this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024

332 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19234 readers

2227 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

332

AOC doesn't want to be New York City mayor. Most likely, she has bigger plans (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If she wanted to be President, mayor of NYC isn't a path that's out of the question. It's one of the only places where the office of the mayor gets a lot of national attention. It can be more prestigious in practice than NY governor.

That said, former NYC mayors haven't exactly done well in runs for the President, either. Rudy ran in the Republican primary in 2008, and his performance was summed up as "noun verb 9/11". Bloomberg tried in the Democratic primary in 2020, but nobody wanted to vote for a stodgy billionaire. I conclude that this would not be a good fit for her if she wanted to be President. This conclusion comes to you from two datapoints, which is the typical level of data to produce strong conclusions in the media.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Mayor of New York seems like a pit trap. I admire the city from afar but any meaningful way of making it better will be met with red tape, corruption, and mob like fuckery.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

I feel like she might go for Senator in 2028.

Outside of Trump, Presidents typically win a state office before going on to President. While AOC could go for governor, I don't see her really going for that role.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

guvnah to start

[–] [email protected] 137 points 2 months ago (2 children)

She has presidential material. that's why conservative media was so quick to try to vilify her.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She better up her time line then. 20-30 years as a conservative punching bag will leave her so entangled in the media machine it will bury her.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yup, they were treating her as the reincarnation of Che Guevara since year one. They've been rigging the game specifically against her since before she even got a seat at the table.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

I also assume that's why she's pretending to play ball with Harris. If she continued being an actual progressive the Democrats would never let her get nominated.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I’d LOVE to see her run in 2028.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

It's too soon. She's young; we want her to help the progressive cause for years and decades to come. If she were to become president in 2028, she would be retiring after she served, like every other president does, and we would lose her voice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Let's imagine a best case scenario for Democrats. Let's imagine Trump is defeated in a landslide in November. And instead of reforming their ways, the national Republican party instead takes the path of the Republican party in states like California - continuing to double-down on losing policies. In other words, barring election losses, here is a path I could see for Democratic candidates:
2024: Harris/Walz
2028: Harris/Walz
2032: Walz/AOC
2036: Walz/AOC
2040: AOC/?

Walz is currently 60. If he won in 2032 and 2036, he would be 76 when his second term ended in 2040. That's a perfectly viable age to be president. And a seasoned Walz would balance nicely with a younger AOC. Meanwhile, AOC will be 50 in 2040, still quite young by presidential standards. And by then, she would have 8 years as VP to shake off the sense that she is too young and inexperienced.

This assumes Dems manage to win in 2024, 2028, 2032, and 2036. And that would be quite unusual by historical standards. However, considering the Republicans' unprecedented efforts to destroy democracy, it's not impossible. As long as they continue to champion destroying democracy, sane people, regardless of political beliefs, will recognize that they simply cannot be allowed into power until they reform their ways.

However, If there is a loss prior to 2040, I would just move AOC to the forefront. Does Harris/Walz win in 2024 and then lose in 2028? Assuming we still have real elections at that point, I would put AOC at the top of the ticket in 2032.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah better wait til she got old and lost her best abilities right? 8 years are 8 years no?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you kidding me? She's 34. She's got like 30 years left until she's old.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why wait?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have already explained that the reason to wait is so that she can be in politics longer and thus make a bigger impact.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Well I personally do not know how the future will turn out, so I think the best person for the best job right now makes the most sense.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (2 children)

she would be retiring after she served, like every other president does, and we would lose her voice.

That's not a rule, you know. John Quincy Adams served in the House after being President, Andrew Johnson became a Senator, and Taft got appointed to the SCOTUS.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I know, but it's precedent. And I'm sure the secret service wouldn't love her continuing to be active in politics.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I don’t think the secret service gets an opinion on what former presidents do for work

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know about Quincy adams, but the other two do not represent what I want more of in American politics

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The point is that retiring from open politics is a choice, not a requirement.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My point is that it’s too much to ask of her to be president for eight years and then continue nobly serving her country.

The people who still want to be in politics after that aren’t doing it for good reasons.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was with you on the first sentence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

…but you think Andrew Jackson and Taft were doing what was best for the country?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What? Your comment was about it being a lot to ask of AOC.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yes, because people don’t want to do that unless there’s a corrupt reason for it, like with Taft and Jackson. It would be way too much to ask of a non corrupt person.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Exactly. I mean just look at how a former President conducted the dismissal of bipartisan border legislation!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

Fair point.

load more comments