787
Ocasio-Cortez endorses Biden's reelection campaign, sending a strong signal of Democratic unity
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
787 points (95.1% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3117 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Age notwithstanding, any incumbent president in the last 50 years would be absolutely overjoyed to run for re-election with Biden's record; tons of new blue-collar jobs, strong economy, relative lack of major fuck-ups or controversies or other drama except manufactured RW ragebait. Basically everything swing voters want and nothing they don't want.
Nor is there any real reason to fret about base turnout, given that liberals will view the Republican candidate winning as apocalyptic and show up simply to vote against that person, however disappointed they may be in Biden and whatever performative statements they make about their votes not being guaranteed.
Pretty much the only negative for Biden is age, but that is a pretty big negative.
The campaign needs to see to make Kamala Harris digestible. More than with most campaigns, the way she is viewed is immensely important due to Biden seemingly able to keel over at any moment.
They could also replace her.
In fact there's a pretty good argument that they ought to pick their strongest 2028 candidate - which is almost certainly not Harris - and Biden should secretly promise that person that he'll resign after the midterms in order to get them to agree to join the ticket; the odds are pretty strong he doesn't make it through 4 years anyway, and this way there'd be a solid plan in place when he finally runs into whatever medical setback forces him out.
They'll avoid the problem in favor of short term benefit. Any belief I had that the Democratic insiders had a long-term masterplan went out the window with how little they've done to pump up Harris. I don't even want her to be an eventual nominee, but I thought they'd be purposefully building her as the trusted heir apparent. Instead they just dumped no-win issues on her while making her mostly invisible in the administration's wins.
That sounds like what happened to every vice president we've had in my lifetime. And that's close to 6 decades now.
Yeah, but there's a real difference when that VP is a Joe Biden or Dick Cheney who didn't really have an expectation to be the heir apparent, and when the president is old enough that not finishing a term is a real possibility. There's an uncomfortably high (though still low) chance Biden actually has to be replaced on the campaign trail, and while that's never a good thing, it's a lot worse when you've saddled your VP with tasks like solving immigration and getting voting rights passed when she never really had the power to do either of those things. "Eats shit on tough issues so the president doesn't have to" is a valuable service from a VP, but not if you want people to be ready to accept her at any moment as a drop in replacement.
So you're trying to talk about two different things and joining them together. On one hand being the heir apparent, and on the other having the president keel over.
Biden was absolutely the heir apparent. If his son hadn't died he would have ran, and our country may have been on a much different course than it's been for the past 6 years. For many of us, the idea of Cheney becoming president because of health reasons was pretty damn scary. For both bush terms!
Speaking of heir apparent, George Sr was definitely not considered qualified to follow in Reagan's footsteps. He actually called Reagan's policies voodoo economics.
In any case, if the president did have to step down hypothetically in 2 years, Kamala Harris is not going to appear any dumber than any of the other VP s we've had in my lifetime. She would be a placeholder until the next election, just like any of the others would have been.
They're intimately related because keeling over can happen in close proximity to an election. I never viewed Biden as heir apparent for Obama, maybe others did, but it didn't matter because there were plenty of other choices and he'd still have a full primary cycle to be tested and discarded if he ate too much shit to be elected. I'm not even sure he would have beaten Clinton if he ran.
If Biden keels over 1 year from now, we're in deep shit, and his chances of doing so are MUCH higher than other recent presidents. Pretending that Biden has the same negligible risk of leaving office early as any other president is the whole problem with their approach.
Kamala Harris has done exactly what a Vice President is supposed to do, but she isn't going to be President after Biden, at least not yet.
If that's the biggest negative, that's not so bad compared to all the other possibilities.
Not only is he old, but he's pretending that doesn't matter. I think that's pretty disingenuous.
The only major fuckup was the failure of student loan debt cancellation, and the pullout from Afghanistan. But arguably the latter wasn't his fault, as it had been put in place before he was in office.
Military-wise, the pullout of Afghanistan was a huge success. The Russians lost 535, the British lost 16,000. On top of it the United States evacuated 250,000+ civilians in 3 weeks who were never part of the pull-out. Many think of it as a failure but it was the largest humanitarian airlift effort in human history. If there was a fuckup it occurred in 2020 when Trump told the Taliban they can have Afghanistan. That is where everything fell to pieces.
Well, not to mention, Afghanistan had a few other knock-on effects on the, um, former Soviet Union.
During my government-paid vacation to Afghanistan, those we fought against were mostly Iranian or Pakastani, not actual Afghani people. If we did run into an Afghani it was usually a teenager. Given I was there in 2008 and 2012 and not in 2020, the feeling that any pull-out would be messy was already present. The locals didn't believe we would ever leave, we told them in 2012 we didn't think we were the right culture to help them out of the darkness and that we wouldn't stay forever. The United States never invested in Afghanistan, Congress blocked all grain shipments despite military intelligence showing it would result in farmers growing opium. I know for many Americans the only view of the nation was war images, but those of us on the ground saw more than that. The Afghani culture is really cool, they are the best horsemen I have ever seen, deeply caring and understanding. They also are a broken people who don't view themselves as a nation but as tribes of people. In the end those I met and spoke to were very interested in western culture and we fostered a great relationship. The largest problem they faced was foreigners from the West and South bringing war to their villages and forcing their strict religious rules on them.
I do believe that Afghanistan will never recover, India or China are going to exploit the nation for it's resources and leave nothing for the people there. Maybe either of those nations will run the Taliban out, but it won't be anytime soon.
That's an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it.
It's only my perspective from what I saw around the Parwan Province of Afghanistan.
If there's one thing the US will do, it's get you hooked on drugs. You can be an army vet or a small country and it's just the same.
That, and stabbing the rail workers union in the back.
Actually, most of them ended up getting their sick days anyway in the end, due to the combined efforts of Biden and Bernie: http://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Holy shit, I guess I missed that news because of the reddit debacle. That's fabulous news.
From abroad at least Biden seems like a very poor candidate. As he's chosen to stand again the dems have little choice but get behind him or risk a devisive primary season splitting the party.
But the republicans look set to select a very poor candidate too. It says a lot about how broken US politics is that were probably going to see a rerun of the last election with two elderly candidates battling it out in a deeply divisive and particularly polarised election.
The election will basically come down to how many people don't like Donald Trump. That's not great.
Why?
If we weren't stuck in the two party system, we'd absolutely have a much better candidate.
We can stop pretending he's accomplished. Our nation is still extremely divided, and it's getting worse. Our economy is okay for the top 60%, but we still have insane opioid crisis, homeless crisis, housing crisis and the bottom 40% are not better off. They are fighting against inflation, while being told that they just need to suck up $5/gallon gas prices. Inflation seems to be getting under control more, and the Ukraine response was decent. He did okay.
But I'd hope we can do better than okay.