Sure, but think about your election night projection example. Is there not a difference between the confidence you have in a projection when 1% of the votes are in vs when 97% of the votes are in? The more information you have the better the projection. Right now, we have a dearth of information regarding the genuine viability of candidates in 2028. Again, we don't even really know who's going to be running. With that being the case, it's dumb to really put any stock into projections for who is going to win the primary right now.
It's not dumb to put any stock into projections for who is running or for who will win the primary. What's happening is you're trying to put every candidate on an even playing field, and I'm explaining to you that, regardless of how early you keep saying it is, one, it's not early, and two, the playing field is not even.
Just because the primary isn't happening for 2 more years doesn't mean that there aren't candidates who already have an advantage and candidates who know that they have some catching up to do. Votes are not as wishy-washy as you're making them out to be. Voters do not flip as hard as you are describing could be the case. Of the 70 million people who voted for Kamala in 2024, and based on the 81 million votes that Biden received in 2020 when Kamala was on the ticket, it is quite safe to project that for any Democrat candidate to have a shot in 2028, they need a path to garner 70 million votes at a minimum. Why? Well, that's because the most popular Democratic candidate right now (Kamala Harris) has set the bar for other candidates to surpass.
Everybody is not starting at zero. For candidates that are unsure about running in 2028, maybe they are startuing at zero. Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Gavin Newsome, AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc, these candidates are not starting at zero. They already have a coalition that is very safe to project. So when I'm talking about projections and predictions, I'm using the facrtual data that we have in front of us that is safe, accurate, and relible for us to project on.
That's a long way of me basically telling you that this is not a reset for every candidate. Some candidates are starting at zero, and some candidates already have millions of votes locked the fuck in, and it would be political malpractice to disregard that.
Nobody is saying the candidates haven't started planning and getting their stuff together behind the scenes. What I'm saying is they haven't started unfolding those plans to the public in a way that would really allow us to gauge their appeal. You posted a poll that showed that Kamala is leading with black people right now. Well, no shit. She's the most prominent black candidate. A lot of black people default to the best black candidate. However, if a different candidate comes out tomorrow and commits to something that would tangibly help the black community, those numbers would shift. That's how campaigns work. That part of the game hasn't even started yet, so it's silly to put any sort of stock into numbers now.
The numbers are not going to categorically shift the way that you are describing. We have years of voting data that tells us that no matter how hard he wags his little finger, Bernie Sanders will never garner enough interest amongst Black voters to win a nomination. It doesn't matter how early or late he gets started. The voters have spoken regarding him in multiple elections now.
You can apply this same logic to almost every candidate. At least to all of the known candidates who have run before. They run their campaigns AFTER building a coalition. They don't build coalitions on the fly. I used Bernie asd an example because he does have a coalition. It's just not strong enough to win a primary. None of the other candidates out there has a coalition as big as Kamala's, and that is why she will continue to be mentioned. You know how people were saying that Joe Biden was just riding Obama's wave in 2020, like he hadn't been in the Senate since the 1970s? Joe Biden has built up a coalition for decades. Sure, being Obama's VP helped him as a candidate in 2020, but Joe Biden had a strong coalition before the 2008 campaign with Obama. He ran for POTUS several times before being Obama's VP, which people are actively using against Kamala right now.......
Point being, a lot of the projections are using the data that we have gathered for years, and that data is simply not going to change in the drastic measures they would need in order for what you are describing to happen.
Again, I don't have to name a name now because no one's voting now. Campaigns haven't started now. As you already noted, people are figuring things out behind the scenes now, and how they roll their campaigns out will impact those numbers and the popularity of other candidates. That's how it always happens. Again, we're at the equivalent of the 1% of votes in projection right now. No, I'm not going to name names based on that because it's pointless. It's the type of shit that news stations do just to fill up space during their 24/7 coverage cycles.
We're not at 1% though, and that's the point that you're missing. We are headed into a 2026 midterm in which the current POTUS is positioning himself to never leave office. We are in a recession right now. Fuck waiting for an official announcement that will never come from the administration that fires a new leader every month. If you go to Michigan right now, check in and see how those uncommitted Palestinian voters are doing. You know, the ones who were anti-Kamala. Those people will be lucky if they even have a voice for 2026, let alone 2028.....
But what I'm saying is that it does not take a midterm or a primary for voters to make their minds up. They may not know who the exact person is that they will be voting for, but the overwhelming majority of people know what party they are voting for. So it really comes down to who is on the ticket because those voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, and even Texas...know which party they're voting for. The question about who the person on the top of the ticket will be has already begun to be answered. It would be unwise to dismiss the FACT that any candidate not named Kamala Harris is playing from behind. That's how you should be looking at this. You can get technical and say that we aren't even at the midterms yet, but I'm telling you that will not sway the results much when we are at that point. The coalitions out there right now are either very strong, very weak, or non-existent.
