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 would totally be open to someone other than Biden running... If the DNC (or any party) had actually started promoting and positioning anyone good 2-3 years ago.
It's too late now. Biden is the guy.
And all the people on the Internet I see whining about how they don't like the choices available: if you actually want to do anything productive instead of just bitching you need to do the work in advance. Get involved with political organizations, campaigns, etc.
Even looking further ahead to he 2028 elections (assuming the US is still having elections)... Who is the DNC planning on running? Harris is cop who doesn't excite anyone. AOC is probably too polarizing to get moderate support, and is probably move valuable in Congress right now. Newsome maybe? I hate to throw out celebrities, but it's happened enough that it's possible and John Stewart seems like he might just go for it. Heck, even he is 62 right now, so he'd be 66 if he ran in 2028, and 67 by inauguration day.
Everything about the administration makes it seem like they're trying to promote and position Harris. Just trying and just being someone younger than Biden isn't enough, it has to be someone who can hold together his coalition and there just isn't anyone who totally fits, that's why we are where we are.
2028 will be Harris, Newsome, Buttigieg probably, maybe Fetterman depending on recovery. Gretchen Whitmer and Andy Beshear are Democratic governors with a decent story to tell. AOC will take the Bernie campaign to the next generation no doubt. I don't think the bench is that barren, but none of these people have a particularly compelling reason to declare in 2024 because they're all just decent candidates, not overwhelming favorites.
The closest thing to an overwhelming candidate taking on a 1 term president was DeSantis, and he crumbled eventually.
Why do you think this? I think I've seen a handful of articles about Harris the whole term and people on the Internet who don't like her claim that she will be pushed. Id say Newsome is def being positioned to run tho
There's not one big "they" out there pulling all the strings. Newsom is positioning himself to run in 2028. The Administration is positioning Harris as heir apparent. I don't think there is any conspiracy to put Harris at the top of the ticket, but her entire job is being there if Biden dies, and I think it's pretty reasonable to think Biden wants her to run after his 2 terms are up, they agree enough on politics and he picked her to be VP.
I say they're positioning her because for the above reasons it would be extremely useful to have a popular young VP waiting on deck, and they might as well try. But I see it in every press release and announcement from the "Biden-Harris Administration" and they made her border czar and they're sending her everywhere to talk about abortion, they're putting her around important political issues so she can run on experience in the future.
The DNC will run Gavin Newsom.
The DNC doesn't pick the candidate.
According to court records they do
Do you have a link for where I can learn more about this
The superdelegates have informed us of how they intend to vote [before the actual election] and we can conclusively call this election for you being wrong about that.
Super delegate votes don't count on the first ballot.
In 2008 the super delegates were all decided for Clinton. They switched when Obama won the votes.
I wonder if it's just a coincidence that they let Obama win and he immediately sold out after running a progressive campaign.
So? It's still the DNC keeping a thumb on the scales. It's a little like saying that because the king was benevolent and listened to the people that one time, the monarchy isn't flawed and ought to be preserved. If the superdelegates didn't like Obama, there was never any obligation to switch their votes to align with the will of the voters. And let's not overlook how massively shitty it is that the DNC is literally trying to pick winners by announcing who they plan to vote for before actual voters cast votes.
Who did the superdelegates choose to win the 2008 primary?