Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
If the Democrats were wise they would choose the next candidate now in order to get the party going in a specific direction, just like the Republicans have done unofficially from 2020 to 2024
If the Democrats were wise they would choose the next candidate now in order to get the party going in a specific direction
As though they haven't already chosen both the person and the direction. It's newsom and rightward, respectively.
I'm talking about officially doing their primary right now. Look at how it works in a parliamentary system, if a party loses its leader there's an official interim leader taking their place until a new one is selected and that leader/interim leader is officially the one choosing in what direction the party is going. The party doesn't spend 3 years leaderless leaving the other elected officials do whatever they want.
I’m talking about officially doing their primary right now.
Yeah, they're not gonna do that. Not in public, at least.
As a Democrat, no one has ever accused my party of being smart.
perhaps, but democrats are held to a higher standard
any tiny misstep - or even correct step that the republicans figure out how to spin - over the next few years would poison the waters
By this logic the Dems held onto Biden and then Harris with the intent to loose the election. Which... kind of makes sense given how they were more focused on keeping progressives out, as these seem to be the real danger from their perspective, not the fascists under Trump.
sorta sounds like they needed to fix that problem
She will run, and the DNC will sheepdog her like they did Bernie, keeping everyone herded up in the party until they realized they got fucked over, again.
Bernie’s being doing some rallies with her recently. If I were to guess, Bernie’s not going to run for POTUS again, he’s going to endorse her.
Bernie could get the VP nod.
If we could stop floating ancient and/or billionaires, that would be greeeaat.
Bernie is the one exception though. The only exception.
I love Bernie and I would vote for him if he were on the ballot, but he has no business being president at this age. I think he recognizes that and that's why he's actively helping the new generation.
he has no business being president at this age
Things we can say now that biden is no longer running.
Personally, I prefer Bernie as the main - we need as many years of progressive presidencies as possible. Having 8 of them with him as the lead, and another 8 of AOC, would be a good start to reforming America. Odds are, though, we will simply have AOC replace Bernie during one of his terms. VPs are meant to be backups for when a president isn't able to hold office anymore.
I would prefer Bernie as the main too, but given his age and heart condition, that's not viable. :(
I have the impression the thing that determines an election, isn't age nor ability, but the possession of a lively personality. I would say that Bernie has enough personality to bury Krasnov.
And both she and liberals will still keep defending the party after it.
Yes, she's never questioned the party leadership or directions. :rolls eyes:
She'd be better in party leadership and not pursue the Presidency (yet).
I want AOC to be President, but I think Americans are too sexist to vote for her. We're a callow, superficial people.
We also thought Americans were too racist to vote for a black man.
IMHO, Americans will always prioritize swagger, the ability to clearly call bullshit, and the ability to generate hype and a sense of connection.
This is why Americans vote for celebrities and actors.
I kind of see where you're coming from - there's an imperfect fungibility of bigotry. If you're bigoted against one kind of person, it's not hard to make you bigoted against another, it just takes a little propaganda.
But it's not a secret that young men broke for Trump by over 10%. I attribute that swing to the manosphere podcast circuit working round the clock this past election, and Elon Musk purchasing voters with his "sweepstakes."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Exit_poll
2020, Biden: 81,283,501 2020, Trump: 74,223,975
2024, Harris: 75,017,613 2024, Trump: 77,302,580
These numbers suggest that not only did more people vote for Trump than in 2020, even after living through the fucked COVID response, even after seeing January 6, more people chose not to vote at all. And it's a 50/50 split: Trump converted 3 million votes from Biden, and 3 million more just stayed home.
This line is coming from neoliberals who can't understand why Hillary and Kamala lost and are blaming sexism because they can't come to terms with the fact that the American people are turning away from the establishment in its entirety.
Yes, sexism is a problem in America. No, it is not why liberals are losing.
I want AOC to be president, and think that the "Americans are too sexist to vote for a woman (now that a progressive woman might run)" argument is being used to hold back all women in order to hold back one woman.
I also want AOC to be president....starting now.
I want Tim as president and AOC as vice since I dont want to risk the bunch of idiots who wont vote for a woman fucking everything up again.
Kamala's campaign wasn't fucked because she's a woman, it was fucked because she's a careerist who doesn't believe in anything.
Two things can be true.
I know a lot of women who didn't vote for her because she was a woman. Shit is crazy to me, but that doesn't mean it's not the reality. I'm sure there are a shocking number of people who didn't vote for her because she's a woman.
Yeah, conservative women are a really odd breed. I live in the Deep South, which means I get to actually interact with all of the hardline conservatives on a regular basis. I have 100% heard the “I just think a woman’s place is to follow her husband” rhetoric from women.
Those will vote Republican anyway...
This is the ideal progressive ticket, IMO. It's not as scary for the mid as having a female President (grow the fuck up, guys), but she'll still be able to provide her support and opinion far above her current station. People seem to really like Tim, which is great.
But in the end none of it matters. They're all historically pro-Israel and people don't forget that. They've begun to change their tune, but only just now. It seems disingenuous to get votes, which just seems...hollow.
Aoc 2028
I'd rather she primary Schumer.
That’s probably the more impactful move if she were to win.
AOC Pres with Tim Walz VP would be great
"Swerves?" WTF
The verb choice of headlines is really a plague.
Slam, blast, hit, rip, and now swerve. Remarkable journalism.