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
18883 readers
3501 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.
- 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.
- 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
Jimmy Carter did-- Ted Kennedy challenged him for the 1980 presidential nomination. The result was them doing so much damage to each other that the ultimate winner of the primary (Carter) came out battered and bruised, giving Reagan the edge he needed to win the general. And we all know how well that worked out for the planet. (Spoiler alert: horrifically.)
That was the opposite tho...
That was "moderate" party leaders trying to sabotage a progressive at any cost.
That fucked America up reeeeeeeally badly. But the people who decided to do it got what they wanted: an excuse to tell voters that progressives can't win.
Wait, what? I thought Jimmy Carter was considered really progressive for his time. And Ted Kennedy wasn't some perfect progressive hero, he had some pretty major blemishes on his record like Chappaquiddik. So I always saw it as more pointless infighting than any kind of centrist-vs-progressive showdown like 2016.
Then again, my parents were in high school when all this was going down, so my knowledge is obviously pretty limited, lol.
Which is why he got a primary challenger...
From Ted Kennedy, who was also extremely progressive for his time. 1980 was progressive vs progressive (which is part of how Reagan was able to win so decisively in the general, by portraying himself as being a centrist-- even though nothing could be further from the truth).
https://lemmy.world/comment/958758
I already had this conversation 14 hours ago, I'm not having it again.
Who is the moderate and who is the progressive in this?
Carter is our most progressive president since FDR...
The "moderates" were the ones running the party that allowed a primary...
I thought my comment was pretty clear, but hopefully that's clearer
Not everyone's American and not everyone knows history from 42 years ago of foreign countries.
Also, OP's ignoring that Kennedy was also a progressive hero, too. The primary was progressive vs. progressive-- which is part of the reason it's remembered today as the poster child of pointless infighting that did nothing but benefit the opposition. I've literally never heard anyone here in the States have OP's take on the primary until this thread.
Reading it again the confusion is in Canada the party leader is basically the PM candidate.
I guess in the US the president is not the party leader. Without that knowledge, you don't know what's going on.
It's pretty clear from context.
I mean, things like primary challenger and stuff like that aren't really terms non-Americans are familiar with. I also wasn't quite sure which of the two people I didn't know was the progressive one.
The kicker to this is that Kennedy was also super progressive. The whole statement doesn't really make sense to politically engaged Americans either, it was just a "The Party allowed a progressive to challenge a progressive". Ted Kennedy was a powerful enough politician that the party didn't need to allow him to run. He was basically royalty (brother of John F. Kennedy) and an untouchable institution in the state he represented. Carter had really terrible approval ratings (28%) and Kennedy had presidential ambitions.
This. Look how angry people still are about the DNC's percieved favoritism towards Hillary in 2016. Imagine the backlash if Bernie had been flat-out barred from running in the primaries against her. Now imagine Bernie's last name is "Kennedy", and it's less than a decade after JFK and RFK were murdered.
Yeah, the DNC basically had no choice but to let him challenge Carter.
Don't blame others for your ignorance
It's really not.
Ted Kennedy, champion of the moderates, is very much not a self-obvious implication.
I explicitly said the problem was the party leaders allowing a primary.
Sink two progressives in one blow, and hope you get a moderate in 4 years.
If Carter did 8, Kennedy would have likely been president next, maybe for another 8 years. Moderates were losing the party. Having a republican beat a weakened Carter let them tell voters that the party had to move right and that progressives couldn't win.
In Canada the leader of the party is basically the PM (Prime Minister) candidate. One and the same.
So reading those words would mean that the PM, who is the party leader, would have had to allow a challenger. (which isn't how it works here, but anyway.)
Wait, what? I thought Jimmy Carter was considered really progressive for his time. And Ted Kennedy wasn't some perfect progressive hero, he had some pretty major blemishes on his record like Chappaquiddik. So I always saw it as more pointless infighting than any kind of centrist-vs-progressive showdown like 2016.
Then again, my parents were in high school when all this was going down, so my knowledge is obviously pretty limited, lol.