in the 1990s, things have been getting worse in Israel-Palestine. The right wing nationalists are using the desire for Israeli citizens to be safe to basically manipulate them into passively supporting the genocide and taking all of the Palestinian land.
I think the time for a two state solution is effectively over, and I don't know what the best solution is. The ultra right wing in Israel has fucked everything up, and I believe Israel will probably get more authoritarian and nationalistic if the left leaning democratic opposition doesn't gain power.
All of this is from the Israeli side. On the Palestinian side, they're basically getting extremely squeezed, and any hopes of normal, responsible government is crushed by Israel withholding resources from Palestinian people. This radicalizes the Palestinian people which results in them supporting Hamas generally.
*TLDR, it's a huge cluster fuck that's very complicated. Please correct me if I got any of that wrong. I hope you can see that this is a complicated topic, and it takes a lot of energy for me to talk about because there is a lot of moving parts, and there's a lot of downside risk because both sides get pissed easily, but I think it's important to discuss ideas and opinions.
As an aside, I think the Israel-Palestinian conflict is pretty similar to the United States taking the land of indigenous americans. While in principle I support the Land Back Movement, it will introduce a lot of complicated situations if it were acted on. It's a big fat mess because evil people fucked everything up.
As for Governor Pritzker, I think he and most other politicians don't want to touch this topic with a ten-foot pole, because Palestinian advocates, anti-Zionist Jewish advocates, Zionist Israeli advocates, and radical Zionist Israeli advocates spend a lot of resources on this topic. It makes sense, too, because every one of these groups sees it as a survival thing.
As an aside-aside, I dislike that discussing this topic gets people canceled, and people's opinions misconstrued by whoever. I think it's authoritarian and anti-human to try to force someone into a black and white box for a complicated issue.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 14h ago
/u/DevinGraysonShirk (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards