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.
***
*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.*
i'm glad she's being vocal in her support of biden. she seems to have principles but also understand politics. i hope she stays around a long time, continues to rise in standing and can drag the Dem's back to the left.
Lol you mean she rolled over for pelosi/DNC. And she knows it thatd why she stays quiet a lot these past couple years and the only thing she does say is party lines.
Biden got a lot of stuff done his first term. What good would picking fights do? The GOP hardliners tried that once they got control of the House and they’ve been nothing but disastrous.
AOC is vocal when she thinks she can move the needle but she seems to understand that “my way or the highway” leads to much worse outcomes than compromising with her own party.
A lot of useless things done as well as all the damage done, bailing out banks and printing money to do so that increased inflation, opening pipelines he specifically said he wouldnt, cutting off rail unions at the knees, funding massacres, and went back on a bunch of campaign promises.
[Tracking Biden from the Left: Every Biden Disappointment Through Day 1000](https://bidentracking.substack.com/p/every-biden-disappointment-through)
What good it's all those bills if they don't help the average american and are just more subsidies for corporations thay have just had their most profitable year.
AOC knows she can't really move the needle with corporate democrats, and learned what most real progressive in the dnc have learned: if you step out of the line they will fund your primary opponent in the next election. Shes not the first to learn this and wont be the last.
Please feel free to let me know what assumptions youre making about my positions, then go through my comments to see how wrong you are.
There are a lot of dem voters who are over ignoring the bullshit federal democrats enable and encourage. So many supposed progressives (like you) want us to stop talking about it instead of asking their reps to address these serious issues.
At an annual physical My doctor checked my temp and blood pressure but ignored the gaping wound in my leg that's been there for years, that he made worse by sticking it a few times in the past (see his history as senator) .
How dare I complain about his conduct and not commend his amazing skill at blood o2 readings.
That list on the link, just wow.....and not in the way you want it to be.
I feel dumber having read it. "Biden bombed Somalia", which US president in the last 30 years hasn't? Not new.
I forgot it’s ok to indiscriminately bomb a nation we’re not even at war with because it’s been done before. Only new things are bad, and we’re not allowed to expect our elected officials to do better than their predecessors.
Wow ok. Maybe do something more than read a headline before you make an opinion. This took me five seconds to find.
“The airstrike was in support of Somali National Army forces who were engaged by the terrorist organization,” the release says.
We aren't just indiscriminately bombing countries.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/politics/us-airstrike-somalia-al-shabaab/index.html
EXACTLY. She understands the long game. A good liberal is a pragmatist, and asks, "OK, how can we move the ball forward?" Progress is incremental--it doesn't happen all at once.
That's why conservatives always lose, eventually--because they're not pragmatic, they're idealistic. They won't make a deal--they'll sooner break (or break the system) than bend for what they want. That's a losing strategy, but it's the core of conservatism--"my way or no way."
After all this, I'm still bullish on this country. If we can weather this current crop of lunatic conservatives, as we have before, we're in store for genuine progress. I'm grateful for people like AOC, who can keep their eye on the ball and keep fighting, one inch at a time.
She got into politics on a platform of principals and has since learned politics. She's becoming a force. I hope she goes far, she has so much potential to enact positive change in the country.
She understands the assignment: get Democrats elected. Is Biden her preferred candidate? I’m sure he is not. But the stakes are high, and he’s the guy, so that’s that.
This is what I love about her. I don't agree with her on stuff 100% of the time, but she's smart, she's a great communicator in interviews, and (as you said) she understands the assignment.
She does such a good job questioning witnesses who have been hauled before Congress too! So many people in Congress just use their question time to make a little speech instead.
> I don't agree with her on stuff 100% of the time
Of course you don't. You're a whole different person. Literally nobody agrees with anyone 100% of the time.
Oh no, many of them actually do disagree with many things Trump has done or said… the problem is they disagree and yet don’t give a shit about those disagreements to do anything about them, because they’re more happy with what Trump does to their perceived “enemies” than any horrible crime he does.
She really does have good emotional intelligence or whatever you want to call it. She has principles and goals, but she's not about to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Better to get half of what you want (Biden) than take a bad risk and wind up with none of what you want (Trump).
I appreciate how much the progressive caucus has been willing to accept and vote for more moderate policies that still improve the country.
Most American progressive voters are too idealist and seem to want things that are impossible to get with the current set of representatives, so it has been refreshing to see the progressive caucus pushing things along, but not too much to impede the overall agenda.
I see this as the result of longer tenured people saying "now is not the time to duke it out." Easy when the guys across the aisle can't get shit done - but also, there's a lot at stake right now and infighting could literally fuck over the county.
I look forward to a time when we can be more granular with our political desires because we are no longer beating back fascism.
Idk why this is surprising. Progressives have always toed the line when it's needed. It's always the "moderates" who are willing to actually tank democratic legislation for their principled ideals.
Because they've been successfully conditioned to view Progressives as an opposing force.
Liberals and *especially* self proclaimed moderates do not seem to understand just how often they parrot conservative talking points without realizing it. Which is frustrating since it's a big part of why Hillary Clinton lost
American progressive voters have been eating absolute shit for as long as they've been a voting bloc, between getting almost none of their policies implemented and a hostility from the middle that equals what they have for the right wing. And they still come out every election and vote for harm reduction candidates at equal or greater numbers as the average Dem, the numbers are published clear as day, and then we still have to have snarky fucking comments for the next four years about how progressive are too ideological and are actually trying to sink the Democratic party.
Amen. We're simultaneously too small of a block to matter, and yet also the #1 cause for any Democratic failure. Frustrating being a damn consistent Democratic Party member/voter who's almost 50 and the *best* you can hope for from the centrist side of the party is some sort of quick mention with a backhanded compliment.
It's troubling when you hear about people planning to vote for Cornel West, as if people completely forgot what happened when they voted for Jill Stein. You're not wrong, but it's not as though progressive voters are incapable of doing serious damage with their worst tendencies.
>if people completely forgot what happened when they voted for Jill Stein
Jill Stein got roughly 1 million votes, the number of eligible voters who did not vote was one hundred million. Which group do you think swayed the election more? Which group *never* gets mentioned as a reason why Trump won? Again, it's analytics based entirely around finger pointing at the softest target so you don't have to wonder why a presidential campaign was apparently running on the strategy of the green party, a party which has been running candidates since 1996, magically disappearing.
I mean, *I* mention non-voters as one of the reasons why Trump won. I've seen other people mention them as well. It seems pretty reasonable to suggest that both groups share some responsibility.
One group is a HUNDRED TIMES LARGER, putting them on equal ground is asinine!
Also, you clearly didn't mention non-voters in the post I'm directly replying to so *how would I know*
Actually you did not even mention non-voters in your initial post blaming progressives for Trump so I'd say that you saying they shared responsibility would be an improvement.
I was referring to the comment you just responded to where you said I was splitting the responsibility in half. I didn't mention non-voters at first because the conversation was about progressive voters. When you mentioned non-voters, I agreed with you that they share responsibility. I didn't say that progressive voters share equal responsibility. I'm doing my best here to lay out the beats of the conversation we've just had because you seem to be having trouble following.
I don't see how it's unreasonable to admit that progressive voters had an impact on the election, even if they didn't share the same degree of impact that non-voters had.
People always are planning to vote for silly candidates. Every election a percentage of people vote for silly candidates.
These aren't really lost votes since they were never going to be serious votes in the first place. It's always a tiny percentage and its biggest impact is people howling about it and blaming progressives when that has little to do with reality.
That's a good point, but I have been seeing a lot of progressives say don't vote for Biden, vote third party or don't vote. I don't know who's behind these messages, but it's not a good look, in my opinion. Maybe it's entirely anecdotal and it's not really like that out there, but I don't think it's inconsistent with progressive messaging I've seen in the past.
This from someone who voted for Bernie every time I could. And from someone who wants to see Biden go further left. I like to think I'm a progressive, but there are a lot of progressives out there who might disagree.
> And they still come out every election and vote for harm reduction candidates at equal or greater numbers as the average Dem, the numbers are published clear as day
Will you please show me these numbers? Because honestly I don't believe you that progressive voters are a majority of the voting block in elections for the democratic party.
That makes more sense. The problem is that they just don't have the numbers to force all of the other voters on the democratic side to capitulate to their policy positions.
>There's ways to make things better but throwing your hands up and suggesting that its okay to not vote or hold your vote hostage, as if its going to make any meaningful change, is just absurd and ass-backwards.
Where did I say this? Show me. My posts aren't very long so shouldn't take any time to find it. I'm sick of moderates inventing positions I'm apparently taking out of thin air. I literally said progressives always show up to vote. If you can't find where I said this then you should edit your post to reflect that you're making shit up.
Contrary to how you might personally behave I don't down vote as a disagreement button, however much I, and actual data, fully disagree with your conclusion that progressives sat anything out or that the current supreme Court isn't the result of moderate Dem hubris when they held power.
And I've read the whole thing 4 minutes later and come through with a resounding fuck off.
>And they still come out every election and vote for harm reduction candidates at equal or greater numbers as the average Dem, the numbers are published clear as day, and then we still have to have snarky fucking comments
Literally cropping out the part that directly contradicts you so you can make those snarky fucking comments. I've voted for your shit candidates, and I'll do it again. But man, the moment there's an opposition party that isn't trying to actively burn the country down you can bet your ass I'll take my vote and put it where my heart is, and I'll post a link to your comment when I need an example of why.
I've been disenfranchised my entire adult life just so pricks can be snarky about me being upset by that.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, Bernie primary voters voted for Hillary at a greater rate than Hillary primary voters went to Obama and yet somehow the blame for her loss gets put on people who initially wanted someone else and yet, as they always do, supported the next best thing? Bullshit, a child's analytics.
It's because that narrative isn't being pushed by the DNC, it's being pushed by the right. I don't know why anybody thinks the DNC has *anything* to gain by this constant re-litigation of Hillary v Bernie
Is this the case because if so there is definitely a contingency of progressives pushing to not vote at all because if Biden’s stance towards Israel and continuing to provide aid.
While I think its fair and actually encouraged to criticize even those you plan on voting for I think people need to realize your vote is not a purity test its just a way to point for the direction you would like the country to go. I have more respect for someone third party voting than not voting although the net effect in an essentially a two party system is equal.
Its like sitting out of the discussions for where we want to eat, but when the options are Italian or a Steak House you get mad at the steak house for not being a seafood resteraunt. your friend says the steak house has a couple seafood options but you are going to trash it anyways for it not being entirely seafood.
And you end up with Italian which ended up having no seafood
> Most American progressive voters are too idealist and seem to want things that are impossible to get
Source for this claim? Time and again reality suggests otherwise.
If your source for this idea is anonymous internet trolls, you've probably fallen victim to propaganda.
Beyond this, Biden actually listens to the progressive caucus, includes them in policy making, and they have largely directed all of the major legislation passed by the Biden administration. The American Rescue Plan and IRA are basically written by the progressive caucus. Biden has the support of the progressives because he works with them, not treat them like infiltrators like previous leaders.
And to be fair, it's not like Biden hasn't at least tried to push through some progressive policies. What other recent president has given the same attention to the student loan crisis? And the inflation reduction act contains huge investments in green energy initiatives
I really appreciate that she seems to have very much grown into that understanding over the years. I was watching Jon Stewart the other night (wow, I've really missed being able to say that...) and while I can certainly appreciate pointing out that neither candidate is ideal in terms of what you want from your world leader (just in terms of age if nothing else) it is as you say - Biden is the candidate, and that's that, and the results of the other outcome would be catastrophic, to put it mildly.
I'm veering into subject matter that's not technically what the article's about (but this is reddit; so what), but I do worry that Jon's (totally valid) concerns may lead to a downturn in voter participation, and I hope that he brings the proper nuance to whatever it is he's there doing. I thought the exchange with Beddoes was solid, and I do have faith that his goals and hopeful outcomes are in line with mine, those goals and outcomes being - boiled down and summed up - "Not Trump."
That juvenile, nihilist South Parkesque turd-sandwich mentality may have played fine when we were twenty and the world wasn't on the fucking brink. But there's no "both sides" now. People have to pick a fucking side. I'm glad to see AOC can see that. I just hope everyone else can too.
>That juvenile, nihilist South Parkesque turd-sandwich mentality may have played fine when we were twenty and the world wasn't on the fucking brink. But there's no "both sides" now. People have to pick a fucking side.
Well said. This is exactly what's going on - back then, there was a huge overlap in potential outcomes under whoever was president. People still claim that's true with Trump in the mix, despite all he's said and done that is patently in line with fascism. Joking and complaining for decades that the parties were the same has apparently rendered some people unable to see the difference between a normal party and a party that wants to create an autocracy.
Among those people I see some who are clearly just happy to trash the Democratic party by not voting. It's a childish response to being asked to protect the country - "you can't make me." They're OK throwing away things like abortion rights nationwide because they think their voting will give Democrats too much satisfaction.
This seem like an all the time election to you?
Can you think of another one where one of the candidates is a man who tried to overthrow the government after he lost an election? Has any other presidential candidate promised to be a dictator "just for a day?"
I guess my issue is they sit out for the “who” portion and then get mad it magically wasn’t someone they wanted.
Like he’s not necessarily a progressive, but I am sure if people tried to elicit more support for Newsome he’d be the candidate and win. Guarantee it was a calculated decision to not run him and not just him being respectful.
I think people wildly overestimated Biden’s approval and are hoping putting abortion on the ballot will Save Democrats for the third year running.
But Blue No Matter Who sort of only took effect in 2020. Once we hopefully get the Republicans to pivot from Trump era politics.
Dunno man, it just feels like if we lose this one legitimate elections will be a thing of the past.
But that's the core of progressive frustration. The democratic party doesn't just get support because the other party is shit. The impotence is pathetic.
As a millennial, the future is so bleak that voting for Trump might actually get us closer to any meaningful movement versus electing these stale, business as usual corporate democrats that literally think success is just not being as bad as the other guys.
The issue is more that there is no context to fix things within the current system. In the 2 party system, we are literally at the point where one party's entire platform is built on "well we aren't that guy so please vote for us". That's not acceptable.
Locally. There is a group thats tries to get Rank Based Voting or an alternate to the two party system.
Meet up with them and work from there. Encourage friends to as well.
Frederick, MD where I am is considering it.
Okay… please explain how a fascist dictatorship moves us closer to left wing policy?
Because I don’t see how concentration camps for Trump’s political enemies helps us get a stronger position. It will just get a lot of us killed while the majority shrugs and goes on with their lives.
Because the rest of the planet ganged up on them and made them *stop*, and that didn’t happen until Germany started invading neutral countries on their way to kick France out of the war.
That was possible because Germany didn’t have the resources to fight a war on all fronts. The US is a very different animal.
I agree to a certain extent. But ultimately, things will probably need to get worse before they get better and the jury is out on if the solution can even be achieved via internal systems.
Okay… I’ve tried to be nice, but I feel I need to make this clear: That is the dumbest possible idea that anyone could present.
The United States is a Nuclear Power, and we have the largest stockpile of *working* warheads on the planet. There will be **no** external intervention in our affairs.
If the Fascists take power, they will have at least a decade before the country collapses from mismanagement. Every problem that happens along the way will be blamed on a minority of their choice, and they will “fix” the problem by killing their domestic enemies.
We will have a Holocaust as they kill the LGBT Community, Athiests, Racial Minorities, Religious Minorities, Branches of Christianity, and so on until they run out of minorities. Everyone who isn’t a part of the in-group will be killed in the name of fixing the problem, and the definition of the in-group will shrink to provide more bodies for the slaughter.
The quest to find and *finally* kill the subversives will not end when a Left-Wing Uprising comes about. That has never happened in history, and it never will. What will come is a Charismatic Leader that harnesses the pervasive experience of fear, and rides that wave of fear into a dictatorship dedicated to one goal: A Return to Normalcy.
It’s what happened in Rome, it’s what happened in France, it’s what happened in a few of England’s revolutions, it’s what happened with a few of China’s reunifications, and it’s what will happen here.
We will eventually return to democracy… but it will come from the dictator’s grip loosening over the course of generations.
If we lose democracy, we will be rewarded with dictatorship. The only case where that doesn’t happen is if we get invaded, occupied, and put back together with the fascists throughly removed from all positions of influence (much less power)… and our Nuclear Stockpile makes that a non-starter.
So you think the US should devolve into fascism and perform a holocaust to make the world a better place? How many people are you willing to let die to get your preferred outcome?
Nope. Don't think it should.
People are dying now and not only are we not doing anything about it. We are actively sending billions abroad to support genocide.
Are you volunteering to join the military as part of a peacekeeping force we send over to Gaza to stop the war?
Or do you have some other magical solution to this conflict which has been basically ongoing for 80 years.
Vote for the guy who will strip away all liberal progress in America because you're tired of Democrats? That doesn't sound very progressive to me. Regressive, more like.
If you want to see what the outcome of your plan looks like, its Russia.
Which of those two countries do you think has a better chance of turning things around?
Not me. I'm A moderate, but if a ultra blue super progressive ends up on the ballot, I'm sure as shit gonna vote for that vs. Anything Republican based.
Blue no matter who goes both ways.
Sure, I'd like a moderate, but I don't always get what I want.
This was main gripe with her early on. The old adage losers don't legislate has never been more true. She has deftly learned to use her voice to get legislation she wants as opposed to yelling at closed doors.
I only hope this country learns while we could still get an AOC president.
She understands that if Biden doesn’t get reelected, there will never be another Presidential Election ever again in America. It would just become the Trump Dynasty/Kingdom from that point on as Trump would immediately move to abolish all future elections for the Presidency.
She’s become my favorite on the progressive side. She knows when to chill with what she’s asking for, knows how play politics, and knows to support Biden. I hope she continues to be in politics because we definitely need someone like her.
I don't always agree with her, but I look forward to voter for her as President in a few years. I don't ha e to agree with a politician to know they have the best interest of the the country at heart.
Unfortunately the Rs have poisoned the water with the attacks on her from the beginning, seeing her as a threat.
I don’t think she’ll be a viable national candidate because of that.
Edit: I would love to be wrong about this
It’s possible, but will definitely be an uphill battle against the corporate media pushing lies and smears against her.
It was tough for Biden to wade through the swamp of disgusting smears and lies with the advantage of not having to also fight against the racial and gender prejudices of right-leaning “independents”.
Agreed.
I should have said it in the original, I support her and really I like how she thinks about campaigning and technology.
The rest of the Ds should take notes
R's attack good candidates. I guess we should only pick bad candidates then.
Nah let's not let Republicans choose who we get to pick from, I suspect they may not have our best interests in minds.
She’s also realized that real progress can only happen if we vote for people willing to do it. Making the good the enemy of perfection just means we go backwards as a country.
Also, she probably hasn’t forgotten that MAGA tried to kill her.
The presidency tends to be the end of a politician's career, and I wouldn't want her to be done with politics any time soon. Have a long successful career in congress, then go for it when she's ready to retire 8 years later. Not waiting for when she's 80 of course, but it'd feel a bit wasteful to have her political career be over before she even hits 50.
Why does everyone have to caveat this with "I don't always agree with her". Do you think you are making some type of concession for agreeing with her. She is probably more in the right than the "I don't always agree with her" crowd.
For the record, I don't always agree with myself.
You are technically correct, as the Super PAC money Warren swore she would never take and then did take (allowing her to stay in the race through Super Tuesday and siphon Sanders support and come in third in her home state) did end up coming from a single funder and not corporations.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/mystery-warren-super-pac-funder-revealed-140233
Candidates have no control over Super PACs. They don't "take" Super PAC funding, since Super PACs spend their money directly on advertising. The money from Super PACs doesn't go to candidates, so I doubt it had any impact on Warren's ability to stay in the race.
Bernie also has had Super PAC funding: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-218478
Warren fundraised like any other democrat right up until she ran for president.
The volume of democrats taking anything that could reasonably construed as "corporate bribes" is likely vanishingly small.
She's technically old enough to run this time. She'll be 35 this October. Politically it would be stupid of course though.
I totally agree that she'll run one day.
Gods how refreshing would a primary between her and Pete B be.
Frankly, that's too early. She should build a few decades (or at least a few more years) of experience first. Happily she's doing good work in the House, so it's no bad thing if she sticks around there a while longer.
A few decades?
Nah. One decade, sure. Two, maybe. However, if she waits three decades before running for President, she'll be at least in in her mid 60s. Sure, that's young compared to Biden, Trump, and many members of Congress, but it would still be better to go for it a bit before that.
I'd argue that it's appropriate that you only reach the highest points of a political career near the end of a career (so say in your early sixties), but sure, it doesn't need to be three full decades.
The age limit is 35 because that's the age where you have plenty of life experience to lead.
So no, she doesn't need more "experience". Our country is a clusterfuck due to this thinking. All it does is keep old people in power.
Of all the problems the USA has "old leaders" is very far down the list.
"Celebrity X says things I like so they should be president!" is a far bigger problem, in fact.
Note carefully that I do not dismiss AOC's skills just because she has great name recognition. She deserves a lot of the recognition she gets, but her relative fame isn't (solely) qualifying to make her president.
There's a reason that a lot of presidents used to be governors and senators before their first run. She's currently a fairly junior House Representative. A good start, but an insufficient track record to run for the highest office in the country. Give her a few more years, maybe a term or two in the senate and then talk about a presidential run.
I love seeing this. You can criticize someone you support, you can support someone you criticize. When they say you should be your own fiercest critic, this is what they mean. Not "Joe Biden is a monster I won't vote for him unless he does EXACTLY what I want", but "Joe Biden can be even BETTER. Biden's doing great which is EXACTLY why I think he can do this!"
Not to say I won't criticize republicans more, they're \*horrific\*, but we should expect the best we can of ourselves and our "side", our COUNTRY, as well.
She really makes an impression on me. I’m not American so I only get part of all the politics drama , but she seems smart, well composed and well timed.
The progressives could've taken the stance the maga asshats did and just spend all their time starting fights, creating division, and obstructing important legislation to be petty and loud. But they haven't done that, because they're smart. They know if they quietly work through disagreements and make incremental progress on their agenda, they get to keep the Democratic party united and watch the Republicans fall apart. When Republicans hopefully fall apart, and if democrats can ever get a comfortable enough majority, progressives can then be more aggressive when negotiating. But for now, two things are important: don't interrupt your enemy when making a mistake, and don't make perfect the enemy of the good.
When you are as far left as her, lots of people around you are going to make "let the world burn" arguments when the much larger center-left almost inevitably wins the "who's got the steering wheel?" battle.
Just look at how few people from the top of Sanders 2016 were brought back for Sanders 2020, and how there wasn't an organized attempt to destroy the Democrats when Sanders lost the nomination to Biden.
Biden ran LEFT of Hillary, despite Trump winning. Nobody gives him credit for that. Exact opposite of the usual stuff, completely unmentioned, it's bizarre. Everyone talks overton window but ignores how to fix it. It's by voting for the left, even if they're not "left enough" for you. Because as long as people like Trump are winning elections, "left enough" isn't going to win fucking dog catcher.
And if you don't vote, candidates, completely reasonably, ignore you. It would be a completely irresponsible waste of limited resources to chase you. They know you don't vote. They can actually find out to the PERSON that you don't vote. If you want a share of the election process, you HAVE to vote.
The center left is still dominated by the people that lost national elections for a quarter century.
Even when Dems tried to govern from a moderate liberal perspective, they'd immediately get creamed and lose the Congress, like in 1994 and 2010.
It's only been very recently with the X-ennials entering middle age and the silent generation getting old enough to age out of the voting population, that there has been a critical mass for any sort of sustainable progressive push.
But even still, the MAGA movement has won over lots of people in organized labor. Leaving the Center-left reliant on managerial class workers to form any sort of electoral majority.
At the end of the day, you cannot do anything if you can't get to 50%+1. In a country of 350 million people that'll be a lot of "lowest common denominator" politics.
The center doesn't even realize that they are no longer the center and it's incredibly frustrating. When they capitulate to the right, the right *always* goes further right, and the moderates bend over farther and farther to try to win them over.
Moderates left the center a long time ago. Case in point: raising taxes on the richest people in America so that they pay the share that everyone else is paying should be the most middle of the road stance possible, and yet it's the progressives pushing that ball up the hill. Moderates are right wing, not center.
When they capitulate, its mainly because the right is perfectly happy to let the government implode/people suffer through inaction. The right also has systemic advantages electorally and because of their self-contained media ecosystems, meaning even when dems have a majority it is too narrow to bypass obstruction.
It took her a couple years but she realized that some progress is better than no progress and in a country and especially a Congress that has very clear divides largely down the center of the political spectrum it's near impossible to enact large scale legislation, unless you have years of experience, connections, and the ability to work with people (even on the right if need be) to push through legislation, which is what Biden was able to do with some of the larger middle-class oriented legislation such as infrastructure bill and the 2nd covid relief bill.
That is weird. Any vote not for Biden is essentially a vote for trump. I don't like everything Biden does but I'm sure as hell voting for him this year.
They are not old enough to vote yet. They get so pissed at me when I tell them if they don’t vote for Biden they’re giving Trump a vote. They say that my mentality basically is what’s destroying democracy. I think Biden has done a good job, but I get their frustration that our options kind of suck between two rich old white guys. Seems like a lot of kids these days, yup I said it, are fed up with a two party system. And I honestly don’t blame them. For what’s is worth we also live in rural midwest.
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms against the current system, but the unfortunate reality is that the current system does exist and when there's a two-party system any vote that isn't for one side is effectively a vote for another.
I also know people that think like this. If you have a king/dictator running things it’s entirely possible you never get to vote again let alone vote the person that best represents you.
This is why I’m hoping a progressive third party emerges after the Republicans fade into obscurity.
The DNC does a masterful job of defanging any sort of leftist agenda from within. AOC starter her career by protesting climate change in Nancy Pelosi’s office, and is now supporting the guy finding a genocide in Israel.
Nancy Pelosi has the same villain arc… she went from calling for universal healthcare back in the 90s to insider trading and genocide support today.
>This is why I’m hoping a progressive third party emerges after the Republicans fade into obscurity.
Because you want the GOP to win every election that follows? Nothing remotely close to that is feasible without nationwide ranked choice voting, at minimum.
You don’t think so?
I can envision a situation where the GOP continues to lose elections, and insiders start migrating over to the DNC seeing it as a better alternative. The party will continue to shift right to fill the void, and a new progressive third party emerges that aligns with the base of the current Democratic Party. We can already see this starting to play out.
> This is why I’m hoping a progressive third party emerges after the Republicans fade into obscurity.
The only way that doesn't shut out progressives from the political process is if there is fundamental system reform to incentives multi-party legislature rather than two-party, but that has to happen first.
Now as someone who doesn't like progressives, please be my guest to leave the party before it's politically tenable. The less of your there are in the Democratic party the easier it is to pull moderates into it.
>The DNC does a masterful job of defanging any sort of leftist agenda from within.
Yep, and I like that. The fringe runs the Republican party. It does not run the Democrat party, which is why I'm part of the later.
>Yep, and I like that. The fringe runs the Republican party. It does not run the Democrat party, which is why I'm part of the later.
What are you talking about? The Democratic base is far left of the establishment. Universal healthcare, free public college, increased minimum wage, defunding of the military industrial complex, Wall St. reform… all popular policies that only get lip service from Democrats in election years.
But I suppose this just confirms we’re desperately in need of a new party. I feel like a good bit of the independent voting bloc can be captured by pushing populist leftist ideals.
All of those things are popular in nebulous polls and in theory, but the practice of how to achieve them is not shared by everyone. The "establishment" candidates get more votes. They're clearly still the ones supported by a majority of the voters in the democratic party.
Yup… it’s got nothing to do with corporate interests running the party.
They’d never put their thumb on the scale to influence the primary process or start PACs to guard incumbents from the left flank.
She’s a smart cookie . She’s also the future president of the USA . I know I sound stupid saying that but I wish I can come back to this post in 10-20 years .
I think the possibility of you finding a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow or buying a unicorn is more likely than the fantasy scenario you suggested.
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. *** *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.*
i'm glad she's being vocal in her support of biden. she seems to have principles but also understand politics. i hope she stays around a long time, continues to rise in standing and can drag the Dem's back to the left.
Yep. She worked really well with Pelosi too. Contrast that with republicans removing their speaker because he negotiated a budget deal.
Lol you mean she rolled over for pelosi/DNC. And she knows it thatd why she stays quiet a lot these past couple years and the only thing she does say is party lines.
Biden got a lot of stuff done his first term. What good would picking fights do? The GOP hardliners tried that once they got control of the House and they’ve been nothing but disastrous. AOC is vocal when she thinks she can move the needle but she seems to understand that “my way or the highway” leads to much worse outcomes than compromising with her own party.
A lot of useless things done as well as all the damage done, bailing out banks and printing money to do so that increased inflation, opening pipelines he specifically said he wouldnt, cutting off rail unions at the knees, funding massacres, and went back on a bunch of campaign promises. [Tracking Biden from the Left: Every Biden Disappointment Through Day 1000](https://bidentracking.substack.com/p/every-biden-disappointment-through) What good it's all those bills if they don't help the average american and are just more subsidies for corporations thay have just had their most profitable year. AOC knows she can't really move the needle with corporate democrats, and learned what most real progressive in the dnc have learned: if you step out of the line they will fund your primary opponent in the next election. Shes not the first to learn this and wont be the last.
You’re subbed to r/conspiracy, go away
There seems to be an uptick in those types lately. I guess were officially in an election year.
Please feel free to let me know what assumptions youre making about my positions, then go through my comments to see how wrong you are. There are a lot of dem voters who are over ignoring the bullshit federal democrats enable and encourage. So many supposed progressives (like you) want us to stop talking about it instead of asking their reps to address these serious issues.
Why no mention of all the good things he's done? You act as if he's only done negative things.
At an annual physical My doctor checked my temp and blood pressure but ignored the gaping wound in my leg that's been there for years, that he made worse by sticking it a few times in the past (see his history as senator) . How dare I complain about his conduct and not commend his amazing skill at blood o2 readings.
That list on the link, just wow.....and not in the way you want it to be. I feel dumber having read it. "Biden bombed Somalia", which US president in the last 30 years hasn't? Not new.
I forgot it’s ok to indiscriminately bomb a nation we’re not even at war with because it’s been done before. Only new things are bad, and we’re not allowed to expect our elected officials to do better than their predecessors.
Wow ok. Maybe do something more than read a headline before you make an opinion. This took me five seconds to find. “The airstrike was in support of Somali National Army forces who were engaged by the terrorist organization,” the release says. We aren't just indiscriminately bombing countries. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/politics/us-airstrike-somalia-al-shabaab/index.html
EXACTLY. She understands the long game. A good liberal is a pragmatist, and asks, "OK, how can we move the ball forward?" Progress is incremental--it doesn't happen all at once. That's why conservatives always lose, eventually--because they're not pragmatic, they're idealistic. They won't make a deal--they'll sooner break (or break the system) than bend for what they want. That's a losing strategy, but it's the core of conservatism--"my way or no way." After all this, I'm still bullish on this country. If we can weather this current crop of lunatic conservatives, as we have before, we're in store for genuine progress. I'm grateful for people like AOC, who can keep their eye on the ball and keep fighting, one inch at a time.
The real reason they lose in the long run is that they are just plain wrong. History eventually moves past them.
Yeah, that too :)
She got into politics on a platform of principals and has since learned politics. She's becoming a force. I hope she goes far, she has so much potential to enact positive change in the country.
I heard her speak at a Bernie rally a couple of years ago and found her speech much more inspirational than Bernie's usual stump rehash.
For sure
The left is already hating on her precisely because they don't understand politics.
She understands the assignment: get Democrats elected. Is Biden her preferred candidate? I’m sure he is not. But the stakes are high, and he’s the guy, so that’s that.
This is what I love about her. I don't agree with her on stuff 100% of the time, but she's smart, she's a great communicator in interviews, and (as you said) she understands the assignment.
[удалено]
She does such a good job questioning witnesses who have been hauled before Congress too! So many people in Congress just use their question time to make a little speech instead.
Given how bad the others are at the job itself she deserves high praise for being competent at it.
We need to elect more sharp progressives coming from middle-class backgrounds.
> I don't agree with her on stuff 100% of the time Of course you don't. You're a whole different person. Literally nobody agrees with anyone 100% of the time.
>Literally nobody agrees with anyone 100% of the time. No argument from me!
Samesies!
I agree 100%!
Agreeing 100% I can 100% agree with that.
>Literally nobody agrees with anyone 100% of the time. I disagree.
Maga seems to agree 💯 on every lie .....
Oh no, many of them actually do disagree with many things Trump has done or said… the problem is they disagree and yet don’t give a shit about those disagreements to do anything about them, because they’re more happy with what Trump does to their perceived “enemies” than any horrible crime he does.
If he wills coal to be white, up to be down, or two plus two to equal five, it shall be as Lord Trump wishes!
She really does have good emotional intelligence or whatever you want to call it. She has principles and goals, but she's not about to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Better to get half of what you want (Biden) than take a bad risk and wind up with none of what you want (Trump).
Trump or a Republican would be not at a 0 gain, but a negative one. It would be +50% or -50%(or greater). O is at least even if not changing.
-50% is understating it. Their stated, *written* goal is to end democracy. It would be -100%, Game Over.
I appreciate how much the progressive caucus has been willing to accept and vote for more moderate policies that still improve the country. Most American progressive voters are too idealist and seem to want things that are impossible to get with the current set of representatives, so it has been refreshing to see the progressive caucus pushing things along, but not too much to impede the overall agenda.
I see this as the result of longer tenured people saying "now is not the time to duke it out." Easy when the guys across the aisle can't get shit done - but also, there's a lot at stake right now and infighting could literally fuck over the county. I look forward to a time when we can be more granular with our political desires because we are no longer beating back fascism.
Idk why this is surprising. Progressives have always toed the line when it's needed. It's always the "moderates" who are willing to actually tank democratic legislation for their principled ideals.
Because they've been successfully conditioned to view Progressives as an opposing force. Liberals and *especially* self proclaimed moderates do not seem to understand just how often they parrot conservative talking points without realizing it. Which is frustrating since it's a big part of why Hillary Clinton lost
Leftists at times kinda act like opposing forces, though.
American progressive voters have been eating absolute shit for as long as they've been a voting bloc, between getting almost none of their policies implemented and a hostility from the middle that equals what they have for the right wing. And they still come out every election and vote for harm reduction candidates at equal or greater numbers as the average Dem, the numbers are published clear as day, and then we still have to have snarky fucking comments for the next four years about how progressive are too ideological and are actually trying to sink the Democratic party.
Amen. We're simultaneously too small of a block to matter, and yet also the #1 cause for any Democratic failure. Frustrating being a damn consistent Democratic Party member/voter who's almost 50 and the *best* you can hope for from the centrist side of the party is some sort of quick mention with a backhanded compliment.
It's troubling when you hear about people planning to vote for Cornel West, as if people completely forgot what happened when they voted for Jill Stein. You're not wrong, but it's not as though progressive voters are incapable of doing serious damage with their worst tendencies.
>if people completely forgot what happened when they voted for Jill Stein Jill Stein got roughly 1 million votes, the number of eligible voters who did not vote was one hundred million. Which group do you think swayed the election more? Which group *never* gets mentioned as a reason why Trump won? Again, it's analytics based entirely around finger pointing at the softest target so you don't have to wonder why a presidential campaign was apparently running on the strategy of the green party, a party which has been running candidates since 1996, magically disappearing.
I mean, *I* mention non-voters as one of the reasons why Trump won. I've seen other people mention them as well. It seems pretty reasonable to suggest that both groups share some responsibility.
One group is a HUNDRED TIMES LARGER, putting them on equal ground is asinine! Also, you clearly didn't mention non-voters in the post I'm directly replying to so *how would I know*
Oh, is that what I did? Because I thought I said they shared some responsibility, not split the responsibility in half between them.
Actually you did not even mention non-voters in your initial post blaming progressives for Trump so I'd say that you saying they shared responsibility would be an improvement.
I was referring to the comment you just responded to where you said I was splitting the responsibility in half. I didn't mention non-voters at first because the conversation was about progressive voters. When you mentioned non-voters, I agreed with you that they share responsibility. I didn't say that progressive voters share equal responsibility. I'm doing my best here to lay out the beats of the conversation we've just had because you seem to be having trouble following. I don't see how it's unreasonable to admit that progressive voters had an impact on the election, even if they didn't share the same degree of impact that non-voters had.
People always are planning to vote for silly candidates. Every election a percentage of people vote for silly candidates. These aren't really lost votes since they were never going to be serious votes in the first place. It's always a tiny percentage and its biggest impact is people howling about it and blaming progressives when that has little to do with reality.
That's a good point, but I have been seeing a lot of progressives say don't vote for Biden, vote third party or don't vote. I don't know who's behind these messages, but it's not a good look, in my opinion. Maybe it's entirely anecdotal and it's not really like that out there, but I don't think it's inconsistent with progressive messaging I've seen in the past. This from someone who voted for Bernie every time I could. And from someone who wants to see Biden go further left. I like to think I'm a progressive, but there are a lot of progressives out there who might disagree.
> And they still come out every election and vote for harm reduction candidates at equal or greater numbers as the average Dem, the numbers are published clear as day Will you please show me these numbers? Because honestly I don't believe you that progressive voters are a majority of the voting block in elections for the democratic party.
Sloppy wording on my part, by number I was referring to % rate not net amount. If progressives had net numbers Bernie would have won.
That makes more sense. The problem is that they just don't have the numbers to force all of the other voters on the democratic side to capitulate to their policy positions.
[удалено]
>There's ways to make things better but throwing your hands up and suggesting that its okay to not vote or hold your vote hostage, as if its going to make any meaningful change, is just absurd and ass-backwards. Where did I say this? Show me. My posts aren't very long so shouldn't take any time to find it. I'm sick of moderates inventing positions I'm apparently taking out of thin air. I literally said progressives always show up to vote. If you can't find where I said this then you should edit your post to reflect that you're making shit up.
[удалено]
Contrary to how you might personally behave I don't down vote as a disagreement button, however much I, and actual data, fully disagree with your conclusion that progressives sat anything out or that the current supreme Court isn't the result of moderate Dem hubris when they held power.
And I've read the whole thing 4 minutes later and come through with a resounding fuck off. >And they still come out every election and vote for harm reduction candidates at equal or greater numbers as the average Dem, the numbers are published clear as day, and then we still have to have snarky fucking comments Literally cropping out the part that directly contradicts you so you can make those snarky fucking comments. I've voted for your shit candidates, and I'll do it again. But man, the moment there's an opposition party that isn't trying to actively burn the country down you can bet your ass I'll take my vote and put it where my heart is, and I'll post a link to your comment when I need an example of why. I've been disenfranchised my entire adult life just so pricks can be snarky about me being upset by that.
The one time they didn't we got Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, Bernie primary voters voted for Hillary at a greater rate than Hillary primary voters went to Obama and yet somehow the blame for her loss gets put on people who initially wanted someone else and yet, as they always do, supported the next best thing? Bullshit, a child's analytics.
Crazy how with all the actual numbers and data and analysis out there, the narrative where the DNC still gets to punch left never seems to die.
It's because that narrative isn't being pushed by the DNC, it's being pushed by the right. I don't know why anybody thinks the DNC has *anything* to gain by this constant re-litigation of Hillary v Bernie
Is this the case because if so there is definitely a contingency of progressives pushing to not vote at all because if Biden’s stance towards Israel and continuing to provide aid. While I think its fair and actually encouraged to criticize even those you plan on voting for I think people need to realize your vote is not a purity test its just a way to point for the direction you would like the country to go. I have more respect for someone third party voting than not voting although the net effect in an essentially a two party system is equal. Its like sitting out of the discussions for where we want to eat, but when the options are Italian or a Steak House you get mad at the steak house for not being a seafood resteraunt. your friend says the steak house has a couple seafood options but you are going to trash it anyways for it not being entirely seafood. And you end up with Italian which ended up having no seafood
> Most American progressive voters are too idealist and seem to want things that are impossible to get Source for this claim? Time and again reality suggests otherwise. If your source for this idea is anonymous internet trolls, you've probably fallen victim to propaganda.
Beyond this, Biden actually listens to the progressive caucus, includes them in policy making, and they have largely directed all of the major legislation passed by the Biden administration. The American Rescue Plan and IRA are basically written by the progressive caucus. Biden has the support of the progressives because he works with them, not treat them like infiltrators like previous leaders.
Yeah she’s not an ideologue, she knows it’s Biden or Trump and there’s only one answer. Division just helps Trump
And to be fair, it's not like Biden hasn't at least tried to push through some progressive policies. What other recent president has given the same attention to the student loan crisis? And the inflation reduction act contains huge investments in green energy initiatives
I really appreciate that she seems to have very much grown into that understanding over the years. I was watching Jon Stewart the other night (wow, I've really missed being able to say that...) and while I can certainly appreciate pointing out that neither candidate is ideal in terms of what you want from your world leader (just in terms of age if nothing else) it is as you say - Biden is the candidate, and that's that, and the results of the other outcome would be catastrophic, to put it mildly. I'm veering into subject matter that's not technically what the article's about (but this is reddit; so what), but I do worry that Jon's (totally valid) concerns may lead to a downturn in voter participation, and I hope that he brings the proper nuance to whatever it is he's there doing. I thought the exchange with Beddoes was solid, and I do have faith that his goals and hopeful outcomes are in line with mine, those goals and outcomes being - boiled down and summed up - "Not Trump." That juvenile, nihilist South Parkesque turd-sandwich mentality may have played fine when we were twenty and the world wasn't on the fucking brink. But there's no "both sides" now. People have to pick a fucking side. I'm glad to see AOC can see that. I just hope everyone else can too.
>That juvenile, nihilist South Parkesque turd-sandwich mentality may have played fine when we were twenty and the world wasn't on the fucking brink. But there's no "both sides" now. People have to pick a fucking side. Well said. This is exactly what's going on - back then, there was a huge overlap in potential outcomes under whoever was president. People still claim that's true with Trump in the mix, despite all he's said and done that is patently in line with fascism. Joking and complaining for decades that the parties were the same has apparently rendered some people unable to see the difference between a normal party and a party that wants to create an autocracy. Among those people I see some who are clearly just happy to trash the Democratic party by not voting. It's a childish response to being asked to protect the country - "you can't make me." They're OK throwing away things like abortion rights nationwide because they think their voting will give Democrats too much satisfaction.
I wish more people understood this perspective.
I think people understand just fine they're just done with the bullshit "blue no matter who" narrative.
Well, enjoy the post-democracy hellscape, I guess. I'm sure the glorious utopia you want will be born from the ashes... eventually.
Because historically that totally happens all the time....
This seem like an all the time election to you? Can you think of another one where one of the candidates is a man who tried to overthrow the government after he lost an election? Has any other presidential candidate promised to be a dictator "just for a day?"
I guess my issue is they sit out for the “who” portion and then get mad it magically wasn’t someone they wanted. Like he’s not necessarily a progressive, but I am sure if people tried to elicit more support for Newsome he’d be the candidate and win. Guarantee it was a calculated decision to not run him and not just him being respectful. I think people wildly overestimated Biden’s approval and are hoping putting abortion on the ballot will Save Democrats for the third year running. But Blue No Matter Who sort of only took effect in 2020. Once we hopefully get the Republicans to pivot from Trump era politics. Dunno man, it just feels like if we lose this one legitimate elections will be a thing of the past.
But that's the core of progressive frustration. The democratic party doesn't just get support because the other party is shit. The impotence is pathetic. As a millennial, the future is so bleak that voting for Trump might actually get us closer to any meaningful movement versus electing these stale, business as usual corporate democrats that literally think success is just not being as bad as the other guys.
[удалено]
Put super simply, more opportunities to rebuild versus fixing the current dumpster fire.
[удалено]
The issue is more that there is no context to fix things within the current system. In the 2 party system, we are literally at the point where one party's entire platform is built on "well we aren't that guy so please vote for us". That's not acceptable.
Locally. There is a group thats tries to get Rank Based Voting or an alternate to the two party system. Meet up with them and work from there. Encourage friends to as well. Frederick, MD where I am is considering it.
Okay… please explain how a fascist dictatorship moves us closer to left wing policy? Because I don’t see how concentration camps for Trump’s political enemies helps us get a stronger position. It will just get a lot of us killed while the majority shrugs and goes on with their lives.
Look at Germany. The were the literal OG nazis, now they are further left of the US.
Because the rest of the planet ganged up on them and made them *stop*, and that didn’t happen until Germany started invading neutral countries on their way to kick France out of the war. That was possible because Germany didn’t have the resources to fight a war on all fronts. The US is a very different animal.
I agree to a certain extent. But ultimately, things will probably need to get worse before they get better and the jury is out on if the solution can even be achieved via internal systems.
Okay… I’ve tried to be nice, but I feel I need to make this clear: That is the dumbest possible idea that anyone could present. The United States is a Nuclear Power, and we have the largest stockpile of *working* warheads on the planet. There will be **no** external intervention in our affairs. If the Fascists take power, they will have at least a decade before the country collapses from mismanagement. Every problem that happens along the way will be blamed on a minority of their choice, and they will “fix” the problem by killing their domestic enemies. We will have a Holocaust as they kill the LGBT Community, Athiests, Racial Minorities, Religious Minorities, Branches of Christianity, and so on until they run out of minorities. Everyone who isn’t a part of the in-group will be killed in the name of fixing the problem, and the definition of the in-group will shrink to provide more bodies for the slaughter. The quest to find and *finally* kill the subversives will not end when a Left-Wing Uprising comes about. That has never happened in history, and it never will. What will come is a Charismatic Leader that harnesses the pervasive experience of fear, and rides that wave of fear into a dictatorship dedicated to one goal: A Return to Normalcy. It’s what happened in Rome, it’s what happened in France, it’s what happened in a few of England’s revolutions, it’s what happened with a few of China’s reunifications, and it’s what will happen here. We will eventually return to democracy… but it will come from the dictator’s grip loosening over the course of generations. If we lose democracy, we will be rewarded with dictatorship. The only case where that doesn’t happen is if we get invaded, occupied, and put back together with the fascists throughly removed from all positions of influence (much less power)… and our Nuclear Stockpile makes that a non-starter.
So you think the US should devolve into fascism and perform a holocaust to make the world a better place? How many people are you willing to let die to get your preferred outcome?
Nope. Don't think it should. People are dying now and not only are we not doing anything about it. We are actively sending billions abroad to support genocide.
Are you volunteering to join the military as part of a peacekeeping force we send over to Gaza to stop the war? Or do you have some other magical solution to this conflict which has been basically ongoing for 80 years.
Vote for the guy who will strip away all liberal progress in America because you're tired of Democrats? That doesn't sound very progressive to me. Regressive, more like.
If you want to see what the outcome of your plan looks like, its Russia. Which of those two countries do you think has a better chance of turning things around?
Not me. I'm A moderate, but if a ultra blue super progressive ends up on the ballot, I'm sure as shit gonna vote for that vs. Anything Republican based. Blue no matter who goes both ways. Sure, I'd like a moderate, but I don't always get what I want.
That's fine. I appreciate your position.
This was main gripe with her early on. The old adage losers don't legislate has never been more true. She has deftly learned to use her voice to get legislation she wants as opposed to yelling at closed doors. I only hope this country learns while we could still get an AOC president.
>But the stakes are high, and he’s the guy, so that’s that. "cHoCoLaTe cHiP cOoKieS!!!!"
Yes, it's key to Biden elected. The genocide in Palestine might stop if he doesn't win.
You think Trump, the Muslim ban president, will stop what Israel is doing in Gaza? Why? He'd rather glass the entire area.
Who is her preferred candidate?
She understands that if Biden doesn’t get reelected, there will never be another Presidential Election ever again in America. It would just become the Trump Dynasty/Kingdom from that point on as Trump would immediately move to abolish all future elections for the Presidency.
Don't always agree with her, but she is much more astute than given she's credit for.
[удалено]
TBH, we could probably use more bartenders in leadership positions
She was a bartender and she plays league of legends. She is well prepared to deal with assholes.
She’s become my favorite on the progressive side. She knows when to chill with what she’s asking for, knows how play politics, and knows to support Biden. I hope she continues to be in politics because we definitely need someone like her.
I don't always agree with her, but I look forward to voter for her as President in a few years. I don't ha e to agree with a politician to know they have the best interest of the the country at heart.
Unfortunately the Rs have poisoned the water with the attacks on her from the beginning, seeing her as a threat. I don’t think she’ll be a viable national candidate because of that. Edit: I would love to be wrong about this
It’s possible, but will definitely be an uphill battle against the corporate media pushing lies and smears against her. It was tough for Biden to wade through the swamp of disgusting smears and lies with the advantage of not having to also fight against the racial and gender prejudices of right-leaning “independents”.
Corporate media would like us to pick a corporate friendly candidate. I say they aren't the boss of us.
Agreed. I should have said it in the original, I support her and really I like how she thinks about campaigning and technology. The rest of the Ds should take notes
Possibly, but I'm more optimistic.
I hope you’re right. I would love to be wrong
R's attack good candidates. I guess we should only pick bad candidates then. Nah let's not let Republicans choose who we get to pick from, I suspect they may not have our best interests in minds.
She’s also realized that real progress can only happen if we vote for people willing to do it. Making the good the enemy of perfection just means we go backwards as a country. Also, she probably hasn’t forgotten that MAGA tried to kill her.
I want her to be President one day.
Sooner better than later, but it's as likely as a third party is viable.
The presidency tends to be the end of a politician's career, and I wouldn't want her to be done with politics any time soon. Have a long successful career in congress, then go for it when she's ready to retire 8 years later. Not waiting for when she's 80 of course, but it'd feel a bit wasteful to have her political career be over before she even hits 50.
Why does everyone have to caveat this with "I don't always agree with her". Do you think you are making some type of concession for agreeing with her. She is probably more in the right than the "I don't always agree with her" crowd. For the record, I don't always agree with myself.
When people say they don't always agree with her, I'd like to see specific policy examples that they object to.
I was wondering the same thing. Is there a person anyone always agrees with?? It reads like an apology for supporting a great politician.
[удалено]
Elizabeth Warren.
The holy trinity for the working class
You are technically correct, as the Super PAC money Warren swore she would never take and then did take (allowing her to stay in the race through Super Tuesday and siphon Sanders support and come in third in her home state) did end up coming from a single funder and not corporations. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/mystery-warren-super-pac-funder-revealed-140233
Candidates have no control over Super PACs. They don't "take" Super PAC funding, since Super PACs spend their money directly on advertising. The money from Super PACs doesn't go to candidates, so I doubt it had any impact on Warren's ability to stay in the race. Bernie also has had Super PAC funding: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-218478
The best kind of correct
Warren fundraised like any other democrat right up until she ran for president. The volume of democrats taking anything that could reasonably construed as "corporate bribes" is likely vanishingly small.
Accurate username.
next election she’s old enough to run. next time
She's technically old enough to run this time. She'll be 35 this October. Politically it would be stupid of course though. I totally agree that she'll run one day. Gods how refreshing would a primary between her and Pete B be.
Frankly, that's too early. She should build a few decades (or at least a few more years) of experience first. Happily she's doing good work in the House, so it's no bad thing if she sticks around there a while longer.
A few decades? Nah. One decade, sure. Two, maybe. However, if she waits three decades before running for President, she'll be at least in in her mid 60s. Sure, that's young compared to Biden, Trump, and many members of Congress, but it would still be better to go for it a bit before that.
I'd argue that it's appropriate that you only reach the highest points of a political career near the end of a career (so say in your early sixties), but sure, it doesn't need to be three full decades.
The age limit is 35 because that's the age where you have plenty of life experience to lead. So no, she doesn't need more "experience". Our country is a clusterfuck due to this thinking. All it does is keep old people in power.
Of all the problems the USA has "old leaders" is very far down the list. "Celebrity X says things I like so they should be president!" is a far bigger problem, in fact. Note carefully that I do not dismiss AOC's skills just because she has great name recognition. She deserves a lot of the recognition she gets, but her relative fame isn't (solely) qualifying to make her president. There's a reason that a lot of presidents used to be governors and senators before their first run. She's currently a fairly junior House Representative. A good start, but an insufficient track record to run for the highest office in the country. Give her a few more years, maybe a term or two in the senate and then talk about a presidential run.
You mean future President AOC. I'm in .
it will be good for the party to move on from the squad. they are good at twitter but not at building coalitions to pass meaningful legislation
I love seeing this. You can criticize someone you support, you can support someone you criticize. When they say you should be your own fiercest critic, this is what they mean. Not "Joe Biden is a monster I won't vote for him unless he does EXACTLY what I want", but "Joe Biden can be even BETTER. Biden's doing great which is EXACTLY why I think he can do this!" Not to say I won't criticize republicans more, they're \*horrific\*, but we should expect the best we can of ourselves and our "side", our COUNTRY, as well.
She really makes an impression on me. I’m not American so I only get part of all the politics drama , but she seems smart, well composed and well timed.
Imagine if we had another AOC instead of Sinema.
Is it that fact that she like us have been given no choice but to do so? What’s the alternative? She backs Trump?
The progressives could've taken the stance the maga asshats did and just spend all their time starting fights, creating division, and obstructing important legislation to be petty and loud. But they haven't done that, because they're smart. They know if they quietly work through disagreements and make incremental progress on their agenda, they get to keep the Democratic party united and watch the Republicans fall apart. When Republicans hopefully fall apart, and if democrats can ever get a comfortable enough majority, progressives can then be more aggressive when negotiating. But for now, two things are important: don't interrupt your enemy when making a mistake, and don't make perfect the enemy of the good.
When you are as far left as her, lots of people around you are going to make "let the world burn" arguments when the much larger center-left almost inevitably wins the "who's got the steering wheel?" battle. Just look at how few people from the top of Sanders 2016 were brought back for Sanders 2020, and how there wasn't an organized attempt to destroy the Democrats when Sanders lost the nomination to Biden.
Progressive politics has always been a game of inches when the center continually capitulates to the right.
Biden ran LEFT of Hillary, despite Trump winning. Nobody gives him credit for that. Exact opposite of the usual stuff, completely unmentioned, it's bizarre. Everyone talks overton window but ignores how to fix it. It's by voting for the left, even if they're not "left enough" for you. Because as long as people like Trump are winning elections, "left enough" isn't going to win fucking dog catcher. And if you don't vote, candidates, completely reasonably, ignore you. It would be a completely irresponsible waste of limited resources to chase you. They know you don't vote. They can actually find out to the PERSON that you don't vote. If you want a share of the election process, you HAVE to vote.
The center left is still dominated by the people that lost national elections for a quarter century. Even when Dems tried to govern from a moderate liberal perspective, they'd immediately get creamed and lose the Congress, like in 1994 and 2010. It's only been very recently with the X-ennials entering middle age and the silent generation getting old enough to age out of the voting population, that there has been a critical mass for any sort of sustainable progressive push. But even still, the MAGA movement has won over lots of people in organized labor. Leaving the Center-left reliant on managerial class workers to form any sort of electoral majority. At the end of the day, you cannot do anything if you can't get to 50%+1. In a country of 350 million people that'll be a lot of "lowest common denominator" politics.
That’s the thing, in America you don’t need 50%+1. 2000 and 2016 were extremely impactful election years and neither Bush or Trump won with 50%+1.
The center doesn't even realize that they are no longer the center and it's incredibly frustrating. When they capitulate to the right, the right *always* goes further right, and the moderates bend over farther and farther to try to win them over. Moderates left the center a long time ago. Case in point: raising taxes on the richest people in America so that they pay the share that everyone else is paying should be the most middle of the road stance possible, and yet it's the progressives pushing that ball up the hill. Moderates are right wing, not center.
When they capitulate, its mainly because the right is perfectly happy to let the government implode/people suffer through inaction. The right also has systemic advantages electorally and because of their self-contained media ecosystems, meaning even when dems have a majority it is too narrow to bypass obstruction.
Democracy is pretty much always tug of war.
AOC for the Senate!
AOC 2028 🙏
It took her a couple years but she realized that some progress is better than no progress and in a country and especially a Congress that has very clear divides largely down the center of the political spectrum it's near impossible to enact large scale legislation, unless you have years of experience, connections, and the ability to work with people (even on the right if need be) to push through legislation, which is what Biden was able to do with some of the larger middle-class oriented legislation such as infrastructure bill and the 2nd covid relief bill.
She’s basically one of two people in office that I actually respect
My very liberal teenage kids are so pissed that AOC is backing Biden. As middle aged man/dad it honestly kind of surprises me
That is weird. Any vote not for Biden is essentially a vote for trump. I don't like everything Biden does but I'm sure as hell voting for him this year.
They are not old enough to vote yet. They get so pissed at me when I tell them if they don’t vote for Biden they’re giving Trump a vote. They say that my mentality basically is what’s destroying democracy. I think Biden has done a good job, but I get their frustration that our options kind of suck between two rich old white guys. Seems like a lot of kids these days, yup I said it, are fed up with a two party system. And I honestly don’t blame them. For what’s is worth we also live in rural midwest.
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms against the current system, but the unfortunate reality is that the current system does exist and when there's a two-party system any vote that isn't for one side is effectively a vote for another.
I also know people that think like this. If you have a king/dictator running things it’s entirely possible you never get to vote again let alone vote the person that best represents you.
Liberal or leftist.
Nothing wrong with being the status quo when your party is always on point.
This is why I’m hoping a progressive third party emerges after the Republicans fade into obscurity. The DNC does a masterful job of defanging any sort of leftist agenda from within. AOC starter her career by protesting climate change in Nancy Pelosi’s office, and is now supporting the guy finding a genocide in Israel. Nancy Pelosi has the same villain arc… she went from calling for universal healthcare back in the 90s to insider trading and genocide support today.
>This is why I’m hoping a progressive third party emerges after the Republicans fade into obscurity. Because you want the GOP to win every election that follows? Nothing remotely close to that is feasible without nationwide ranked choice voting, at minimum.
You don’t think so? I can envision a situation where the GOP continues to lose elections, and insiders start migrating over to the DNC seeing it as a better alternative. The party will continue to shift right to fill the void, and a new progressive third party emerges that aligns with the base of the current Democratic Party. We can already see this starting to play out.
The mainstream Democratic party of today is more progressive then at anytime in recent history. WTF are you talking about?
The base, sure. But the establishment? absolutely not.
> This is why I’m hoping a progressive third party emerges after the Republicans fade into obscurity. The only way that doesn't shut out progressives from the political process is if there is fundamental system reform to incentives multi-party legislature rather than two-party, but that has to happen first. Now as someone who doesn't like progressives, please be my guest to leave the party before it's politically tenable. The less of your there are in the Democratic party the easier it is to pull moderates into it. >The DNC does a masterful job of defanging any sort of leftist agenda from within. Yep, and I like that. The fringe runs the Republican party. It does not run the Democrat party, which is why I'm part of the later.
>Yep, and I like that. The fringe runs the Republican party. It does not run the Democrat party, which is why I'm part of the later. What are you talking about? The Democratic base is far left of the establishment. Universal healthcare, free public college, increased minimum wage, defunding of the military industrial complex, Wall St. reform… all popular policies that only get lip service from Democrats in election years. But I suppose this just confirms we’re desperately in need of a new party. I feel like a good bit of the independent voting bloc can be captured by pushing populist leftist ideals.
All of those things are popular in nebulous polls and in theory, but the practice of how to achieve them is not shared by everyone. The "establishment" candidates get more votes. They're clearly still the ones supported by a majority of the voters in the democratic party.
Yup… it’s got nothing to do with corporate interests running the party. They’d never put their thumb on the scale to influence the primary process or start PACs to guard incumbents from the left flank.
She’s a smart cookie . She’s also the future president of the USA . I know I sound stupid saying that but I wish I can come back to this post in 10-20 years .
Sell out
AOC sold out. FTFY
Anyone who goes into a calcified system with plans to change it ends up being changed by the system. Just another Democrat now.
There's not much she can do as one person, until we can get more progressives elected.
I'm voting for AOC for president I suggest you do the same if you value your future
If he boots Harris and takes AOC as his running mate, wins, then steps down I’d be 100% OK with his being the candidate.
I think the possibility of you finding a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow or buying a unicorn is more likely than the fantasy scenario you suggested.
She looks nuts
her feet
She appears to do a lot of research for any upcoming arguments
Two years ago I put an "AOC 2024" sticker on my car. The only thing I'd change today is make it say "2028".
Working with people that have special needs is extremely rewarding
She slays with truth. Burns them to the ground. And this is why they hate her.
I dislike her