TwitterPunk!: A Future of America
Michael Avenatti/Tammy Baldwin (Democratic) 2021-2029
2020: def. Donald Trump/Mike Pence (Republican) and John Kasich/Phil Bredesen (Moderate)
2024: def. Kristi Noem/Dan Patrick (Republican)
"Fight Fire With Fire"
In 2020, the Democrats were just too angry. Joe Biden tried to harness a working-class-based moderate course, but it proved for naught. The surprise winner of the 2020 primary was Californian laywer Michael Avenatti, widely seen as "the Dems' answer to Trump". First emerging as the lawyer of Stormy Daniels, a porn star, in her suit against President Trump, Avenatti successfully harnessed this media attention to increase his fame, even as he became more divisive in the process. In the end, despite Kamala Harris endorsing Biden and condemning Avenatti's "vain attention-seeking populism", Avenatti won. Picking Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin to increase his appeal in the Midwest, he went on his "crusade" against Trump and the GOP
Fully abandoning Obama and Clinton's "moderate course", Avenatti embodied the progressive movement's seething anger ever since Occupy happened all the way back in 2011. Unrepentantly radical, Avenatti promised a "whole new world in birth" [which got Republicans in a tizzy and FOX News pointing out that it sounded like a Marxist song] and thanks to Trump's record unpopularity, he won a firm landslide. "Trumpists" would blame John Kasich and Phil Bredesen's "Moderate Party" for splitting their votes but the statistics would disagree
Unlike his predecessor, Avenatti was willing to work with the Democratic establishment. As long as his progressive policies were followed. There was less clash between him and the party, so to speak. Everyone was all united behind the need to say "#basta!" to Trump and the GOP. Many of Trump's executive orders were revoked by President Avenatti in his first few weeks while "Avenatticare" [later just "Medicare 2"] were being written up by the legislators with Avenatti ready to sign it. On green policy, he arguably was the most radical on that issue, rallying up countries to agree to a new Agreement, this time in Toronto. The Toronto Agreement would be historic, and it was, as according to global climate scientists decades down the line
But what made President Avenatti so controversial was that, like Trump, he insisted on using Twitter spontaneously. Many Dems were caught flat-footed by some tweet their President made at a random hour of the day. By 2026, spontaneous social media activity was becoming "normalised" as people increasingly felt that their politicians had to be "authentic", just like their Presidents. This, of course, would make politics much much more unpredictable, but it was something the American people approved of. Avenatti would shift from the declining Twitter, later made bankrupt, to the rising Worda, where he was just as spontaneous as before. In 2024, Avenatti faced a firm challenge in Republican nominee Governor Kristi Noem. Noem was everything Avenatti wasn't. Composed where Avenatti was bombastic. Folksy and rural where Avenatti was straight-talking and urban. A woman from a Republican state where Avenatti was a man from a Democratic state. Avenatti was in trouble
For while his four years has been quite successful, the Democratic Party's base was still mainly powered by women, and if Avenatti was seen to be too loud towards the second female candidate for President, it could jeopardise his chance of victory. His campaign team prepared strong criticism of the Republican Party, but studiously avoided their candidate. Noem was to be criticised by what party she belonged to. This was how a campaign of a loud-mouthed man sought to convince many women of all colours to not vote for the first female Republican candidate for the Presidency
And it worked. Avenatti pulled it off, although a slim one with Noem making gains in suburban areas while the Midwest kept the faith and cast their votes for the President. With a new mandate in his belt, the President went towards his second term with a fiery passion
His second term would be one as controversial as he was. With Medicare 2 implemented, there was a lot of... "teething problems". The Supreme Court was still conservative even after Avenatti nominated a new judge in 2023, and the court was determined to undermine the President at anything. In the end, Avenatti exploded after the Court declared that Medicare 2 was illegal. "Then let him enforce it!". The Dems, already somewhat embittered by the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh back in Trump's time, was more inclined to see the Court as fundamentally broken. So when Avenatti announced several new nominations, enlarging the court to 11, there was a rallying of the Democrats. But they lost independents and Republicans also rallied. The nominations of Justices Kamala Harris and Barack Obama faced much obstacles, including Obamna not wishing it at first, but in the end, Avenatti and the Dems shoved it through
And they lost the midterms in a red wave. While Avenatti did manage to have the new court decide that Medicare 2 was actually legal, it cost the Democrats many political capital and both houses of Congress. But would President Michael Avenatti back down? Hell no!
Declaring that "he would not let the Republican Congress dictate", he increasingly used executive orders, even as Speaker Mike Bishop condemned the acts as "that of the president being a dictator". Intensely controversial, President Avenatti would leave office with a 47-47 approval rate
Knute Buehler/Justin Amash (Republican) 2029-2037
2028: def. Tammy Baldwin/Gavin Newsom (Democratic)
2032: def. Andrew Gillum/Kyrsten Sinema (Democratic)
"The Great Moderate Hope"
It took them decades, but finally the "moderates" had their say. With the religious right and nationalists discredited by first Bush then Trump, it was time for an alliance of moderates and libertarians to take over the party. And the man who would lead them was Governor Knute Buehler of Oregon. Known as the "Comeback Kid" for turning a close loss to Kate Brown in 2018 to win it in 2022 in much more favourable climates. Buehler was charismatic, funny, and unlike past Republicans, talked about solving poverty issues. Here, they hoped, was their Bill Clinton
But sometimes voters can have long memories, and in 2028 it was only eight years since Donald Trump. Buehler had to sell his "new Republican Party" to the masses. Running on "America Can Do Better" and with a familiar endwave on Worda - "I would be honored with your vote" - he and his running mate Senator Justin Amash of Michigan ran a campaign wholly divorced from Republican orthodoxy. No campaigning on social issues, no fearmongering about "the gays", just independent values and protection of civic liberties while firmly condemning Avenatti's "dictatorial" take on the court.
Against this, the Democratic campaign was laughably stuck in the past. With Baldwin and Newsom campaigning like Buehler was a far-right zealot, people noticed the stark contrast between the fascist boogerman the Dems portrayed and the smiling moderate on TV and at rallies, and of course, his utterly charming wordwaves on Worda. In the end, the Democrats ran a campaign based on the past, while Buehler had one of the future
Winning states like Washington, Oregon and surprisingly, New Jersey, Buehler made gains with educated middle-class voters while losing working-class voters to Baldwin and the Democrats. The long re-alignment was starting to complete itself. Sworn in as president, he made it clear that his first aim was not to destroy Medicare 2 like many of the Republican base desired, but to reform it. Buehler's reforms were something the libertarians and conservatives massively disagreed with him on, and even his moderates had doubts, but together with moderate and liberal Democrats, he formed a "Centre Coalition" and voted it through. Medicare 2 [by 2030 increasingly just "Medicare" or bizarrely "Twocare"] was reformed. Some tried calling it "Medicare 3" but nobody wanted to call it that
Vice-President Justin Amash was a consistent libertarian, a rarity in his party, but increasingly a presence with younger Republicans. While Buehler pushed for reforms to Medicare 2, Amash consistently called for "not just reform, but ending it". The President and VP however, reconciled on matters of individual liberties. They campaigned on that and attacked Avenatti's "statist" dictatorship after all. In the end, they managed to hammer out a compromise on funding welfare programs. Buehler was adamantly against cuts, Amash wanted to slash it, so in the end, slight cuts were implemented while Universal Basic Income was tested in some communities to see if it can be a "permanent solution" to welfare
On environmental matters, subsidies were increasingly replaced with tax benefits, something Amash saw as less "state-involved", and something the conservatives begrudgingly voted for while Buehler's Centre Coalition fell apart on this issue as liberals and moderate Democrats rallied against it
In 2032, the Republicans, despite many conservatives muttering that Buehler was "betraying the party", was united and behind their President. The Democrats, however, did not know what they would back. Gillum, Booker, Sutton, Ocasio-Cortez, Ojeda, the list went on, every candidate had their day, and in the end one emerged. Governor Andrew Gillum of Florida, serving his third term in office. A subtle compromise between the party's progressives and socialists, and the still rather liberal and moderate establishment, he sought to unite the party and bring the battle to Buehler
The problem that Gillum ran head first in, was that the problems he brought up against Buehler, sounded rather low level compared to past Democratic criticism of Republicans. And the president was popular. 2032 was not the Democrats' year. Gillum hoped that he could turn it around and like Bill Clinton in 1992, turn a surefire Republican win into a Democratic one. But he didn't
As President Buehler was sworn in a second term in office, the Democrats seethed. Clearly the President needed to be stopped. But how? The DSA offered a path. That of firm economic criticism and adopting much more radical ideas. As "Avenatti Democrats" increasingly turned to democratic socialism, the establishment panicked. The party was increasingly going away from them. Sure, Avenatti was a problem, but at least he wasn't a socialist. In the end, some intraparty conflict happened, and the party entered the 2034 midterms much more radical than before
And they won. Because by 2034, the shine was off President Buehler. The economy, on a good hill since 2023, was increasingly sputtering and slowing down. Stock markets increasingly got gloomier. People talked of the Long Boom ending. With Republicans choosing to stay home and Democrats, energised by DSA and working-class fuelled populism [although the two did at times clash], the Democrats regained the House and made gains in the Senate. Unlike Avenatti, Buehler pledged to work with the Democrats to "chart an united path" for the country
With liberals and moderate Democrats still willing to work with Buehler, his Centre Coalition still maintained, even if it had to lean on the left or the right at times. Vice-President Amash stormed out of the Oval Office after arguments with President Buehler about the economic recovery bills he and his Centre Coalition cooked up to "boost the economy" back to fighting fit. Amash was increasingly impatient and wished to do things His Way. Not Buehler's. And so came 2036, an open election where things would be interesting for all
Rashida Tlaib/Jared Polis (Democratic) 2037-
2036: def. Justin Amash/Moore Capito (Republican)
"History Made"
The person who won the 2036 election would break so much glass ceilings it was quipped that "in America, we don't just break one glass ceiling. We break them all at the same time". Rashida Tlaib was a woman, a Muslim, a Palestinian-American, a democratic socialist. In short, she was historic. But in 2036, she had to convince the Democrats that she could win. The Dems by 2036 was entering a period of pessimism, with many saying "Buehler has built a permanent Republican majority" and seeing Amash as inevitably the victor. Not Tlaib. She refused that thinking
She shared quite a few things in common with the Vice-President. Both Palestinian-Americans from Michigan, both served as Senators from their state [concurrently for two years] and both were seen as representing in a sense, a new generation. While Buehler was popular for his cross-political appeal, Amash appealed to younger Republicans yearning for genuine libertarianism and "freedom in all things". Meanwhile, Tlaib stood with young radical students and was their candidate in 2036, beating out more "elder" politicians to seize the crown
But on actual policies, the two diverged sharply. Amash believed in consistent libertarianism, standing for less government involvement, standing for civic liberties and against a surveillance state, and was known to criticise Buehler on several "moderate" bills Buehler signed through. Meanwhile Tlaib was a firm and unrepentant democratic socialist, arguing for empowerment of the working-class and standing with them against "Big Business" which she argued Amash's election would enable. Amash fired back arguing that Tlaib's radicalism was like that of Avenatti's and that she would threaten the constitutional system in order to further her own agenda. The arguments on Worda were epic
Debates were organised , but they were increasingly seen as inorganic compared to the spontaneous debates the two often started on social media, which appealed strongly to people wishing for less "fakeness" and more "authenicity". Such was politics in 2036
In the end, with Alaska going Democratic thanks to vice-presidential candidate Senator Jared Polis visiting the state, Tlaib won and made history. Amash waved his response over Worda instead of a phone-call, another first in American history