this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
342 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22730 readers
3353 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] robocall@lemmy.world 139 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 20 points 6 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.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 8 points 6 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.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein 2 points 6 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.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 130 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I don't want her to be NYC mayor, either. I want her to be President!

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago
[–] sudoshakes@reddthat.com 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

As much as this is the dream, she is not electable in American politics for president.

[–] Random123@fedia.io 24 points 6 months ago

American society is clearly too far behind

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

That's what they said about Obama.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You'll have to wait at least a year (or four for the next election). She's legally too young to run for president as she's only 34.

[–] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Likely not. She'd have been of age by the time she took office. It's very slightly nebulous, but it's more in line with precedent that she is already eligible. For further details, see Joe Biden's initial term in Congress. He was 29 when he campaigned and was elected in the November 7th, 1972 election. He turned 30 on November 20th, making him of age when he took office in January of 1973.

AOC will turn 35 before the election even takes place, which suggests that she has even more of a claim to eligibility than Biden would have in '72. It's all moot now, as the DNC (probably wisely, from the look of things now) chose to make the easier transition to the sitting VP as their candidate. There were several advantages to this strategy, but that's a different discussion.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Ah, I thought she had just turned 34. In any case, yeah, the ship has sailed.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 74 points 6 months ago (1 children)

She's obviously Bernie's heir apparent and will replace him as The Left Wing Democrat to come in 2nd in the primaries now that he's too old and she's old enough.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

On a more optimistic note, a true heir to Bernie will know how to negotiate with the center left to accomplish some of their goals in exchange for the support of progressives to win elections.

[–] eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] noxy@yiffit.net 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bernie is consistently farther left than AOC. One example: she voted to break the rail strike. He voted against.

[–] eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

You're not wrong, AOC is certainly a stock liberal, however Sanders is center left. The US government is a right wing government with a right wing and far right party as the primary choices.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

By American standards, I don't think that's true. If I'm wrong about that, that would be amazingly good news!

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I’d LOVE to see her run in 2028.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 18 points 6 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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago (3 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.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 6 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

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 12 points 6 months ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 36 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Being NYC Mayor is harder than being President. You've got the same 24/7 spotlight and much less actual power.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If Giuliani could do it how hard can it be? Seems that you don't even have to have a grasp on reality.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)

9/11 era Giuliani was more coherent. The man is losing it.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You mean the same Giuliani who lost an election and took a mob of racisr police to occupy city hall to prevent a black guy from being sworn in as mayor?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

Someone lied to you.

David Dinkins was Mayor before Giuliani.

He lost his election.

Rudy did bring a mob of cops to city hall, but they never "occupied" it.

I hate Rudy as much as anyone, but keep the facts straight.

9/11 era Giuliani was also more or less working directly with the Russian mob, because he did a great job in the years leading up to it of scraping out the Italian mob (say what you will about them, but at the end of the day, they were staunch anti-fascists), leaving an enormous power vacuum that the Russian mob quietly filled. It was very much a situation of “better the devil you know” that was categorically and intentionally ignored. Organized crime is of course not great, but at the same time, the Russian mob is on a whole different level - not to mention, they’re effectively a branch of the Russian state.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

The man is losing it.

LOL that happened a long time ago.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

9/11 era Giuliani was more coherent. The man is losing it.

Chronic alcoholism finally caught up with him.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

In some ways you have more concentrated power.

To quote a mayor of NYC: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom's annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have."

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why would she want to demote herself to mayor? That wouldn't make any sense.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Mayor is generally a demotion. Mayor of NYC is like being an authoritarian over a small but major nation with large, critical economy and the 7th largest army in the world. So arguably that would actually be a large step up for AOC, if we're just talking about pure power and authority.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago (2 children)

NYC is 7.4% of the US economy. I'm saying that to agree with you, that's bigger than Florida, bigger than every state other than CA, TX, and (obviously) NY.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

and (obviously) NY.

Stupid recursion

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The real issue isn't that being mayor of NYC isn't a serious and respectable position; it obviously is. The real issue is that being mayor of NYC is a political dead-end, especially for a Democrat. NYC is fundamentally very different from the rest of the country; it's unique. Nowhere else in the country is anywhere near as urban as NYC. Nowhere else in the country has a greater share of its population that commutes via walking and public transit. Nowhere else in the country has such a large share of the population living in multifamily housing.

Comparing it to entire states or other nations isn't just about economics. It very much is a world unto itself. Its boroughs have their own unique cultures and even dialects! NYC has such a unique identity; it is a nation within a nation. If NYC broke off from the US, it could absolutely be perfectly viable as a city-state like Singapore. No other place in the country could as easily pull that off as NYC could. The lifestyle, the culture, the history, and even the language of NYC is markedly different from everywhere else in the country. It is part of America while being a part from America.

The point is that NYC is insular and unique. And to most of the country, NYC is a very alien world. The places where the vast majority of Americans live look nothing like NYC. And if you serve as the mayor of NYC, you will be forever linked to that alien place. To most Americans, NYC means the biggest of big cities, and all the political realities that entails. If you are a mayor of NYC, you will forever be seen as not really representing and understanding the way the vast majority of Americans live. You'll be forever linked to old money, old-school big city Democratic machine politics. There's often talk of "real America," and NYC is the polar opposite of that. And that just is never going to be popular in the places that you need to win over in order to win the Electoral College.

The one exception to this is if you are running as a Republican. A Republican, by nature, seems to be antithetical to big-city Democratic politics. You're not as tainted by it. This is why Giuliani actually had a not-completely ridiculous shot at being president for awhile (but even that required being mayor during 9/11.)

Being mayor of NYC is a noble thing. But in terms of national politics, it is a political dead-end. You could probably run for a US Senate seat from New York after being mayor of NYC. But if you serve as the mayor of New York, your chance of ever being president is essentially zero. NYC is simply seen as far too alien by the rest of the country to elect a mayor of that place as president.

A a politician, run for mayor of NYC if you wish. But do so knowing that if you win, you will have to forever write off the chance of being president of the United States.

[–] blasstula@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

the "vast majority" of Americans live in cities

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

You confuse cities for Cities. Take a look at this graphic Again, NYC is a universe unto itself. Nowhere else even comes close.

Yes, the vast majority of the US lives in cities, but most live in sprawling low-density suburbs, which are a type of city. And even for those who live in central cities, even those are mostly composed of low-density neighborhoods. 3/4 of Americans commute by car. And while I cite commute, realize it goes far beyond this. The vast, vast majority of Americans who live in cities live in neighborhoods that physically look nothing like the neighborhoods of NYC. Walking to work and picking up the ingredients for dinner at your local corner bodega is not a normal experience for the vast majority of Americans.

NYC is absolutely a statistical outlier when it comes to the rest of the country. It is a nation within a nation.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Thanks to the antics of old time Mayor Jimmy Walker and Tammany Hall, a lot of NY's power is controlled by the Governor of NY State.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's really only true with the emergency powers of the governors office. Given the power to appoint 40+ commissioners in NYC and the de facto power the mayor exerts over NYC (despite de jure description) is immense. Give the political, police, and financial power of NYC, I would say the mayor still exerts more authority than the governor.

That being said, the governor of NYC has the power to declare a state of emergency and wildly broaden his power to near authoritarian levels. If that were to occur and then the governor and mayor were to somehow end up toe-to-toe, it would be interesting. But in actual practice, I think that might be a more even match up than you think.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 6 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.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

guvnah to start

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 7 points 6 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.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Independent:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-eric-adams-mayor-plans-b2619847.html
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

load more comments