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
First- I actually really like seeing AOC not being one of those "burn the house down" politicians as I knew her when she started. It seems like she's learned what it takes to get a large group of people to do one thing, and outrage politics does not do that. Frankly this is the restraint I would look for in a future presidential nominee.
Second- at a base level I'm very for Biden stepping down and giving us the opportunity to escape this hellhole of an election cycle. John Stewart put it pretty well to the DNC- "Do you understand the opportunity you have here? Do you have any idea how thirsty Americans are for any hint of inspiration or leadership, and a release from this choice of a megalomaniac and a suffocating gerontocracy?"
I always look for reasonable takes from opposing viewpoints, and I did find American Historian Allan Lichtman's argument for why Biden stepping down would not be the best idea. Here's the 6 minute video of his 13 keys to the Whitehouse which has predicted 9 of the past 10 elections.
TL;DW:
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Major policy change: The incumbent administration affects major changes in national policy.
No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
If 5 or fewer of these statements are False, then it is predicted that the incumbent will win. His take is that replacing Biden will do nothing but make point 2 & 3 turn from True statements to False statements, and increase the chances of Trump winning.
While crystal balls are everywhere and you could point to other political scientists who would say different, I was looking for a decent take on the counterpoint. I would also say that in political science, we like to have tools to help us make predictions so we can make actions. Just going on deep gut feeling won't cut it. Having a tool whose measurements don't always align with how you feel an outcome should be doesn't necessarily mean the tool is bad, it means it works independently from your biases. If you watch the video, I think he puts it well as the election is a thumbs up or thumbs down on the party more than it is the individual leader. It might be a helpful thought exercise to change the words "Trump" to "Republican" and "Biden" to "Democrat" when discussing the race as charisma and celebrity only goes so far in politics, but that's what we get caught up in the most.
But that's why peopled liked her. Who she is now is basically totally unrepresentative of who she ran as.
To some degree this is always going to be true when you elect a new person to a new position. Think of it as a video game enthusiast becoming an actual developer.
As someone playing a game, it's really easy to suggest ideas and changes and fixes which sound like simple common sense to do. When you actually see the intricate code however, and how it's structured and run, you realize all your ideas from before aren't as easy to implement as you thought. Your mindset evolves to instead focus on practical solutions which have clear ways to implement.
AOC adopting more practical positions is exactly what you want to see. It shows that she's thinking of how to get those goals done. Bernie operates much the same way.
What would be concerning is someone who goes to Congress for the first time and doesn't change. It would mean they're dishonest about what's actually realistic to get done, and they're just telling you what you want to hear so you'll vote for them.
This isn't really a progressive politics issue though. The alternative to Biden isn't a progressive, it's an establishment moderate who can reliably form a coherent sentence. I'm disappointed the people with the sharpest critiques of the decay in Democratic politics aren't taking on this fight, but it's not something I'd hold against them. I think whatever was said in that meeting convinced them that nothing would ever make Joe Biden resign. No influence campaigns, no public statements by politicians, no donor rebellions. He'll drive the car off the cliff before he gives up his ego, so they're just trying to see if somehow they can make it work.
I don't agree, but it's a reasonable choice to make if you fully believe the guy holding the party hostage will die before giving in.