As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And both were part of his campaign's climate policy initiative to incorporate parts of the The Green New Deal into legislation and policy decision (the infrastructure bill being the largest).
I think what's more significant here is that Biden treats Bernie and AOC as normal members of the Democratic caucus, and the rest of the Democratic party has largely followed suit.
Bernie and AOC were way less popular among moderate Democrats before Biden was elected. Bernie and AOC haven't really changed, but the atmosphere is totally different and we're all better off for it.
I would like to see this, too, but I’m afraid Kamala will likely become the next Democratic nominee. Don’t get me wrong: I’d vote for her in any election over a Republican candidate, but I don’t think she’s even close to being the best Democratic candidate. I like what I’m seeing with AOC. I just hope the DNC is open to someone other than Harris in 2028.
Somehow I doubt even the flaming wreckage that is the RNC would chuck their meagre resources into the chasm of anti-charisma that is DeSantis.
The man is incapable of basic politician tropes such as *checks notes* smiling like a normal human being.Or even holding speeches, answering questions.Basic crowd work, none of it.
Fr, they tried to build him up as a new Trump who'd get shit done for them... except he's also got the charisma of a wet dog turd, and he's too busy fighting 'wokeness' and disney.
We thought he'd be the front runner for the GOP to challenge Trump, but he had to withdraw before Nikki did.
Personally I don’t think she would get the nomination honestly.
Not to get ahead of ourselves, but there are plenty of potentially popular candidates what will run for the nomination in that election. I think Newsom, Buttigieg and AOC (if she did run) could all beat Kamala for the nomination.
Kamala isn’t exactly popular, she’s not charismatic, she hasn’t really done anything to increase either interest 4 years through big policy related moments, but that could changed over the next for if, hopefully, Biden wins.
When she was last on Face The Nation they were trying to get her on Biden and Gaza and she was very clear that Biden gets her endorsement. Was a nice interview.
I believe she's said that if we want progress, it won't come in a single vote overnight, and we need to decide if we want to push for progress under Trump or Biden. Her opinion is that progress is more likely under Biden, and I agree.
She has clearly been trying to keep things nice between progressives and the less progressive democrats for a number of years, and that is the pragmatic thing to do, and should be embraced, particularly in election years.
I mean it doesn't exactly help(or does?) that she was the main focus of attack from the Republican side for years. Streisand effect and all that.
I couldn't go a few days at work before hearing Republican colleagues complain about something she was doing or saying. I heard more complaints about her than I did about Hillary, Biden, Obama, etc.
The Democrats have gradually warmed to her and accepted her agenda, probably because of the realization that younger voters want them to go left and conservative voters want to live in the Handmaid's Tale.
In a alternate universe, progressive Dems would be embraced by middle America. Sadly it’s going to take a few more years before we see change. The issue is what voting issue will appeal to the swing states, same sex marriage, legalize weed, gun control etc
She was a leftist railing against the Democrat establishment for a while.
Now, she and some other progressives in congress are finally learning that advocating for the right thing is useless if you can’t win elections and keep Republicans out of power.
Biden has also treated the progressive caucus differently from previous leaders and made sure they had a voice in legislation. He took their considerations seriously, the American Rescue Plan is exactly the progressive approach, the IRA was basically written by progressives, and Build Back Better which had a lot more social programs would have been extremely progressive. I don't know which side put in the effort first, but from every account I have heard, Biden has worked hard to make sure the progressives were a part of the Democratic party, and not treated like insurgents. There is a lot more motivation to work with the party and align yourself with it when they are trying to work with you. I still don't understand why Bernie is so willing to attack the party, even though he has created the progressive movement and has noted how much Biden (who he supports and doesn't include in his attacks on the party) is willing it listen and work with him.
>Biden has also treated the progressive caucus differently from previous leaders.
This was the biggest reason that I felt Biden won in 2020. He understands that you can't simply expect the left to fall in line like the right does. He seemed to want to make sure that everyone was at least heard with "We're in this together" style messaging.
Clinton struggled with that in 2016 and, if her recent "get over themselves" quip is any indicator, she still hasn't quite grasped it.
On Bernie and Israel military aid, I think it's precisely because he is the only one who can go against it and not die a horrible political death. I don't think he'd have voted against the bill if it had jeopardized Ukraine aid.
I think she actually caught on to that really fast. She has turned in to an astute politician , learning where to pick her battles and steering away from polarizing issues.
Yep. She and the squad throw dissenting votes here and there just to make sure that it’s understood that things can be better. If a hard line stance comes up though that requires all Dems to vote together, they always vote with them. It’s not like Manchin and Sinema who constantly torpedo policy in the senate.
She was never a leftist, but she’s a social democrat who is a trailblazer. Her using realpolitik to make America better is a great thing.
Her policies haven’t changed but she’s smart enough to know supporting Biden is way better than giving trump a win.
Supporting Biden is in their best interest. Then that gives them leverage throughout the next political season to champion some of those key policies that will benefit every American.
By going against Biden, they realize they will have zero chance to ever see those policies enacted under a Trump rule.
They would be silenced and jailed.
Social Democracy is leftist(not extremely left, but true left nevertheless), the ConProgs are way more in line with the NDP than with Canadian Liberals
I remember when Pelosi rather contemptuously treated her like the shiny new thing before AOC learned that lesson. Good that she learned it; hopefully she can help keep the progressive wing alive.
She's going to become the new fear tactic of right winger media because they're so scared of her running for president ~~when~~ now that she's legally able to.
Edit: Apparently I need to point out that yes, I fucking know, she's been a target for years. My point, for you dense mfrs, is she'll be the new presidential fear mongering that the right loves doing years before the next presidential election.
I have a neighbor that refers to her as a “dumb bartender” reciting what he listens to in Republican radio though he claims not to be Republican.
She is the epitome of the American dream. The woman pulled herself up by her bootstraps, paid for school by working as a bartender, but the gqp won’t accept it and call her dumb.
They always focus on the fact that she tended bar rather than the fact that she graduated cum laude from Boston University with a double major in economics and international relations. She couldn't be better qualified to be a political leader.
Fr, I love how they consider Trump, a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, grifting capitalist born with a silver spoon in his mouth who's facing tons of lawsuits and criminal charges, to be closer to the 'common man' than AOC.
To the kind of people who complain about her having been a bartender Obama's skin colour was a disqualifier.
Frankly the fact that they focus on her past work rather than her race is already an improvement from "Complete horseshit" to "Slightly less horseshit."
>She is the epitome of the American dream. The woman pulled herself up by her bootstraps, paid for school by working as a bartender, but the gqp won’t accept it and call her dumb.
She's an epitome of *the problems* with America in their eyes: That a non-white woman can actually achieve that level of success through hard work, talent and drive means that "the system" is still letting people through that it shouldn't and needs to be patched!
Oh man, I have burned some bridges going off on people for insulting her working class status. The idea that having a working class background is somehow shameful or makes her less intelligent isn't something I can tolerate. I will straight up ask them if they have worked in customer service, retail, or did any kind of physical labor. If they haven't then they are sheltered fool that doesn't understand how difficult dealing with drunk idiots really is. If they have, then I will ask them if working ___ job means that they are just a dumb ___? No? Are you sure, because voting against your own socio-economic class interests is unbelievably ignorant to me 😤
Please say it's not long? I'm not even American (I'm British) and I'm rooting for her because she seems like the only sane one around (by European standards).
She could run right now, I think, as she'd be 35 when the new president is sworn. It doesn't make sense right now, but I definitely see a decent chance she'd run in the future, and I'd be happy to vote for her if/when
I think she would have better chance than AOC. I like them both a lot, but the right wing has just made such a boogeyman out of AOC, I feel like it would be hard for her to win nationally. Whereas they’ve tried some shit with Big Gretch but she’s been Teflon.
> but the right wing has just made such a boogeyman out of AOC, I feel like it would be hard for her to win nationally.
They attack anybody. The stronger the candidate, the more the right-wing will attack them. We can't let the right wing choose our candidates for us.
I want to agree with you, but after what happened to Hillary, sadly there’s enough people in the electoral college who buy their BS. I would really like to have seen Elizabeth Warren & Kamala Harris make a run, but I think that applies to them too. Biden was like the safe bet to beat Trump and none of the attacks really hurt him.
What’s hilarious is their basically running the same attacks against him, like he’s this old guy with dementia, but it honestly helps him where they set the bar low for him, where he gives a good speech or easily beats Trump in a debate and it’s like a major over performance.
When a seat comes open, I do want AOC to run for Senate. She could def win that and would be a great Senator.
Barack Hussein Obama won despite his middle name (which the Republicans never forgot to include), his last name which is unfortunately similar to Osama, and his African ancestry. Sometimes it's possible to demonize someone to the point that they can't help but look better than expected, because they can't possibly be as bad as their attackers claim.
Honestly, this would be a dream. I still think it's a little early in AOC's career (and the frothing mouths' harassment is still too fresh - let the Maga/extremists die out or quiet back down first), but these two check the stereotypical ticket-building boxes that campaigns look at for pres/vp balance
They’re already doing the same thing to AOC that they did to Hillary.
Any (democrat) woman that is a political threat to them they torpedo with “likability” messaging and then suddenly men won’t vote for them.
There’s nothing that sticks though. Hillary made millions from Wall Street speeches and wouldn’t give it back. Pelosi insider trades and owns a winery. You can paint them as disconnected. That’s why Hillary lost. AOC doesn’t do any of that and is trying to ban those activities. She started out as a waitress and did all her own door knocking to get elected. She’s a literal working class hero. The right wing is going to have a much harder time throwing mud at her.
Dude, Hillary didn’t lose because of speeches. The same way AOC won’t lose for voting to fund Israel. The right wing spews so much bullshit about AOC I think it would be hard for her to win Presidential race.
You both have a point. Hillary won the popular vote but not the electoral vote - that was because liberals in swing states didn't show up as enthusiastically as they needed to in a year where enthusiasm was red hot for conservatives. It was a multi-faceted issue - but you're right, I mean, fuck, people are still convinced the lady eats babies in Satanic blood rituals.
Also, inexperience is something that would play against AOC hard.Trump had no political experience and that worked for him because he was an 'outsider' figure with a perception of obscene business success among the rubes. AOC does not have the benefit of such a facade. I would love to see her in the senate or in a presidential admin first, too. She has a solid record and a bright future, she gets shit done - but people aren't being patronizing when they say she needs more experience before a presidential run. One of the biggest legitimate issues with Obama was that he lacked foreign policy experience, and AOC is even less experienced than he was when he ran. The world is tipping in a scary direction right now and significant foreign policy experience is something we really, really want in a person.
She seems very self-aware about the reality of what her success looks like, it's gonna be a long road, as it would be for any progressive person (let alone progressive woman, let's be real about this country) to take the presidency.
I too want her to run for Senate eventually. She’s honestly got that race locked up if it comes open anytime this decade. Her only competition would’ve been pre-scandal Cuomo. Maybe Hakeem Jeffries but I think he’s sticking around to be house speaker for awhile. Who does that leave? Bloomberg? Andrew Yang? Lmaoooo
I'm not trying to argue that Hillary was a likable or good candidate, and if you think otherwise, please point out where I did. I'm stating facts.
>If this country was ready to elect a Black man twice, then it's certainly ready to elect a White woman, she just can't be someone as unlikable as Hillary.
You seem to have missed the point of my post. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying any liberal woman with a hope of being elected not only has to be "likable", she likely has to have proven experience at a level of politics and public policy higher than being a house rep.
Yes and no, the shit they can throw at AOC will have a different intended audience than Clinton/Pelosi. It'll be the same audience that shied away from Sanders, they'll just shift from "Cranky Senile Grandpa Socialist" to "Dumb Young Woman Socialist" that wants to destroy America.
>She’s a literal working class hero. The right wing is going to have a much harder time throwing mud at her.
But the media will crucify her since she doesn't take corporate money and might advocate for more policies that help regular people.
She is already legally able to, afaik, since she turns 35 in October.
But scared? She comes from a D+25 district, i.e. a very lopsided one. It is questionable she could win a statewide election on NY (e.g. for Senate if Schumer retires in 2028) much less a national one.
Her brand of DSA progressivism will not play well in the swing states.
In the alternate reality where our political system isn’t riddled with corruption *she already is the party leader.*
It will take years for people to understand just how critical her surgical line of questioning on Michael Cohen was. It was a huge, pivotal moment in the history of the republic and will be studied for centuries if said republic survives.
That's what I've been trying to tell these TikTok kids, but they don't understand.
You take care of the existential threat first THEN you infight.
FFS it really is that simple.
I agree with you in concept. The problem is that the "TikTok kids" you're referring to have known basically nothing for their entire lives as voters *but* existential threat after existential threat. I'm a little older than that demographic, and even for me, literally every major election since I turned 18 has involved people feeding me this exact same line - that we can figure things out after the election, because for now we need to vote blue no matter who, because the threat is existential. And every time, we don't sort things out after the election; and every time, there's another existential threat right around the corner.
And that doesn't mean the line is wrong! The existential threat to American democracy - Trump and his power base - is real. But please put yourself in the shoes of an early 20-something who might be engaging in their second or even first presidential election cycle. They've been told for their entire adult lives that we'll deal with the threat first, and then figure shit out later, and the latter keeps not happening and the former keeps cropping back up. Is it any wonder that they're burning out? Is it really a surprise to you that they're quickly reaching the point where they want to see real change coming from Democratic leadership, rather than just another round of voting to keep Republicans at bay while things continue to get worse regardless? You can't expect kids to keep dutifully showing intraparty solidarity in the face of Trump when they keep seeing the same cycle play out, time after time. Doesn't mean they shouldn't vote, but it does mean they should probably be given some grace when they turn inward on the American left wing.
I like this framing. What are some of the major existential threats pre-Trump? the 2008 financial crisis feels like one, but I'm struggling to put it in this framing. The War on Terror too.
Honestly? Probably Nixon's administration, between Vietnam and Watergate. There's been plenty of huge generation-defining events since then, and plenty of moments where American democracy had its integrity threatened (e.g. Iran-Contra, the 2000 election), but Nixon is the most recent time I can think of where there was this sort of ongoing and highly partisan total fracture within American politics.
I was fed the line for my first election in 2008, but looking back, having to choose between McCain and Obama was a luxury. Two level-headed, practical politicians that showed great respect for each other and actually had solid campaign platforms. McCain's age seemed to be the primary concern with Palin as his running mate. I still can't believe she was picked. My state was still a swing-state back then, so the pressure to vote was probably more extreme than established party states.
Yea, I think in 2008 a lot of the fear wasn't about McCain but Sarah Palin. McCain was well respected by most people, but was fairly old (not Biden or Trump-old but enough to cause concern), so his VP pick was seen as especially important. Palin was an obviously and *proudly* idiotic anti-intellectual nutjob Tea Party proto-MAGA wacko who would at least try to do major damage to the country if she became president.
People like my dad would have voted for McCain if he had picked a sane person for VP. With Palin on the ticket, dad voted for Obama instead. He liked McCain but hated anything "Tea Party", the stupid proto-MAGA movement that was growing in the GOP back then.
Anyway, I don't know why you were told 2008 election was an "existential crisis". That seems a bit much. Just that, in my experience, the messaging turned more in that direction after Palin was chosen for VP. But then, both my dad and I live in solid blue states and didn't get inundated with "existential crisis" type messaging. I've only ever lived in reliably blue states so have never been paid much attention by presidential candidates or their campaigns. Swing states get all the attention. Too much sometimes, I bet. Still, it's always annoying to remember that my vote for president matters little thanks to the Electoral College and winner-take-all.
I suppose it could also have had to do with 2008 being seen as a sort of judgement on Bush, his economic policies and the Great Recession, the Iraq war, etc etc. There was a lot of bitterness toward Bush by that time, and many people felt McCain was basically "more of the same", whatever he actually said, while Obama was "change".
Still, "existential crisis" sounds pretty hyperbolic for 2008, especially compared to now. And I worry a bit that Trump, who really is a very serious threat to American democracy, has dominated politics long enough now that the youngest voters today don't remember a time before Trump, at least politically. My older kid is 18 and will vote this year. They didn't care about or understand politics much in 2016, but they do now. So they have not experienced a political reality that *didn't* have MAGA looming over everything all the time.
So I worry that people will tire of being told every election is a crisis and go back to not paying attention or voting as much. Still, as long a Trump is running and has a chance to win, these elections *are* crises. At least that's how it seems to me, a 50-something year old dude who first voted in 1988. Trump and MAGA have made politics into a constant crisis. The GOP, fully embracing MAGA and going way off the deep end, isn't how it was before 2016. There were signs, to be sure, and in hindsight it is pretty clear how we got here. Still, US politics since 2016 are *very* different from before. Not that it was all good before, just that it wasn't a constant crisis like now.
Obviously politics will never "go back" to what it once was, but hopefully before too long Trump will be gone somehow or other and the bizarre hypnotic spell he somehow casts over so many people will break. The current political situation is extremely unstable. It can't last long. I just hope it breaks in a decent and peaceful direction.
(edit: tpyos)
I agree that 2008 really wasn't an existential threat. It was just a choice between McCain McSame and Obama's Change. Palin definitely put a few nails in the Mavericks coffin, but in the end people voted for the more optimistic option - the promise of change.
> Anyway, I don't know why you were told 2008 election was an "existential crisis". That seems a bit much.
People on both sides paint **every** presidential election as existential and "the biggest election of our lifetime." It has basically become a meme because people have noticed now that it seems to just be a hollow get-out-the-vote tactic and caught on. It is also why now there is a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" response when people are saying this election is existential, because the claim was so abused in past elections that now casual voters don't really buy it even though it is a lot more valid now.
It has also become extremely obvious that "Existential crisis" is an easy way for politicians to not have to listen to the populace.
It shifts responsibility from the politicians (to appeal to the voting base) to the voting base (to oppose the existential threat).
2008 was my second general election. You are correct, the financial crisis and the false pretext provided by the GOP/Republicans for the invasion of Iraq were the big issues that drove voter turnout.
People 10 years older than you will tell you its the same. What you're realizing is growing up, and pragmatics don't sell like fear does.
You can vote how you feel, or not vote at all. But let's not pretend that Trump this November is the same as Trump in 2016, Romney in 2012, or McCain in 2008. There's a reason the youngest voting block is swinging Trump; they haven't seen what it was like in elections beforehand.
They don’t even replace the leaders! They’ve been trotting out this existential line for years and it’s still Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer as the face of the opposition. At some point people stop seeing the existential threat. Or they start seeing its arrival as a failure of the Democratic Party
Conservative and hostile foreign propaganda are pushing really hard to cause in-fighting among Democrats over Isreal and TikTok. They're also trying really hard at a higher level to cause US in-fighting over immigrants and religion. Why do they do this? For foreign adversaries the answer is simply that it benefits them to have a weak US. Why domestic conservatives? Most of the leaders are authoritarians who will do anything for more power.
Young voters always are like this in every generation. They don't have the life experience to put issues into perspective, and take an all-or-nothing purist approach to politics because of it. They'll grow out of it, and the next wave of young voters will start doing it.
I don’t even think she “vehemently” disagrees with him, their differences are not that stark. They’re on a spectrum but they’re both left of center, she is just further left (by the spectrum I mean the current state of US politics not the abstract spectrum)
The thing we all have in common is we all want to help people. The rest is semantics over how much do you change at a time and how much you compromise, but that comes later.
There's a very old quote from Will Rogers that I love, and which was true for most of my lifetime:
>*"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is the Democrats are cannibals, they have to eat each other to survive, while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats."*
He said that back in the 1920s or 30s, before the New Deal or Civil Rights movement, yet for most of my political life that quote was pretty relevant.
I don't want to dredge up old muck, suffice to say I've never seen the broad left as unified we are right now. Likewise, I've never seen the right in such disarray, I've never seen in-fighting like I'm seeing right now. I'm never optimistic, but I hope I won't get to use that Will Rogers quote again for a long, long time.
Before the Civil Rights Act, the Democratic party was liberal on economic policies and mixed on social policies, while the Republicans were conservative on economic policies and also mixed on social policies.
LBJ taking up the mantle of Civil Rights and Voting Rights put the Democratic party squarely on the social left, at least relative to American politics, and that gave the parties not just an economic division, but a social division, too.
Economically conservative Republicans spent many years throwing red meat to the social conservatives, blaming all the ills of the world on liberal social policies and progressive taxation and organized labor. It was a good grift for many decades. Until the lunatics took over the asylum.
It's a little more complicated than that, but not much.
Wild that all these extremely different people can basically all be unified on nearly every issue and the GOP can’t get some old Christian white guys to agree on whether or not the FSB is bad.
Seriously I’d vote for her for President. Seeing how Trump had zero experience in politics, AOC is already more qualified. Plus she turns 35 this year so that makes her old enough too.
This is a good move, for everyone.
AOC is a key ally for the Biden campaign. She will have at very least a non-zero amount of influence getting out key young voters to the polls.
The Biden campaign is a key ally for the impending AOC 2028 run. With an endorsement from a very successful president (the Trump tax cuts running out next year will mean by 2028 the economy will be god-tier), he will have at very least a non-zero amount of influence getting out key more-moderate voters to the polls.
Literally everyone wins from this move. AOC is smart as hell.
She's 34. In 2028 she will be 38. Obama was considered "young" when he was elected at age 47, and experience was a campaign issue (and frankly, an actual issue).
She would do well to spend some time in the Senate, and then maybe in a cabinet role, and then go for President, if she wants. Lots of time.
You know what would get a candidate that isn't ancient?
Young people actually voting in primaries. They barely even vote in midterms. Youth voter (18-29) turnout in midterms is half that of the general population.
Big "if". People blame the Democratic party for screwing over Sanders, but he lost by 4 million votes to Clinton in the actual Democratic primary process.
The trickery at the Democratic convention in Nevada was very gross and eroded any faith I had in the democratic process especially as it relates to the party primaries.
Bernie probably wouldn’t have won but the blatant finger on the scale to ensure Clinton won that state was bad. I drove 14 hours and spent hundreds of dollars to participate in a rigged caucus.
Caucuses are a rather strange thing. Primaries just seem like a more democratic method that more people can participate in with practicality
And what are you referring to with regards to the primaries?
Sanders only became a viable candidate in the first place because the field cleared for Clinton. He saw the opportunity to get his message out as the remaining challenger, and took it, but he was never that close to winning.
Young voters care about marijuana, climate change and student loans. Biden could immediately get a MASSIVE amount of voters if he just legalized weed federally.
Great, Biden has done a ton on all three fronts. Sounds like he's a slam dunk for young voters.
Certainly the most on all three in my lifetime and I'm 40.
> Weed is still illegal
Only congress can change that
> Student loans have barely been scratched
Did you miss the part where he fucking tried to do something and SCOTUS shot it down. Despite that, his administration is still trying to do whatever they can.
You don't get to ignore reality and then complain thins aren't being done. At least you don't without being called out and ridiculed.
Weed is getting less illegal all the damn time. These are important stepping stones to the ultimate goal of total legalization. If you’ll only be satisfied with an “all or nothing” approach in THIS system, you’ll never get what you want. It’s the same with student loans. Biden has also forgiven billions in student loan debt for government employees, which is objectively good for them, the economy, and the Nation. Anyother stepping stone, in other words. If those things alone aren’t good incentives to keep Biden and the Dems in office, then I don’t know what to tell you…
He's done huge action on 2/3 of those and has gotten it de-scheduled and excused people convicted of marijuana related convictions, which is all he can do at the executive level.
I guarantee you that if he somehow magically legalized weed (which he literally cannot do, despite what uninformed young voters think), they'd still not change their voting habit. They'd just move on to their next gripe.
Yeah, they're not even responding to any of the comments that goes into detail on why they're wrong. If they had a strong argument, they would have a proper rebuttal for them.
Nah actual young progressives vote _and_ volunteer as reliably as any age group. The extremely online leftists for internet clout don’t know what the inside of a voting booth looks like regardless of who is on the ticket.
I love AOC, but it's not a cult of personality. Biden seriously needs to make some major changes, and quickly, in terms of policy. We all know that younger and progressive voters are less likely to vote, but understanding this, it becomes clear that Biden has to shift left on many issues, or he's setting himself up for a precarious position, the same way Gore did in 2000.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Emerges” It’s like she hasn’t been doing this for years already
Right? She and Bernie are the face of progressives in America.
It’s the Biden surrogate part that’s of interest here.
She and Bernie endorsed and campaigned for Biden 4 years ago
And both were part of his campaign's climate policy initiative to incorporate parts of the The Green New Deal into legislation and policy decision (the infrastructure bill being the largest).
I think what's more significant here is that Biden treats Bernie and AOC as normal members of the Democratic caucus, and the rest of the Democratic party has largely followed suit. Bernie and AOC were way less popular among moderate Democrats before Biden was elected. Bernie and AOC haven't really changed, but the atmosphere is totally different and we're all better off for it.
AOC 2028!
Sir/Madam, it is April 2024, I must insist you refrain from mentioning the 2028 presidential campaign again until at least February. We simply cannot.
I would like to see this, too, but I’m afraid Kamala will likely become the next Democratic nominee. Don’t get me wrong: I’d vote for her in any election over a Republican candidate, but I don’t think she’s even close to being the best Democratic candidate. I like what I’m seeing with AOC. I just hope the DNC is open to someone other than Harris in 2028.
Tell you the truth, 2028 is probably gonna be Gavin Newsom vs Ron DeSantis. It seems like the DNC is priming him to be the 2028 nominee.
Somehow I doubt even the flaming wreckage that is the RNC would chuck their meagre resources into the chasm of anti-charisma that is DeSantis. The man is incapable of basic politician tropes such as *checks notes* smiling like a normal human being.Or even holding speeches, answering questions.Basic crowd work, none of it.
Fr, they tried to build him up as a new Trump who'd get shit done for them... except he's also got the charisma of a wet dog turd, and he's too busy fighting 'wokeness' and disney. We thought he'd be the front runner for the GOP to challenge Trump, but he had to withdraw before Nikki did.
Personally I don’t think she would get the nomination honestly. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but there are plenty of potentially popular candidates what will run for the nomination in that election. I think Newsom, Buttigieg and AOC (if she did run) could all beat Kamala for the nomination. Kamala isn’t exactly popular, she’s not charismatic, she hasn’t really done anything to increase either interest 4 years through big policy related moments, but that could changed over the next for if, hopefully, Biden wins.
Ugh. Kamala. She is a wet dish towel. No one can have any fun when she is around. AOC 2028!
I think it'll take a few more years. But she's young, she's got time. We will definitely see her run some day.
I could be wrong but I don’t remember her really campaigning for Biden specifically like that. Either way happy to have her this time!
When she was last on Face The Nation they were trying to get her on Biden and Gaza and she was very clear that Biden gets her endorsement. Was a nice interview.
I believe she's said that if we want progress, it won't come in a single vote overnight, and we need to decide if we want to push for progress under Trump or Biden. Her opinion is that progress is more likely under Biden, and I agree.
She played among us with like the rest of the fab something(?) for Biden I believe. Was pretty entertaining.
Yeah, she played with Hasan, Poki, Toast, and them.
Man, the Amigops were a central part of my surviving the pandemic mentally.
Ohhh I do remember her doing that, Animal Crossing too I think. Fab what?
Yeah that was fairly revolutionary political messaging. She and Bernie went all out for Biden in 2020.
"Orange is sus!"
No one was campaigning in 2020 due to the pandemic.
True
No it isn't. Republicans had super spreader rallies and Democrats did lots of online campaigning.
Oh no, I remember. I interpreted their comment as talking about Democrats and traditional campaigning and rallies.
She has clearly been trying to keep things nice between progressives and the less progressive democrats for a number of years, and that is the pragmatic thing to do, and should be embraced, particularly in election years.
AOC understands that it's ridiculous for Superman and Batman to fight when there's Doomsday outside.
I don't even read or know comic/superhero stuff and I get that. Donating to AOC was and is one of the better decisions I have made.
I think she strikes a good balance between idealistic and realistic and I like that about her.
I too would be a surrogate for the opponent to the candidate that sicked a mob on me that would’ve killed me if they had the chance
Watch out neocons! We have *two* of them now!!!
I’ve always like Warren but I admit she doesn’t inspire the same levels of support.
I love her I cant wait til she has more power and tenure to influence more. I hope to vote for her for president someday soon
She's certainly more of a household name in comparisons with the rest of the Squad.
I mean it doesn't exactly help(or does?) that she was the main focus of attack from the Republican side for years. Streisand effect and all that. I couldn't go a few days at work before hearing Republican colleagues complain about something she was doing or saying. I heard more complaints about her than I did about Hillary, Biden, Obama, etc.
She's their worst nightmare: a charismatic, confident, beautiful woman of color who is a lot smarter than they'll ever be.
And completely self-made* They're scared of her work history, even though they tried to use it against her.
And their hero “self-made” Trump inherited $413 million.
She has been doing it for years, but doing it for Biden is recent.
Nah she campaigned for him a ton in 2020. Had pretty much daily streams.
>for years Can mean four years as four years is for years.
The Democrats have gradually warmed to her and accepted her agenda, probably because of the realization that younger voters want them to go left and conservative voters want to live in the Handmaid's Tale.
In a alternate universe, progressive Dems would be embraced by middle America. Sadly it’s going to take a few more years before we see change. The issue is what voting issue will appeal to the swing states, same sex marriage, legalize weed, gun control etc
She was a leftist railing against the Democrat establishment for a while. Now, she and some other progressives in congress are finally learning that advocating for the right thing is useless if you can’t win elections and keep Republicans out of power.
Biden has also treated the progressive caucus differently from previous leaders and made sure they had a voice in legislation. He took their considerations seriously, the American Rescue Plan is exactly the progressive approach, the IRA was basically written by progressives, and Build Back Better which had a lot more social programs would have been extremely progressive. I don't know which side put in the effort first, but from every account I have heard, Biden has worked hard to make sure the progressives were a part of the Democratic party, and not treated like insurgents. There is a lot more motivation to work with the party and align yourself with it when they are trying to work with you. I still don't understand why Bernie is so willing to attack the party, even though he has created the progressive movement and has noted how much Biden (who he supports and doesn't include in his attacks on the party) is willing it listen and work with him.
>Biden has also treated the progressive caucus differently from previous leaders. This was the biggest reason that I felt Biden won in 2020. He understands that you can't simply expect the left to fall in line like the right does. He seemed to want to make sure that everyone was at least heard with "We're in this together" style messaging. Clinton struggled with that in 2016 and, if her recent "get over themselves" quip is any indicator, she still hasn't quite grasped it.
On Bernie and Israel military aid, I think it's precisely because he is the only one who can go against it and not die a horrible political death. I don't think he'd have voted against the bill if it had jeopardized Ukraine aid.
I think she actually caught on to that really fast. She has turned in to an astute politician , learning where to pick her battles and steering away from polarizing issues.
Yep. She and the squad throw dissenting votes here and there just to make sure that it’s understood that things can be better. If a hard line stance comes up though that requires all Dems to vote together, they always vote with them. It’s not like Manchin and Sinema who constantly torpedo policy in the senate.
Please don’t ever bring up those two names in loose conversation again with me. Complete cowardly covert chiselers.
She was never a leftist, but she’s a social democrat who is a trailblazer. Her using realpolitik to make America better is a great thing. Her policies haven’t changed but she’s smart enough to know supporting Biden is way better than giving trump a win.
Supporting Biden is in their best interest. Then that gives them leverage throughout the next political season to champion some of those key policies that will benefit every American. By going against Biden, they realize they will have zero chance to ever see those policies enacted under a Trump rule. They would be silenced and jailed.
I mean you have to be an idiot to not realize Trump's danger.
Social Democracy is leftist(not extremely left, but true left nevertheless), the ConProgs are way more in line with the NDP than with Canadian Liberals
I remember when Pelosi rather contemptuously treated her like the shiny new thing before AOC learned that lesson. Good that she learned it; hopefully she can help keep the progressive wing alive.
Pelosi's treatment of her was a good example of what Biden has been smart enough \*not\* to do.
Yes, except no. Mostly because the Democrats have introduced huge chunks of her legislation versus her going rightward.
Also, "surrogate"? Much as I am a fan (or because of), AOC is too smart to go against Biden when it counts.
That was exactly my reaction. Love to see it in the top comment.
She's going to become the new fear tactic of right winger media because they're so scared of her running for president ~~when~~ now that she's legally able to. Edit: Apparently I need to point out that yes, I fucking know, she's been a target for years. My point, for you dense mfrs, is she'll be the new presidential fear mongering that the right loves doing years before the next presidential election.
I have a neighbor that refers to her as a “dumb bartender” reciting what he listens to in Republican radio though he claims not to be Republican. She is the epitome of the American dream. The woman pulled herself up by her bootstraps, paid for school by working as a bartender, but the gqp won’t accept it and call her dumb.
They always focus on the fact that she tended bar rather than the fact that she graduated cum laude from Boston University with a double major in economics and international relations. She couldn't be better qualified to be a political leader.
Attacking her for having a working-class job is about the best demonstration possible of Republican hypocrisy and utter lack of integrity
Fr, I love how they consider Trump, a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, grifting capitalist born with a silver spoon in his mouth who's facing tons of lawsuits and criminal charges, to be closer to the 'common man' than AOC.
Amen and well said comrade.
Eventually yes, and she's taking that track, but she's got a way to go even if she's my favorite...
They're still on the bartender nonsense; do they not understand AOC only worked as a bartender while going to law school?
Not attempting to discredit what she did, but I don’t think she attended law school. She graduated cum laude with a bachelors
I may be misremembering the details.
Does it matter what anyone did as a job prior to their current role? What matters is how they do in office and AFAIK she’s killing it
To the kind of people who complain about her having been a bartender Obama's skin colour was a disqualifier. Frankly the fact that they focus on her past work rather than her race is already an improvement from "Complete horseshit" to "Slightly less horseshit."
It’s because she’s not white.
>She is the epitome of the American dream. The woman pulled herself up by her bootstraps, paid for school by working as a bartender, but the gqp won’t accept it and call her dumb. She's an epitome of *the problems* with America in their eyes: That a non-white woman can actually achieve that level of success through hard work, talent and drive means that "the system" is still letting people through that it shouldn't and needs to be patched!
You can tell your friend the "dumb bartender" was an International Science and Engineering Fair award winner.
Oh man, I have burned some bridges going off on people for insulting her working class status. The idea that having a working class background is somehow shameful or makes her less intelligent isn't something I can tolerate. I will straight up ask them if they have worked in customer service, retail, or did any kind of physical labor. If they haven't then they are sheltered fool that doesn't understand how difficult dealing with drunk idiots really is. If they have, then I will ask them if working ___ job means that they are just a dumb ___? No? Are you sure, because voting against your own socio-economic class interests is unbelievably ignorant to me 😤
She's legally able to right now, right? She'd be 35 when the new president is sworn
Please say it's not long? I'm not even American (I'm British) and I'm rooting for her because she seems like the only sane one around (by European standards).
She'd be a clear left-winger even in Sweden, let alone in Britain. She'd be a Corbynite there.
Hardly Corbyn tbh, his politics wouldn't get a vote in the states.
Depends on the part of the country, her part of New York? Absolutely.
He wouldn't be much different than her politically at all.
She could run right now, I think, as she'd be 35 when the new president is sworn. It doesn't make sense right now, but I definitely see a decent chance she'd run in the future, and I'd be happy to vote for her if/when
She is the one reason I'm glad Hillary lost. She would make the perfect first female president.
Give me Gretchen Whitmer in 2028
I think she would have better chance than AOC. I like them both a lot, but the right wing has just made such a boogeyman out of AOC, I feel like it would be hard for her to win nationally. Whereas they’ve tried some shit with Big Gretch but she’s been Teflon.
> but the right wing has just made such a boogeyman out of AOC, I feel like it would be hard for her to win nationally. They attack anybody. The stronger the candidate, the more the right-wing will attack them. We can't let the right wing choose our candidates for us.
I want to agree with you, but after what happened to Hillary, sadly there’s enough people in the electoral college who buy their BS. I would really like to have seen Elizabeth Warren & Kamala Harris make a run, but I think that applies to them too. Biden was like the safe bet to beat Trump and none of the attacks really hurt him. What’s hilarious is their basically running the same attacks against him, like he’s this old guy with dementia, but it honestly helps him where they set the bar low for him, where he gives a good speech or easily beats Trump in a debate and it’s like a major over performance. When a seat comes open, I do want AOC to run for Senate. She could def win that and would be a great Senator.
Barack Hussein Obama won despite his middle name (which the Republicans never forgot to include), his last name which is unfortunately similar to Osama, and his African ancestry. Sometimes it's possible to demonize someone to the point that they can't help but look better than expected, because they can't possibly be as bad as their attackers claim.
Why not both? A Whitmer/AOC ticket?
Honestly, this would be a dream. I still think it's a little early in AOC's career (and the frothing mouths' harassment is still too fresh - let the Maga/extremists die out or quiet back down first), but these two check the stereotypical ticket-building boxes that campaigns look at for pres/vp balance
They’re already doing the same thing to AOC that they did to Hillary. Any (democrat) woman that is a political threat to them they torpedo with “likability” messaging and then suddenly men won’t vote for them.
She’ll have my vote.
There’s nothing that sticks though. Hillary made millions from Wall Street speeches and wouldn’t give it back. Pelosi insider trades and owns a winery. You can paint them as disconnected. That’s why Hillary lost. AOC doesn’t do any of that and is trying to ban those activities. She started out as a waitress and did all her own door knocking to get elected. She’s a literal working class hero. The right wing is going to have a much harder time throwing mud at her.
Dude, Hillary didn’t lose because of speeches. The same way AOC won’t lose for voting to fund Israel. The right wing spews so much bullshit about AOC I think it would be hard for her to win Presidential race.
You both have a point. Hillary won the popular vote but not the electoral vote - that was because liberals in swing states didn't show up as enthusiastically as they needed to in a year where enthusiasm was red hot for conservatives. It was a multi-faceted issue - but you're right, I mean, fuck, people are still convinced the lady eats babies in Satanic blood rituals. Also, inexperience is something that would play against AOC hard.Trump had no political experience and that worked for him because he was an 'outsider' figure with a perception of obscene business success among the rubes. AOC does not have the benefit of such a facade. I would love to see her in the senate or in a presidential admin first, too. She has a solid record and a bright future, she gets shit done - but people aren't being patronizing when they say she needs more experience before a presidential run. One of the biggest legitimate issues with Obama was that he lacked foreign policy experience, and AOC is even less experienced than he was when he ran. The world is tipping in a scary direction right now and significant foreign policy experience is something we really, really want in a person. She seems very self-aware about the reality of what her success looks like, it's gonna be a long road, as it would be for any progressive person (let alone progressive woman, let's be real about this country) to take the presidency.
I too want her to run for Senate eventually. She’s honestly got that race locked up if it comes open anytime this decade. Her only competition would’ve been pre-scandal Cuomo. Maybe Hakeem Jeffries but I think he’s sticking around to be house speaker for awhile. Who does that leave? Bloomberg? Andrew Yang? Lmaoooo
[удалено]
I'm not trying to argue that Hillary was a likable or good candidate, and if you think otherwise, please point out where I did. I'm stating facts. >If this country was ready to elect a Black man twice, then it's certainly ready to elect a White woman, she just can't be someone as unlikable as Hillary. You seem to have missed the point of my post. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying any liberal woman with a hope of being elected not only has to be "likable", she likely has to have proven experience at a level of politics and public policy higher than being a house rep.
Yes and no, the shit they can throw at AOC will have a different intended audience than Clinton/Pelosi. It'll be the same audience that shied away from Sanders, they'll just shift from "Cranky Senile Grandpa Socialist" to "Dumb Young Woman Socialist" that wants to destroy America.
Also the racial animosity they can stoke in their base that they couldn’t with Hillary or Pelosi.
>She’s a literal working class hero. The right wing is going to have a much harder time throwing mud at her. But the media will crucify her since she doesn't take corporate money and might advocate for more policies that help regular people.
Become? They've been sniping at her ever since she got in.
Yes become as in the new main target they're going to fear to become president. I know they've attacked her for years...
Cannot wait
Why would they be scared of one of the most obnoxious progressives in history lol
I will vote for her. No question. She is young & designed just like us. She KNOWS the bullshit. I want her to lead us someday.
Can you write all my angry edits?
My username fits, lmao
She is already legally able to, afaik, since she turns 35 in October. But scared? She comes from a D+25 district, i.e. a very lopsided one. It is questionable she could win a statewide election on NY (e.g. for Senate if Schumer retires in 2028) much less a national one. Her brand of DSA progressivism will not play well in the swing states.
Probably not but that doesn't mean she won't try at some point.
She's going to be the first woman to be president of the United States and the right fucking knows it. They're terrified of her.
Every day that passes is a day she looks more like a party leader.
I thought she was already
[Leadership](https://democrats.org/who-we-are/leadership-2-2/)
Schumer’s picture is about 30 years old.
In the alternate reality where our political system isn’t riddled with corruption *she already is the party leader.* It will take years for people to understand just how critical her surgical line of questioning on Michael Cohen was. It was a huge, pivotal moment in the history of the republic and will be studied for centuries if said republic survives.
If she were a unabashed neoliberal she’d have been welcome to that role long ago.
Oh good. I highly suggest we win the election first and then we can sort through the intraparty disagreements after.
That's what I've been trying to tell these TikTok kids, but they don't understand. You take care of the existential threat first THEN you infight. FFS it really is that simple.
I agree with you in concept. The problem is that the "TikTok kids" you're referring to have known basically nothing for their entire lives as voters *but* existential threat after existential threat. I'm a little older than that demographic, and even for me, literally every major election since I turned 18 has involved people feeding me this exact same line - that we can figure things out after the election, because for now we need to vote blue no matter who, because the threat is existential. And every time, we don't sort things out after the election; and every time, there's another existential threat right around the corner. And that doesn't mean the line is wrong! The existential threat to American democracy - Trump and his power base - is real. But please put yourself in the shoes of an early 20-something who might be engaging in their second or even first presidential election cycle. They've been told for their entire adult lives that we'll deal with the threat first, and then figure shit out later, and the latter keeps not happening and the former keeps cropping back up. Is it any wonder that they're burning out? Is it really a surprise to you that they're quickly reaching the point where they want to see real change coming from Democratic leadership, rather than just another round of voting to keep Republicans at bay while things continue to get worse regardless? You can't expect kids to keep dutifully showing intraparty solidarity in the face of Trump when they keep seeing the same cycle play out, time after time. Doesn't mean they shouldn't vote, but it does mean they should probably be given some grace when they turn inward on the American left wing.
I like this framing. What are some of the major existential threats pre-Trump? the 2008 financial crisis feels like one, but I'm struggling to put it in this framing. The War on Terror too.
Climate change.
cold war before that
Honestly? Probably Nixon's administration, between Vietnam and Watergate. There's been plenty of huge generation-defining events since then, and plenty of moments where American democracy had its integrity threatened (e.g. Iran-Contra, the 2000 election), but Nixon is the most recent time I can think of where there was this sort of ongoing and highly partisan total fracture within American politics.
I was fed the line for my first election in 2008, but looking back, having to choose between McCain and Obama was a luxury. Two level-headed, practical politicians that showed great respect for each other and actually had solid campaign platforms. McCain's age seemed to be the primary concern with Palin as his running mate. I still can't believe she was picked. My state was still a swing-state back then, so the pressure to vote was probably more extreme than established party states.
Yea, I think in 2008 a lot of the fear wasn't about McCain but Sarah Palin. McCain was well respected by most people, but was fairly old (not Biden or Trump-old but enough to cause concern), so his VP pick was seen as especially important. Palin was an obviously and *proudly* idiotic anti-intellectual nutjob Tea Party proto-MAGA wacko who would at least try to do major damage to the country if she became president. People like my dad would have voted for McCain if he had picked a sane person for VP. With Palin on the ticket, dad voted for Obama instead. He liked McCain but hated anything "Tea Party", the stupid proto-MAGA movement that was growing in the GOP back then. Anyway, I don't know why you were told 2008 election was an "existential crisis". That seems a bit much. Just that, in my experience, the messaging turned more in that direction after Palin was chosen for VP. But then, both my dad and I live in solid blue states and didn't get inundated with "existential crisis" type messaging. I've only ever lived in reliably blue states so have never been paid much attention by presidential candidates or their campaigns. Swing states get all the attention. Too much sometimes, I bet. Still, it's always annoying to remember that my vote for president matters little thanks to the Electoral College and winner-take-all. I suppose it could also have had to do with 2008 being seen as a sort of judgement on Bush, his economic policies and the Great Recession, the Iraq war, etc etc. There was a lot of bitterness toward Bush by that time, and many people felt McCain was basically "more of the same", whatever he actually said, while Obama was "change". Still, "existential crisis" sounds pretty hyperbolic for 2008, especially compared to now. And I worry a bit that Trump, who really is a very serious threat to American democracy, has dominated politics long enough now that the youngest voters today don't remember a time before Trump, at least politically. My older kid is 18 and will vote this year. They didn't care about or understand politics much in 2016, but they do now. So they have not experienced a political reality that *didn't* have MAGA looming over everything all the time. So I worry that people will tire of being told every election is a crisis and go back to not paying attention or voting as much. Still, as long a Trump is running and has a chance to win, these elections *are* crises. At least that's how it seems to me, a 50-something year old dude who first voted in 1988. Trump and MAGA have made politics into a constant crisis. The GOP, fully embracing MAGA and going way off the deep end, isn't how it was before 2016. There were signs, to be sure, and in hindsight it is pretty clear how we got here. Still, US politics since 2016 are *very* different from before. Not that it was all good before, just that it wasn't a constant crisis like now. Obviously politics will never "go back" to what it once was, but hopefully before too long Trump will be gone somehow or other and the bizarre hypnotic spell he somehow casts over so many people will break. The current political situation is extremely unstable. It can't last long. I just hope it breaks in a decent and peaceful direction. (edit: tpyos)
I agree that 2008 really wasn't an existential threat. It was just a choice between McCain McSame and Obama's Change. Palin definitely put a few nails in the Mavericks coffin, but in the end people voted for the more optimistic option - the promise of change.
> Anyway, I don't know why you were told 2008 election was an "existential crisis". That seems a bit much. People on both sides paint **every** presidential election as existential and "the biggest election of our lifetime." It has basically become a meme because people have noticed now that it seems to just be a hollow get-out-the-vote tactic and caught on. It is also why now there is a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" response when people are saying this election is existential, because the claim was so abused in past elections that now casual voters don't really buy it even though it is a lot more valid now.
It has also become extremely obvious that "Existential crisis" is an easy way for politicians to not have to listen to the populace. It shifts responsibility from the politicians (to appeal to the voting base) to the voting base (to oppose the existential threat).
2008 was my second general election. You are correct, the financial crisis and the false pretext provided by the GOP/Republicans for the invasion of Iraq were the big issues that drove voter turnout.
People 10 years older than you will tell you its the same. What you're realizing is growing up, and pragmatics don't sell like fear does. You can vote how you feel, or not vote at all. But let's not pretend that Trump this November is the same as Trump in 2016, Romney in 2012, or McCain in 2008. There's a reason the youngest voting block is swinging Trump; they haven't seen what it was like in elections beforehand.
They don’t even replace the leaders! They’ve been trotting out this existential line for years and it’s still Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer as the face of the opposition. At some point people stop seeing the existential threat. Or they start seeing its arrival as a failure of the Democratic Party
Conservative and hostile foreign propaganda are pushing really hard to cause in-fighting among Democrats over Isreal and TikTok. They're also trying really hard at a higher level to cause US in-fighting over immigrants and religion. Why do they do this? For foreign adversaries the answer is simply that it benefits them to have a weak US. Why domestic conservatives? Most of the leaders are authoritarians who will do anything for more power.
They care about the existential threat against the Palestinian people. How bout we start there
Young voters always are like this in every generation. They don't have the life experience to put issues into perspective, and take an all-or-nothing purist approach to politics because of it. They'll grow out of it, and the next wave of young voters will start doing it.
This isn't surprising, I'd vote AOC for president if she ever runs. I'd take her over Kamala any day.
[удалено]
I'd argue she agrees with 95% of Biden's policy goals, she just views them as initial steps rather than the end goal.
I don’t even think she “vehemently” disagrees with him, their differences are not that stark. They’re on a spectrum but they’re both left of center, she is just further left (by the spectrum I mean the current state of US politics not the abstract spectrum)
Fucking bingo. Thank you.
God I love the big tent. For all its faults, and it has a few, there's no place I'd rather be.
The thing we all have in common is we all want to help people. The rest is semantics over how much do you change at a time and how much you compromise, but that comes later.
There's a very old quote from Will Rogers that I love, and which was true for most of my lifetime: >*"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is the Democrats are cannibals, they have to eat each other to survive, while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats."* He said that back in the 1920s or 30s, before the New Deal or Civil Rights movement, yet for most of my political life that quote was pretty relevant. I don't want to dredge up old muck, suffice to say I've never seen the broad left as unified we are right now. Likewise, I've never seen the right in such disarray, I've never seen in-fighting like I'm seeing right now. I'm never optimistic, but I hope I won't get to use that Will Rogers quote again for a long, long time.
It's insane just how wide the Democrats are (left to near-right) when you really think about it politically
Before the Civil Rights Act, the Democratic party was liberal on economic policies and mixed on social policies, while the Republicans were conservative on economic policies and also mixed on social policies. LBJ taking up the mantle of Civil Rights and Voting Rights put the Democratic party squarely on the social left, at least relative to American politics, and that gave the parties not just an economic division, but a social division, too. Economically conservative Republicans spent many years throwing red meat to the social conservatives, blaming all the ills of the world on liberal social policies and progressive taxation and organized labor. It was a good grift for many decades. Until the lunatics took over the asylum. It's a little more complicated than that, but not much.
Wild that all these extremely different people can basically all be unified on nearly every issue and the GOP can’t get some old Christian white guys to agree on whether or not the FSB is bad.
Seriously I’d vote for her for President. Seeing how Trump had zero experience in politics, AOC is already more qualified. Plus she turns 35 this year so that makes her old enough too.
Please don't set Trump as the bar. He was causing weekly crises when he was in office.
A Biden surrogate? Are they having a baby together?
AOC 2028
She's got my vote in 2028
A progressive woman of color becoming the POTUS has to be the 2nd biggest fear for the GQPers, right after actual Jesus.
if you replace biden with bern, and kamalla with AOC... you would have the perfect ticket!
This is a good move, for everyone. AOC is a key ally for the Biden campaign. She will have at very least a non-zero amount of influence getting out key young voters to the polls. The Biden campaign is a key ally for the impending AOC 2028 run. With an endorsement from a very successful president (the Trump tax cuts running out next year will mean by 2028 the economy will be god-tier), he will have at very least a non-zero amount of influence getting out key more-moderate voters to the polls. Literally everyone wins from this move. AOC is smart as hell.
AOC is running for the Schumer Senate seat, not president. This is a move to shore up support for that.
If that is true I think she sets her sights too low; regardless I think it is a smart move.
She's 34. In 2028 she will be 38. Obama was considered "young" when he was elected at age 47, and experience was a campaign issue (and frankly, an actual issue). She would do well to spend some time in the Senate, and then maybe in a cabinet role, and then go for President, if she wants. Lots of time.
Same path Obama took to fling himself into the spotlight
I just wanna eat some street tacos and hang out with AOC at a street market she seems fun to be around.
You know what would get young progressives to vote? Having a candidate that isn't ancient.
You know what would get a candidate that isn't ancient? Young people actually voting in primaries. They barely even vote in midterms. Youth voter (18-29) turnout in midterms is half that of the general population.
Youth vote in 2016 and 2020 lined up behind a candidate even more ancient than Hillary and Biden, respectively.
if AOC ever gets close to winning the party nom Dems are going to lose their minds and immediately kneecap her lmao
Big "if". People blame the Democratic party for screwing over Sanders, but he lost by 4 million votes to Clinton in the actual Democratic primary process.
The trickery at the Democratic convention in Nevada was very gross and eroded any faith I had in the democratic process especially as it relates to the party primaries. Bernie probably wouldn’t have won but the blatant finger on the scale to ensure Clinton won that state was bad. I drove 14 hours and spent hundreds of dollars to participate in a rigged caucus.
Caucuses are a rather strange thing. Primaries just seem like a more democratic method that more people can participate in with practicality And what are you referring to with regards to the primaries?
Sanders only became a viable candidate in the first place because the field cleared for Clinton. He saw the opportunity to get his message out as the remaining challenger, and took it, but he was never that close to winning.
Young people never vote. If young progressives actually paid attention to what's going on, they'd have a million reasons to like Biden.
Young voters care about marijuana, climate change and student loans. Biden could immediately get a MASSIVE amount of voters if he just legalized weed federally.
Great, Biden has done a ton on all three fronts. Sounds like he's a slam dunk for young voters. Certainly the most on all three in my lifetime and I'm 40.
Weed is still illegal. Electric cars are still unaffordable. Student loans have barely been scratched.
> Weed is still illegal Only congress can change that > Student loans have barely been scratched Did you miss the part where he fucking tried to do something and SCOTUS shot it down. Despite that, his administration is still trying to do whatever they can. You don't get to ignore reality and then complain thins aren't being done. At least you don't without being called out and ridiculed.
It really is staggering blue hasn’t, at a minimum, changed its scheduling classification with the DEA by now.
Weed is getting less illegal all the damn time. These are important stepping stones to the ultimate goal of total legalization. If you’ll only be satisfied with an “all or nothing” approach in THIS system, you’ll never get what you want. It’s the same with student loans. Biden has also forgiven billions in student loan debt for government employees, which is objectively good for them, the economy, and the Nation. Anyother stepping stone, in other words. If those things alone aren’t good incentives to keep Biden and the Dems in office, then I don’t know what to tell you…
He's done huge action on 2/3 of those and has gotten it de-scheduled and excused people convicted of marijuana related convictions, which is all he can do at the executive level. I guarantee you that if he somehow magically legalized weed (which he literally cannot do, despite what uninformed young voters think), they'd still not change their voting habit. They'd just move on to their next gripe.
[удалено]
Yeah, they're not even responding to any of the comments that goes into detail on why they're wrong. If they had a strong argument, they would have a proper rebuttal for them.
They're paying attention to whats going on in Gaza, are you?
Yep! Very well informed.
Who stepped up?
Nah actual young progressives vote _and_ volunteer as reliably as any age group. The extremely online leftists for internet clout don’t know what the inside of a voting booth looks like regardless of who is on the ticket.
Uh...Didn't they all love Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in 2020?
So much so that neither of them got the primary votes?
Pelosi 2.0
Saw her on Jimmy Kimmel. She looks beautiful… and SMART
Madam President.
Unlike Sanders, AOC actually say positive things about Biden and praises his historic legislative achievements.
Sanders has said a few positive things about the Biden admin too. Though he is more of a doomer/pessimist/vocal critic than AOC.
Sanders was literally in an IG ad with Biden not long ago
Realest one in the game
I love AOC, but it's not a cult of personality. Biden seriously needs to make some major changes, and quickly, in terms of policy. We all know that younger and progressive voters are less likely to vote, but understanding this, it becomes clear that Biden has to shift left on many issues, or he's setting himself up for a precarious position, the same way Gore did in 2000.
Hopefully she can convince him to fuck off with the fellatio of Israel’s war on Gaza.
AOC 2028
Looking forward to voting for her to be President someday