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
Mark Kelly would have a solid chance. I hate that I can't imagine AOC ever winning.
Few imagined her winning in The Bronx, and yet.
Women have won in districts all over this country for decades. Never been president though.
Things change.
The Bronx is a bit different from the US presidential.
Don't get me wrong, I love her, and I hope to see her as president some day. I just don't know if now is the time to play that hand...
It'll always be the wrong time.
Not necessarily, but that's a bit of a thought-stopper if I'm being completely honest
Well I meant it as a thought-starter, the subtext is no better time than now.
That completely ignores strategic thinking and long-term planning, which are essential parts of effective political praxis. The best option isn't always "Do it right now."
Have you heard the phrase "Play your cards right"? Just because you have the Queen of Spades doesn't mean you should play her at the first possible opportunity.
Why would you endanger her political career by asking her to make a premature run for president? Even if she makes it through campaign season without being smeared into obscurity by the billionaire-funded propaganda machine, and even if she gets elected, then she still would have to start her term with the disaster inherited from the current admin, and likely spend years cleaning up the mess while being blamed for the mess that was handed to her.
She's said herself that she still has work to do in Congress. Let her focus on that for a few more election cycles while the progressive movement builds momentum. She'll be able to do far more as president with more progressives in Congress anyway. Especially if she can start from a sane baseline and focus on progress, not just disaster cleanup.
Running her now just seems like wasted talent, on top of recklessly endangering a relatively young political career.
Same goes for Mamdani. Let him serve a few terms as mayor, prove his policies work. Then a couple terms as governor before running for president. That maximizes the good that he can do, because after serving two terms as president his political career would essentially be over, even without being slandered by his opponents.
Haven't you heard? It's 2026 and gambling is in. People would rather gamble than play it smart. They want satisfaction NOW, even at the cost of everything.
Everything you said is correct. It isn't time for an AOC presidential run. Not only would she lose, it would set back the cause. You don't burn your good cards the moment you get them. You build the hand.
Everything we've witnessed about this country over the last decade really indicates this isn't the time.
And the hands are getting progressively more risky every time we lose. People are losing rights now. Fascism is here. Long shots are not called for.
When is the right time?
Rhetorical question. Your answer doesn't matter. The people who are willing to move ahead will do so with or without you.
Why Kelly? He's pro Israel and pro big business. Pro ACA but anti medicare for all. He's just the same old cookie cutter biden model centrist with no ideas-- that the public has already rejected as out of touch. I dont care at all that he was a navy and nasa pilot. Show me someone with ideas and a drive to lead in a positive direction? its not Kelly.
Reminder that Biden is the only person who has beaten Trump. The two women failed.
And progress was made under Biden if you were paying attention. Maybe not tectonic shifting, but still progress. Which was a whole hell of a lot better than what we're experiecing now.
There's a very clear interpretation of events that the "America will never elect a woman president" completely seems to miss. Since 2008 every president that has been elected has promised significant change to help average Americans.
Obama promised hope and change as the country was in the midst of a massive recession and had just gone through a housing market crash of historic proportions.
Trump promised to drain the swamp, to self-fund his campaign and made some surprisingly progressive promises while he was campaigning (he then did absolutely none of that, jacked up the economy and grossly mishandled a global pandemic)
Biden also made some surprisingly progressive promises (and tried to pass them all in a single easy to block bill. Though in the background there were some brilliant policies which were passed)
Trump promised more change while Kamala was promising to maintain the status quo.
I think there's a sizable voting block that just wants something to happen. They want to throw the electoral equivalent of a molotov cocktail into the mix so that maybe things will get better. They're tired of nothing ever happening to help them and they want to reshuffle the deck so that maybe they can get a slightly better hand this time around. This is the nerve that trump found, he's the molotov cocktail they threw into the government in the hopes for some kind of improvement. Now that that's not working and he probably won't be able to run again, it's time to find the next candidate that will promise something other than "more of the same"
As a Californian, I truly believe there is no way in hell that the country will elect a Californian.
This is completely separate from the undeniable fact that Newsom has always felt like a slimy used-car salesman with his greasy slicked-back hair, and now only seems like he’ll do anything at all in the quest for MOAR POWER. There’s only so much goodwill slapping back at Trump’s tweets will get you and it certainly is nowhere near enough to get him the presidency.
Honestly I have to agree. California Democrats have a distinct style of politics that I don't know if it sits well in a national election. I do wonder what happens if they seriously run a Midwestern Democrat rather than a coastal one. It completely changes the vibes when they're from somewhere close to the outdoors and the farms, but without the baggage of a southerner
I can’t say I’m overly well informed about how politicians differ, but I think much of the rest of the country sees California as the evil west coast elites, and nothing will change their minds. Especially not Newsom.
Yup.
A white male astronaut senator with military experience who has openly stood up to Trump has a better chance than a woman of ANY qualification in this country.
That's simply the truth in these Divided States of America.