New Poll Shows How Top 2028 Potential Democratic Candidates Have Shifted

My intuition is telling me that the Democratic Presidential candidate for 2028 likely won't be from New York or California.  Pete Buttigieg and Mark Kelly would be strong contenders if they decide to run.  They both have national recognition and have created a brand on plain talk.  Gretchen Whitmer could get the nod from the Democratic Party establishment although Josh Shapiro might also be an appealing establishment candidate.  I don't see J.B. Pritzker or Andy Beshear surviving the primaries.

Pete and Mark are solid D candidates.  Either would be polar opposite of Trump in terms of maturity, character, competence, sense of duty, lawfulness, integrity, etc.

I worry about extant bigotry in the general with Pete; I am not sure the electorate is ready to elect anyone who is not male and straight.

Nice to imagine having a PotUS who is fit to serve in that capacity.

Pete and Mark are solid D candidates.  Either would be polar opposite of Trump in terms of maturity, character, competence, sense of duty, lawfulness, integrity, etc.

To me they are both straight talking pragmatists rather than ideologues. 

I worry about extant bigotry in the general with Pete; I am not sure the electorate is ready to elect anyone who is not male and straight.

I'm not so sure that will be as big a factor.  Of course, that depends upon the LGBTQ+-(whatever) faction not making asses of themselves.  That's going to be a tall ask.

Nice to imagine having a PotUS who is fit to serve in that capacity.

It's obviously way, way, waaay too early to make predictions.  I get the feel that the electorate would be receptive to a softer, less aggressive, more pragmatic MAGA agenda.  Republicans don't have anyone who can pull that off.  To me, Buttigieg and Kelly could pull that off.  Whitmer is a possibility.  

To me they are both straight talking pragmatists rather than ideologues. 

Agreed.

I get the feel that the electorate would be receptive to a softer, less aggressive, more pragmatic MAGA agenda. 

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a softer, less aggressive, more pragmatic MAGA agenda.

MAGA runs on grievance, contempt, and performative toughness. The bullying is not an accidental flaw. It is part of the product.

I hope reasonableness and decorum return, but I do not see MAGA as the vehicle for that. A toned-down MAGA would still be the same grievance politics with better manners. Does that even compute?

My guess is that MAGA, as a dominant political force, is nearing the end of its usefulness. I think the country is getting tired of billionaires, grifters, and political strongmen dressing up their own hunger for power as populism.

A more pragmatic MAGA agenda would likely be that of the prior GOP.   Those who no longer operate in the GOP because they refuse to support Trump.

That GOP might be dead at this point.   It is really hard to imagine how a decent GOP can emerge from the disaster that is GOP_TRUMP.

It is a sickening situation ... the amount of damage by one man (Trump) is staggering.

MAGA runs on grievance, contempt, and performative toughness. The bullying is not an accidental flaw. It is part of the product.

How is that different than 21st century Democratic Party politics?

My guess is that MAGA, as a dominant political force, is nearing the end of its usefulness. I think the country is getting tired of billionaires, grifters, and political strongmen dressing up their own hunger for power as populism.

Not as long as progressives push a radical agenda based solely on grievances.

toned-down MAGA would still be the same grievance politics with better manners.

better manners? Does such an animal exist?

A more pragmatic MAGA agenda would likely be that of the prior GOP.   Those who no longer operate in the GOP because they refuse to support Trump.

Ronald Reagan is finally and thoroughly dead.  MAGA was a repudiation of Third Way neoliberalism.  The grassroots MAGA movement wanted a return to an industrialized economy and a moral society.  

A penthouse billionaire from New York fucked that up.  IMO that's why the electorate is dividing into the coastal progressives and heartland pragmatists.  The middle of the country (from the Appalachians to the Rockies) has always been center-right.  

It is a sickening situation ... the amount of damage by one man (Trump) is staggering.

Yes, it is.  But Trump did not set the precedent for an expanded autocratic executive.  Trump has only compressed the overreach into a shorter time span.  The Presidencies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden were not more 'democratic' than Trump's Presidency.

We know MAGA has deeper roots than Trump because even Democrats have shifted away from the Third Way neoliberalism of Bill Clinton. That's why the Democratic Party is locked in an existential struggle with a radical agenda advocated by coastal progressives.

The coastal progressives want Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Those three politicians advocate for using the executive to bypass the legislature and the courts.  The coastal progressives want a President who will govern in the same manner as Trump by imposing their progressive policies onto the country. 

Trump has only compressed the overreach into a shorter time span.  The Presidencies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden were not more 'democratic' than Trump's Presidency.

Presidents of both parties have indeed pushed the boundaries of executive authority.  The difference is in frequency and governing philosophy.  Trump's approach has often been to act first, test the limits of presidential power, and continue exercising that authority until the courts or Congress intervene.  Previous presidents overreached at times, but generally as exceptions rather than a defining feature of their administrations.

And importantly, even those criticized as dishonest, corrupt, or arrogant at least projected a sense that they were serving an office with responsibilities that transcended their personal interests.  Respect for the office and the nation.  Trump treats the presidency as an extension of his personal brand, using it to advance his own political, personal, and financial interests while largely ignoring campaign promises, institutional norms, traditions, and his oath of office.

I know of no other PotUS who comes even close to the extremes of Trump.

Spare me the tortured victim routine.

Yes, Democrats complain about things. Every political movement does. Civil rights, labor rights, women’s rights, voting rights, health care, wages, corruption, reproductive freedom, all of those start with someone saying, “This is wrong and it should be changed.”

That is not the same thing as MAGA.

MAGA’s grievance is not tied to a normal policy argument. It is built around the idea that the country has been stolen, that the press is the enemy, that courts are corrupt unless they rule the right way, that elections are fake unless MAGA wins, and that one strong man is needed to punish the right people.

That is a very different thing.

MAGA has an Animal Farm quality to it. The rules are sacred when they are being used against immigrants, Democrats, protesters, journalists, judges, civil servants, or anyone else outside the circle. But when Trump or his people do the same or worse, suddenly the rules become flexible.

That is the MAGA version of equality: strict rules for everyone outside the circle, endless exceptions for everyone inside it. Because, as we all know, they are exceptional. /s

That is not my view. My progressive attitude is much simpler than that. People should be able to exist peacefully without being harassed, targeted, demonized, or having the government shoved into their private lives. If they are not hurting anyone, let them live.

That is the difference. I am not asking for special rules for my side. I am asking for the same basic freedom and dignity to apply to everyone. MAGA talks about freedom, but too often what it means is freedom for itself and dominion over everyone else.

As for the “radical agenda based solely on grievances,” Meh. What radical agenda? Lower drug prices? Higher wages? Paid leave? Reproductive rights? Voting rights? Health care access? Taxing billionaires at something closer to the rate ordinary working people pay?

You can disagree with those policies. Fine. But calling them “grievances” does not make them disappear as policy positions.

Progressives are not the reason MAGA behaves the way it does. MAGA behaves that way because contempt, resentment, and loyalty to Trump are central to the product. Blaming progressives for MAGA is just giving MAGA an excuse for what it already wanted to be.

----------------------------------------------------------------

ChatGPT was used in the composition of this reply. 

I know of no other PotUS who comes even close to the extremes of Trump.

Then perhaps it is time to review history.  Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, and William McKinley governed in a similar manner.  Historians tend to compare the Trump Presidency with that of Andrew Jackson (a founder of the Democratic Party).

You are substantially downplaying what Trump has done or exaggerating past PotUS'.   Our historical presidents have done bad things but none of them have fired on all cylinders of corruption, dishonesty, incompetence, lawlessness, vindictiveness, irresponsibility, unpresidential behavior, disregard for the nation and its people, and flat out abuse of power as Trump.

Spare me the tortured victim routine.

What 'tortured victim' routine?  I asked how your description of MAGA is different than 21st century Democratic Party politics.  

Yes, Democrats complain about things. Every political movement does. Civil rights, labor rights, women’s rights, voting rights, health care, wages, corruption, reproductive freedom, all of those start with someone saying, “This is wrong and it should be changed.”

You do not see this as a list of narrow special interests seeking preferential treatment?  All these progressive special interests rely upon a message of "grievance of disadvantage so we're owed something".  

That is not the same thing as MAGA.

Well, that's true.  MAGA grievances are "we built something, we earned something and special interests are trying to take it away".  MAGA grievances aren't based on disadvantage.  While progressives whine about being denied something they never had, MAGA is whining about something they built for themselves being taken away.

Isn't there a real difference between an earned privilege and a stolen privilege?

MAGA has an Animal Farm quality to it. The rules are sacred when they are being used against immigrants, Democrats, protesters, journalists, judges, civil servants, or anyone else outside the circle. But when Trump or his people do the same or worse, suddenly the rules become flexible.

Get back to me when you figure out that expelling a kid for wearing a T-shirt displaying a Confederate flag creates an insurmountable academic barrier for the kid.  Progressives demand zero-tolerance for anything that threatens their preferential privileges.  But progressives will defend the transvestite putting on a public performance for small children disguised as a book reading.  

That is not my view. My progressive attitude is much simpler than that. People should be able to exist peacefully without being harassed, targeted, demonized, or having the government shoved into their private lives. If they are not hurting anyone, let them live.

Then why do progressives always autocratically impose zero-tolerance codes onto everything?  Using authoritarian force to impose ideological prerogatives onto society is not peaceful.

That is the difference. I am not asking for special rules for my side. I am asking for the same basic freedom and dignity to apply to everyone. MAGA talks about freedom, but too often what it means is freedom for itself and dominion over everyone else.

Then why does 'your side' demand special rules?  Why does 'your side' use authority to force everyone to conform to your point of view?  

What “tortured victim” routine?

The tortured victim routine is the part where every demand for equal treatment gets recast as someone stealing something from you.

You do not see this as a list of narrow special interests seeking preferential treatment? All these progressive special interests rely upon a message of ‘grievance of disadvantage so we’re owed something.

You're fucking right I do not.

Let's read the list again, shall we? And this time we will put your MAGA framing next to my progressive framing.

• Civil rights. You frame that as a narrow special interest demanding preferential treatment. I see it as the right of people to participate in public life without being excluded, harassed, or treated as lesser because of race.
• Labor rights. You frame that as workers taking something from the people who “built” the business. I see it as the right of working people to organize, bargain, work safely, and not be treated as disposable machinery.
• Women’s rights and reproductive freedom. You frame that as women demanding something extra, or whining about something they were never owed. I see it as the right of women to control their own lives, their own work, their own bodies, and their own place in society without the government or some self-appointed moral authority claiming dominion over them.
• Voting rights. You frame that as some group trying to game the system. I see it as the right of citizens to meaningful access to the ballot without rules being manipulated to make voting harder for the “wrong” people.
• Health care and wages. You frame that as people demanding benefits they did not earn. I see it as people who work, pay taxes, raise families, keep the country running, and still should not be financially destroyed because they got sick or paid so little that full-time work does not support a decent life.

That is the distinction. You are describing rights as theft because someone else might lose the power to deny them. I am describing rights as rights.

Then you say MAGA grievances are different because, “we built something, we earned something and special interests are trying to take it away.” That is the part I reject. Nobody builds anything entirely alone. People work hard, take risks, and make choices, but every success rests on visible and invisible help from other people and from society itself: workers, customers, roads, schools, courts, public safety, accumulated knowledge, and a functioning economy.

What is the saying? “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” That phrase exists for a reason. It is supposed to remind people that fortune is not virtue, hardship is not moral failure, and success is not proof that no one helped you.

We are all seconds away from financial ruin. Our number has just not come up... yet. 

You ask, “Isn’t there a real difference between an earned privilege and a stolen privilege?”

Yes, there is. But if the so-called earned privilege depends on other people being excluded, silenced, underpaid, overruled, or dependent on someone else’s permission, then I do not regard that as earned. I regard that as theft of another sort.

A right is not theft just because someone else loses the power to deny it.

A lot of American history is people fighting to receive what the country claimed they already had: equal protection, equal dignity, equal access, and the freedom to live without someone else deciding how much of their humanity counts.

---------------------------------------------------------------

ChatGPT was used in the composition of this reply. The ideas expressed are completely organic, however

A lot of American history is people fighting to receive what the country claimed they already had: equal protection, equal dignity, equal access, and the freedom to live without someone else deciding how much of their humanity counts.

True, where would you rank America in regards to the issues you mentioned?

True, where would you rank America in regards to the issues you mentioned?

 "Rank according to what?"

You, the person I asked. Backsliding?... How?

Ranking assumes something to rank against. The world? I would say we are doing pretty good.

Against the stated ideals of the nation? There is vast room for improvement. 

IMO Josh Shapiro would be the best choice, but then he is a......

I like Josh Shapiro.   But, yeah, his religion could get in the way.   It happened with Romney.

Bigotry is not quite dead in the USA.

I am very curious about the Rs.   I suspect (strongly) MAGA types will dominate the party for years now.   If so, they will not get my vote.

The coastal progressives want Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Those three politicians advocate for using the executive to bypass the legislature and the courts.  The coastal progressives want a President who will govern in the same manner as Trump by imposing their progressive policies onto the country.  I pasted this comment into ChatGPT:

Nerm’s statement has a small factual seed wrapped in a large unsupported accusation.

There is evidence that Harris and AOC have supported aggressive executive action in some areas. Harris said in 2019 that, if Congress failed to act on gun legislation in her first 100 days, she would use executive action on background checks, gun-dealer enforcement, the “boyfriend loophole,” and related enforcement definitions. AOC has supported urging Biden to declare a climate emergency and use existing executive authority, including “existing non-emergency powers,” to pursue climate policy.

But that does not prove they advocate “bypassing the legislature and the courts.” Executive orders are not magic lawmaking devices. They have to rest on either constitutional authority or authority Congress already gave the executive branch, and courts can review them. Congress makes law, the president executes law, and the judiciary decides whether those actions are lawful.

The Newsom part is especially weak. The example I found cuts the other way: after Trump’s 2024 win, Newsom called a special legislative session and sought funding for the state attorney general to fight federal actions in court. That is using the legislature and courts, not bypassing them.

The comparison to Trump is the big rhetorical leap. Trump’s second-term executive strategy has involved a much broader claim of presidential power. Harvard Kennedy School noted that Trump signed 147 executive orders in his first 100 days, while signing only five bills, and described that as executive directives eclipsing legislation. Reuters also reported that the Supreme Court’s June 29, 2026 FTC decision expanded Trump’s power over independent agencies and involved arguments rooted in the “unitary executive” theory. Separately, watchdog/legal groups have documented court-order conflict and alleged noncompliance by the Trump administration.

So the clean evaluation is:

Partly true: some progressives have favored executive action when Congress is blocked.

False or unproven: that Harris, Newsom, and AOC advocate bypassing the legislature and courts.

Misleading: equating ordinary, reviewable executive action with Trump-style executive maximalism.

Especially weak: including Newsom, whose cited conduct has been to call the legislature into session and prepare lawsuits.

A blunt response would be:

That is doing a lot of work with the word “bypass.” Supporting executive action is not the same thing as saying the president can ignore Congress or defy the courts. Executive orders still have to be grounded in statutory or constitutional authority, and courts can strike them down.

Harris and AOC have supported aggressive executive action in some areas. Fine. Argue with that. But Newsom’s response to Trump was to call the California legislature into special session and prepare court challenges. That is not bypassing the legislature or the courts. That is using them.

What Nerm is doing here is flattening every use of executive power into Trumpism. That is not analysis. That is equivalence by assertion.

Nerm’s statement has a small factual seed wrapped in a large unsupported accusation.

Question to Gemini Flash: 

"Did Gavin Newsom, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Kamala Harris advocate that President Joe Biden use executive authority and executive orders to avoid or bypass Congress on some issues?"

Response by Gemini Flash:

Yes, all three have, at various points during Joe Biden's presidency, publicly urged or supported the use of executive action to enact policy goals when legislation was stalled or blocked in Congress.

However, their specific approach, frequency, and public posture on the issue differed significantly depending on their respective roles.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)

As a leader of the progressive wing in the House, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has been the most vocal and explicit in demanding that President Biden bypass a gridlocked Congress. She has frequently argued that the administration should maximize the limits of executive power to deliver on key Democratic promises.

• Climate Change: AOC, alongside Senator Bernie Sanders, introduced legislation and repeatedly petitioned Biden to declare a national "climate emergency" under the National Emergencies Act. This move was designed to unlock over 100 special presidential powers to halt fossil fuel projects and fast-track green energy without needing congressional approval.

• Student Loan Forgiveness: When broad student debt cancellation legislative efforts stalled, she aggressively pressured the White House to cancel debt unilaterally via executive action using the Higher Education Act.

• Abortion Access: Following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, AOC publicly urged the Biden administration to use executive authority to open reproductive healthcare clinics on federal lands located within states with abortion bans.

Gavin Newsom

As Governor of California, Gavin Newsom's relationship with federal executive power was more strategic. While he routinely used sweeping executive orders at the state level (such as mandates regarding electric vehicles and a moratorium on the death penalty), his calls for federal executive action usually occurred when he felt national momentum on progressive issues was lagging.

• Gun Control: Frustrated by federal legislative inaction following multiple mass shootings, Newsom publicly challenged national leaders—including Biden—to be more aggressive. While he eventually pushed for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment (which requires states/Congress), he strongly advocated for the White House to use executive actions to tighten regulations on "ghost guns" and background check loopholes.

• Protecting the Administration: Newsom’s calls were rarely framed as an adversarial "bypass Congress" demand like AOC's; instead, he frequently framed executive orders as a necessary defensive shield to protect rights (such as reproductive freedom and environmental regulations) when Congress failed to pass codifying laws.

Kamala Harris

As Joe Biden’s Vice President, Kamala Harris’s public stance was bound strictly to the official agenda of the White House. However, her advocacy for using executive authority to circumvent a blocked Congress is deeply evident in how the administration actually operated, as well as her own policy stances.

• The "Pen and Phone" Strategy: When the Republican-controlled House or razor-thin Senate majorities blocked major voting rights bills (like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act) and abortion protections, Harris explicitly defended the administration’s pivot to executive orders. She frequently joined Biden in signing and publicly championing executive actions aimed at protecting reproductive healthcare access and expanding federal voter registration efforts.

• Prior Policy Stances: During her own 2020 presidential primary campaign, Harris explicitly stated that if elected, she would give Congress a 100-day deadline to pass comprehensive gun control legislation. If they failed to act, she promised to bypass them entirely and implement sweeping gun control measures via executive order.

The Constitutional Debate: While using executive orders to direct federal agencies is a standard tool of the modern presidency, critics from both the political right and moderate center regularly argue that using them to enact sweeping social or economic reforms violates the separation of powers by usurping Congress's legislative authority.

Racial tolerance trumped religious prejudices in 2008...

MAGA has an Animal Farm quality to it.

Good analogy

But when Trump or his people do the same or worse, suddenly the rules become flexible.

Four legs good! Two legs better!

But when Trump or his people do the same or worse, suddenly the rules become flexible.

Put down the Ayn Rand novel

Put down the Ayn Rand novel

Why are you quoting Thomas to direct your comment at me?

You're the one that sounds like he's read Atlas Shrugged way too many times

It showed some growth in our electorate.

Democratic Party establishment..

That doesn't really carry much weight anymore. The FAUA movement is rapidly taking over. They're seemingly raising millions while the DNC is millions in the hole. I doubt that any you mentioned get within sniffing distance...

That doesn't really carry much weight anymore. The FAUA movement is rapidly taking over. They're seemingly raising millions while the DNC is millions in the hole. I doubt that any you mentioned get within sniffing distance...

The Democratic Party establishment is all about the money.  I get the impression that the big money campaigns have run their course and won't be as persuasive for the growing ranks of unaffiliated voters.

Whoever it is, they will have to be approved by Hamas 

Whoever it is, they will have to be approved by Hamas 

More neo-fascist propaganda, as seen regularly on NT.

More neo-fascist propaganda, as seen regularly on NT.

Not like anyone else here is stupid enough to believe them, but they seem to have fun lying to themselves.

Whoever it is, they will have to be approved by Hamas

Could the terrorist vote be why Harris is "leading" the poll?  I'm sure the Taliban supports her.

The Taliban's brothers-in-arms are America's right-wing Christian Nationalists.  The terrorists are on Trump's side.

I thought it would be the Democrats after everything Sleepy Joe and Democrats gave them.

The fact that mayor Pete has never accomplished anything other than taking the longest paternal leave ever in the middle of a crisis won’t hurt him.  The fact that he gets litterally zero support from black voters will,

identify politics matter a lot in the democratic primary and the bigotry will make him unelectable unless the field is massive ans allows him to win with 20% or so. 

msn

After extensive consultation with my overly astringent editorial assistant:

There is a real issue buried in there. Buttigieg has not yet shown that he can build enough support among Black Democratic voters, and that matters in a Democratic primary. I do not dispute that.

But lack of support from a voting bloc is not automatically bigotry. Maybe voters do not trust him yet. Maybe they do not think he has earned their support. Maybe they simply prefer someone else. Sean takes a real political problem and tries to turn it into some sweeping accusation about Democrats.

The “never accomplished anything” line is just lazy. You can criticize his record, but pretending the record does not exist is not the same thing as making an argument. He was a mayor, a serious presidential candidate, and Secretary of Transportation. Attack the record if you want, but do not pretend there is no record.

The paternity leave jab is just more of the same. If parental leave is legitimate, then it is legitimate even when the parent is a Democrat someone dislikes. If it is not legitimate, then say that plainly.

For the record, I think Buttigieg would probably make a strong president. He is well spoken, practical, and clear-eyed about what government can actually do. Politics has to connect policy to lived reality, and I think he understands that better than most.

I would say something similar about AOC, though for different reasons. AOC has a different strength. She seems to have a real sense of what people are actually living through. She can talk about policy and still bring it back to rent, wages, health care, debt, groceries, and whether people can actually live decent lives.

Whether either of them can turn that into enough votes to win a Democratic primary is a fair question. I am not pretending it is not. But that is the part worth talking about. The rest is just Sean taking the cheap route around a legitimate point.

identify politics matter a lot in the democratic primary and the bigotry will make him unelectable unless the field is massive ans allows him to win with 20% or so. 

He does have part of the DEI vote.  Unfortunately that's not enough as he will need the rest of the DEI voters.  

Additionally we have to consider the idiot socialists in the mix.  That appears to be fracturing the Democrats from within.  Which side will Paternity Leave Petey fall?

The fact that mayor Pete has never accomplished anything

He did make some roads less racist, so there is that.

The fact that mayor Pete has never accomplished anything other than taking the longest paternal leave ever in the middle of a crisis won’t hurt him.  The fact that he gets litterally zero support from black voters will,

Holding public office without destroying western civilization is a noteworthy accomplishment.  

That's an extremely low bar....

This poll is almost certainly based on name recognition.

Mayor Pete had his children removed for 24 hours by the state of Michigan dcfs…

permchatgpt:

In Michigan, the legal standard for temporarily removing a child from the home is intentionally high. Both the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) and the court must generally conclude that removal is necessary because the child cannot be safely protected while remaining in the home, and that less restrictive alternatives are inadequate.

Before ordering temporary removal into foster care, a court must find all of the following:

1. The child faces a substantial risk of harm to their life, physical health, or mental well-being if left with the parent.
2. No service or other arrangement short of removal can adequately protect the child.
3. Remaining in the home is contrary to the child's welfare.
4. Reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal, unless the circumstances made such efforts impossible or an exception applies.
5. The proposed placement is adequate to safeguard the child's health and welfare.

What are "reasonable efforts"?

Michigan law requires CPS to try to keep families together whenever it can be done safely. Examples of "reasonable efforts" include:

• Developing a safety plan.
• Holding a family team meeting.
• Offering in-home services.
• Arranging counseling, parenting assistance, or other supports.
• Looking for relatives or other safe caregivers before foster care.

If CPS does not provide these preventive services before seeking removal, it must document why it was not possible to do so.

Emergency removals

There is an important exception for emergencies. A child may be removed immediately if there is:

• Reasonable cause to believe the child is at substantial risk of harm or in surroundings presenting an imminent risk of harm, and
• Immediate removal is necessary to protect the child's health and safety.

Michigan policy describes emergency removals as appropriate only in rare and extreme circumstances when there is immediate danger. In those situations, there may be no opportunity to provide preventive services first.

Burden

Mayor Pete had his children removed for 24 hours by the state of Michigan dcfs…

Why do you put forth this crap trying to make it seem as though Buttigieg did something wrong?

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was the target of an anonymous report that police determined was false and that he says forced him to spend a night away from his four-year-old twins. apnews

You know why. Anything to "own" the libs or make them look bad. It's unfortunate that they can't find the person who made the report so they could arrest them

[✘]

At long last have MAGA no decency? No shame? Is there no low too low for MAGA to go? The ugliest aspect of MAGA is their willingness to destroy the lives and careers of anyone who stands in their way?