politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
view the rest of the comments
I have nothing but absolute respect for AOC and I would love to see her as President and I would certainly vote for her. However, I can think of only one person that would attract more vitriol from the right, and the media at large, than HIllary Clinton and that is AOC. Aside from convincing the misogynistic masses to vote for a woman, she'd have to convince them to vote for one who will be endlessly labeled in the media as a Socialist and Communist. And the masses will eat that up with no more understanding of the terms than the talking heads that will spew them across the airwaves and internet. She would have an uphill battle of biblical proportions just to win the Democratic primary.
On the other hand, I would trust AOC to run a better campaign than Hillary did. If any woman could get elected president in this country, it would be AOC. She would not blow off the working class and lurch to the center to try and court disaffected republicans. I also think AOC would do a good job sticking to issues and throwing republican failures back in their faces.
Having said all that, I don't know if '28 will be her time to shine. Hell, it's hard to make any call with confidence since Trump has about three and a half years to continue his rampage across this nation and there's just no way to forecast what the situation will be like come primary season. At this point, I would be happier to see another candidate lead the ticket. One with similar positions to AOC but more palatable to those masses I mentioned above. The only one I really like right now is Illinois' J.B. Pritzker.
I know he's a billionaire but his actions in Illinois since he became governor show he is a good one. He has been pro-worker, pro-LGBTQ+, pro-choice, and has used his fortune to support progressive candidates. He is also pro-campaign finance reform because he doesn't think people like him should be buying elections. He has also donated millions of dollars to organizations across the nation to help the left thwart republican plans to enact draconian anti-choice laws. If you're not familiar with Pritzker, I suggest you look him up and see what he has accomplished since getting elected in Illinois.
If I could have any ticket in 2028, it would probably be a Pritzker/AOC ticket and I think they would wipe the floor with the right by focusing on issues that matter to people rather than kowtowing to mega-donors.
Clinton / Harris did not lose because they were women. They lost because they either were a neoliberal shitbag (Clinton) or could not convince people that they were not a neoliberal shitbag (Harris).
We elected a black man after years of people saying America was too racist to ever do that. There are a lot more women in America than there are black people, and it turns out that running as a progressive is pretty popular.
We don't need to play this stupid guessing game about what genitals or skin colors will win elections. We already know the policy positions that win elections we just categorically refuse to run on them.
That's a narrative pushed here a lot, but I haven't seen good evidence it is true.
Wasn't Obama a neoliberal shitbag by your standards?
Obama ran on Change, closing Gitmo, and universal healthcare. That he governed as a neoliberal scared to change anything doesn't change what people actual voted for.
And then in Obama's second term he just had the incumbent's advantage. Then neoliberal Biden, VP to Obama, won on change again. Then Trump won on changing back.
You may just be rationalizing because you don't like neoliberal, so you think no one does.
I don't like neoliberals, but my comment only referenced them because you defined Obama as neoliberal when his first campaign was very much not. That's what people voted for. And of the elections after that, the only one that couldn't be easily described as based on "change" was Obama's second term against Romney, who is himself sort of the antithesis of change.
That's a fair assessment, actually. I think many voters often want change or don't want change, and they don't really consider which direction the change goes.
If anything bad is happening, whether it's the current administration's fault or the previous, they'll be interested in trying something different.
The swing voters and the non-swing but intermittent voters will just take gut checks about how their life is going and figure out which side wants that to change. Each side, when they're up for change, will pretend their chosen policies will fix everything, and enough people don't really have the wherewithal to recognize whether it's actually going to do anything.
The truth is, for both sides, usually it won't, because even the good stuff is usually tinkering on the long term or hoping that business subsidies trickle down to regular people. Before Trump mostly nothing happened to really impact people's lives, and Trump's stuff is all terrible. So the same stresses that prompted them to believe the other guy's changes would finally do something are still there and they're now looking for a new lie to believe in.
He acted like one once he got elected but that's not what got him elected. His campaign was very different from his Presidency.
Pritzker is good, as evidenced by the "Pritzker sucks" signs found across rural Illinois. My concern would be who would replace him as governor.
It would be a hit for Illinois, that's true, but a win for the nation would be worth it to me.