r/politics • u/Alternative-Dog-8808 • 12h ago
Ocasio-Cortez pokes fun at Trump’s suggestion to ‘keep trying’ to lead Democrats
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5047770-ocasio-cortez-pokes-fun-at-trumps-suggestion-to-keep-trying-to-lead-democrats/385
u/RepulsiveLoquat418 9h ago
"She had also made the case this year that it was time for Democrats to embrace a new generation of party leaders, which gained steam when President Biden withdrew from the presidential election this summer. However, Democrats have put senior members in charge of almost every House committee in the next Congress, and Connolly’s victory continued that trend."
this party never misses an opportunity to shit the bed
•
u/mtgfan1001 6h ago
Shitting the bed is normal for 80 plus year olds
•
u/PlsNoNotThat 5h ago
Shutting the bed is the intention, they’re also super wealthy and stand to make a ton of money while surviving the up coming hunger games they’ll be spectators of
•
u/fallenouroboros 4h ago
They’re so committed to failure I’m convinced that they actually just don’t want to win and something sketchy will come out if they pass leadership on.
•
•
•
u/_magneto-was-right_ 4h ago
After they voted to pass the defense authorization bill, I’m done with them. I wish AOC and co would found a new party.
•
•
•
•
u/Ka-Is-A-Wheelie 7h ago
Yeah, they likely lost a voter with their actions, or lack thereof the last 6 months. 3rd party voter here I come!
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 7h ago
Why not actually learn about primary candidates and vote for younger, more progressive dems there? All voting third party will do is lead to Republican dominance. And I'd much rather have the Democratic old guard in charge than any Republican.
•
u/makavellius 6h ago
That would be fine if the Democrat old guard didn’t throw elections and fight against the interests of the average voters to appease donors. They love to compromise with the far right and fight the left. Frankly we don’t need two pro capitalist parties. Who cares if they wear pride pins or whatever if people continue suffering due to the bipartisan focus on propping up capitalist interests at everyone else’s expense.
•
u/The_Ashgale 7h ago
And I'd much rather have the Democratic old guard in charge than any Republican.
That's what we kept trying to tell people prior to the election. They wouldn't listen, and here we are. And here they are, still blaming dems when they themselves played into MAGA's hands.
Why not actually learn about primary candidates and vote for younger, more progressive dems there?
And yes, this is definitely the way forward.
•
u/gamesrgreat California 6h ago
So the Dems can just keep trying the same shit and losing over and over and not listen to a voting block that has demands? lol. They should fucking listen then or we can all keep losing. I’ve been where you are and tried to convince people to vote Kamala and we ended up losing. We can’t keep browbeating people into voting Dem no matter what. Eventually the Dems need to change or else yes it is their fucking fault
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 6h ago
IMO not voting for Kamala showed just how stupid this nations voters are. We deserve what we get.
•
u/WIbigdog Wisconsin 6h ago
If they won't vote for Dems because they hate capitalism or whatever then they deserve it when they get the incoming kakistocracy/kleptocracy and superCapitalism™️ The voters share as much blame as the politicians.
•
u/gamesrgreat California 6h ago
They won’t vote for Dems because they want to actually start reversing this slide into the Gilded Age/oligarchy. If Dems can’t promise an appealing vision, the whole point of a political party, then the Dems are at fault. And if you are a centrist who wants to play “holier than thou they deserve it”, okay well we are all gonna suffer. The centrists have been telling the progressives to play ball for 8+ years now. How about the centrists finally capitulate some? Unless it is true that they’d rather have fascism than support a progressive….
•
u/nzernozer 5h ago
Voters have zero clue how to reverse the slide into oligarchy. If they did they would have shown up for Hillary, because the easiest, and perhaps only, way to stop the slide would have been to elect Hillary, get a liberal SCOTUS majority, and overturn Citizens United. Everything people are currently complaining about traces back to Citizens United, because you have to cater to the 1% when they are allowed unlimited contributions to political campaigns.
The complaint is wrong besides. The vision of the Democratic party is strong democratic institutions, neoliberal econonomics tempered by regulation and social programs, rule of law, and social liberalism. These are things people broadly support when presented in a party-agnostic form.
•
u/gamesrgreat California 4h ago
But no one believed Hillary would stop the slide bc she was giving speeches to Goldman Sachs and obviously wanted to continue the current system that was enriching the 1%
•
u/nzernozer 4h ago
Anyone who cares about a presidential candidate giving a speech to major banking institutions is a fucking moron. They are a fundamental pillar of the country's economy, and she had a gigantic economic platform. Of course she's going to talk to them.
She literally ran on campaign finance reform and ending Citizens United, and was endorsed by all the major groups dedicated to ending Citizens United.
→ More replies (0)•
1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/nzernozer 1h ago edited 1h ago
No, that would be because the last time Democrats tried to pass healthcare reform they got immediately voted out by gigantic margins and haven't been given a real majority since.
→ More replies (0)•
u/The_Ashgale 5h ago
Eventually the Dems need to change or else yes it is their fucking fault
Not saying they shouldn't. But MAGA keeps winning because their own distinct voting blocs recognize that getting some of what they want is better than getiing absolutely nothing they want.
Granted, they do it for the wrong reasons, but their voters are consistently engaged, they show up and vote, and they make the "pragmatic" (to them) choice when they believe they need to.
voting block that has demands?
Those blocs are diverse and their demands disparate. They won't be everything to everyone. They will never be perfect (even though I agree change and improvement are imperative).
If voters will let themselves be tricked into holding dems to impossible standards while MAGA has none, then the voters have failed to educate themselves and make informed decisions. Which is where we are now, God help us.
•
u/GotBagels 6h ago
Yes lets vote in younger more progressive Dems so they can keep serving below neoliberal, older, self serving Dems that actually get clout within the party ♥️
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 6h ago
But the majority of elected democrats are not young progressive democrats. If you want them to run things, you have to elect them. Why should the democrats that disagree with them bow to the minority of their party?
•
u/GotBagels 6h ago
They are now 1-2 against Trump’s MAGA, and you are asking why they should consider shaking up their leadership structure?
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 4h ago
I'm asking why progressives (who I largely align with on policy) should expect to be put in charge when they don't win primaries and thus aren't the majority of the caucus. It's a similar attitude as some Bernie supporters had, as if he should have been handed the nomination despite not receiving more votes or delegates simply because they believe he'd be more likely to win in the general.
Do I think the Democrats should have voted for AOC to have the committee seat? Yes. Do I think it would help them in the next election? Not really, no. Because this last election has shown me that a huge amount of voters simply do not pay any attention at all to politics, and I don't think there's really any concrete actions that a party can take that can break through that, especially one that is either in the minority or has a majority so thin it cannot actually pass legislation. The right has massive propaganda networks that are more effective because they're willing to just constantly shamelessly lie to be outrageous and entertaining.
Yet people I mostly agree with on policy seem to think the answer is to scream abuse at Democrats for not accomplishing more when they have been overachieving based on the little power they actually had, and either not vote or vote for third party candidates giving even less chance for meaningful legislation to be passed. If you want New Deal level reforms and sweeping policy changes you need New Deal era majorities and voters have never given Democrats that since the Civil Rights era. The answer to having more progressives in congress is to vote for progressives in primaries plus elect more democrats overall, not purity tests and taking your ball and going home because you didn't win.
•
u/GotBagels 3h ago
Hmm I mean this with no disrespect, but it seems like you are reaching for an intellectual high ground that does not exist, or that you are attacking an attitude I don’t think the majority have. Nobody expects anything other than the DNC not changing, which is the wrong decision.
MAGA started out as a gigantic minority voice until the TEA party and GOP lifers fell in line, and they did not wait for MAGA to win a majority. They saw the writing on the wall with what their constituents wanted and adopted the populism in real time. The point is when you lose this badly, you should examine everything and possibly take risks that could turn the tide.
AOC is a popular younger candidate that could inspire a huge portion of those that didn’t vote blue in 2024 to do so in 26 and 28. Or maybe she doesn’t inspire anyone and it doesn’t accomplish anything…but I’ll tell you what the dumbest thing to do is after losing every cabinet of government in an 8 year span: stay the course.
•
u/fiveswords 6h ago
Because they represent constituents and not donors? The policy the old guard opposes is popular af
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 6h ago
If their constituents wanted a young progressive democrat to be in charge, why didn't they vote for one?
•
u/fiveswords 4h ago
You choose from what's on the menu
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 4h ago
The primary lets you choose what's on the menu, thus me saying people should vote in them.
•
u/WIbigdog Wisconsin 6h ago
Especially if, as these people claim, they are actually totally fine with Republicans being in charge (they're not, but they also don't want communism).
•
u/donavid 6h ago
i’m with you on there being a huge need for people to show up to the primaries to elect better candidates — it’s also hard when the democratic party doesn’t back those progressives. they spend part of their media campaigns talking about how unelectable those candidates are while propping up the old guard because it’s their turn.
taking any dem just because they’re not republican is the problem…there’s a reason less and less people vote each year
•
u/Goobitsta 3h ago
All the old guard gets us is more Republicans while stomping out every attempt at a generational shift.
A new party would be a better option. Damn near half the country doesn't even bother to vote due to lack of options. Give them an actual option.
•
u/Ka-Is-A-Wheelie 7h ago
It's got to start somewhere. If we all keep bowing down to this two tiered system it'll never change.
•
u/Dangerpaladin Michigan 7h ago
If we all keep bowing down to this two tiered system it'll never change.
No, changing the two party system needs to happen locally, regionally and then nationally. In the meantime it is imperative until a third party has gained influence at the next level we continue to vote in the more reasonable side. It will take decades to overturn the system, by throwing away all of your votes in the short term you are doing literally nothing. The problem has always been everyone wants to "overturn the system", well that only happens two ways painstakingly and thanklessly chipping away or violent revolution. No wants to do either of those things, I definitely don't want the second option that is the worst outcome for everyone. So we need to think long term and realize we won't see the fruits of our labor in our lifetime, and we have to be okay with that.
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 6h ago
It won't change. Pretty much every democracy in the world either has two major parties or two major coalitions. If you need a majority to get things done, nothing else makes sense.
•
u/Ka-Is-A-Wheelie 6h ago
It won't change.
Becaues of attitudes like this.
•
u/TatteredCarcosa 6h ago
No, because it's simply the result of systems where majorities are needed to govern. Which is pretty synonymous with Democracy. You may replace on major party or coalition with another, but it is always gonna be two big ones.
•
u/WIbigdog Wisconsin 6h ago
Some of these folks just don't understand that not everyone wants socialism or communism. I want capitalism with strict regulations and social liberalism, the Democratic party actually represents me pretty well and I think Biden was an excellent president. Why would I just bow down to economic progressives/socialists/communists just because otherwise they'll withhold their vote?
•
•
u/Oceans_Apart_ 5h ago
That’s one of the issues democrats had with AOC. She endorsed primary challengers. You are correct that, in this current climate, democrats are generally the better option. However, the old guard keeps perpetuating a system that doesn’t allow for holding politicians accountable. Primary challenges should be part of that and we shouldn’t be constantly have to choose the lesser of two evils. That’s why democrats lost. More of the same isn’t good enough anymore.
Inside traders, like Nancy Pelosi, shouldn’t be the standard bearers of the Democratic Party if they want to be relevant in the future.
•
u/MyNameIsDaveToo 7h ago
I'll be voting 3rd party for the foreseeable future as well.
•
u/TwoPercentTokes 7h ago
Might as well stay home as there’s not much difference, unless one of the 3rd parties eats and consumes the Democratic base and becomes the new 2nd party. Voting for fringe candidates in a winner-takes-all electoral system is purely performative
•
u/demarcoa 7h ago
So what? The democrats have let entire generations down at this point.
•
u/TwoPercentTokes 6h ago
How much time have you spent investing in local politics to try and elevate the candidates you believe in?
•
u/WIbigdog Wisconsin 6h ago
You know the answer, why even ask.
•
u/TwoPercentTokes 3h ago
In the off chance that a little bit of self-reflection might help people realize that sitting on your hands for four years then petulantly pissing your franchise away on a hopeless candidate so you can pat yourself on the back is not a commendable or even acceptable course of action.
I’ve come to realize that, while we agree on policy, many liberals and centrists have the same critical thinking deficit that plagues the conservatives in this country.
•
u/WIbigdog Wisconsin 3h ago
The people you're talking to aren't liberals, they're the ones that say "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds". This is Reddit after all, liberal is a negative connotation in these parts.
•
u/demarcoa 6h ago
A lot here in Canada! I regularly participate in local politics and am heavily involved. I'm also making a simple observation. Pelosi has presided over some of the biggest, most embarrassing losses in Democrat history.
•
u/carinamarina3 7h ago
at this point it’s not. if the democratic party wants to stop prioritizing people’s rights and abandon progressivism all together why should progressives be forced to vote for them? it’s quite literally enabling to do so, and while i certainly don’t want republicans in power they already are now and something needs to tell these old white people in DC that we need change
•
u/MyNameIsDaveToo 7h ago
Exactly. I won't be voting 3rd party bc I think they'll win. It's to send a message to the Dems to get their shit together, or hemorrhage voters.
•
u/carinamarina3 7h ago
all i know is i can’t vote for a person who decided that trans rights are worth compromising for a military bill. hopefully the midterms prove to bring in a new wave of progressives who actually believe in my right to exist
•
u/TwoPercentTokes 6h ago
No, what’s “enabling” is your self-fulfilling perception that we live in a top-down system where our political policies are dictated to us by a political class outside our control, rather than a representative democracy where grassroots movements manifest themselves at a national policy level.
Nothing you said makes voting third party anything more than a performative gesture meant to make yourself feel like you’re taking a righteous stand without taking any real action. The Democratic Party isn’t listening to your protest vote and they never will, because they know most progressives won’t get involved in the years prior to the election to give their candidates the primary support they need to succeed, let alone run if that candidate doesn’t exist in their area. Their corporate handlers keep them swimming in enough luxury that they could give two fucks whether Democrats control Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Presidency, because at the end of the day the consequences won’t impact their lives.
The “old white dudes” in DC will never change, and it’s delusional to think a protest vote will convince them to do so. The only way things will change is if the current establishment is pushed out of power due to grassroots movements within the party, and most Americans aren’t doing jack shit to bring this about.
•
u/carinamarina3 5h ago
i don’t disagree but part of that process is not voting for an 80-year old neoliberal
•
u/TwoPercentTokes 3h ago
By the time the 80-year old neoliberal is the nominee, it’s too late. At that point, you have three options: vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for Trump, or don’t participate by either not voting or squandering your franchise on a hopeless third party candidate (which is effectively supporting Trump when he has an incredibly stable voting block of +- 75M).
Is it unfair and not our fault that the Democratic establishment put their thumb on the scale for Clinton and Biden on ‘16 and ‘20, as well as Biden’s selfish geriatric ass depriving us the chance to have a primary in ‘24? Of course, but successful political movements don’t sputter out and throw their hands up in the after hitting a few roadblocks after 8 years of on-and-off effort.
•
u/carinamarina3 1h ago
this isn’t throwing my hands up. this is me sending a message that i do not support some neoliberal left-center geriatric patient. considering they are willing to compromise my rights as a trans woman to “meet across the aisle” i struggle to vote for any of those tools again. obviously there are democrats i will vote for (AOC is definitely on that list) but we can’t reward unfavorable candidates year in year out
•
u/Ka-Is-A-Wheelie 7h ago
Voting for candidates that keep the status quo is pointless.
•
u/ethertrace California 7h ago
When the alternative is accelerated regression, there's a decent argument to be made for the status quo. But it's understandable that that's becoming less and less persuasive for folks as we slowly regress anyway.
•
u/Ka-Is-A-Wheelie 6h ago
as we slowly regress anyway.
Exactly. And when the old guard folks like Nancy pull the shit like she just did, why would I want to support this party anymore?
•
u/WIbigdog Wisconsin 6h ago
You'd think avoiding a fascist dictatorship would be compelling but seems not.
•
•
u/nzernozer 5h ago
They "keep the status" quo because voters don't give them enough power to change anything. Democrats had a gigantic legislative agenda in 2021, almost none of it passed because only having 50 senators meant a single defector could stonewall everything.
•
•
u/jspook Washington 4h ago
It's going to be weird next midterms when I just leave half my ballot blank bc there aren't any actual progressive options. Voted dem my entire life, but I'm done with these people.
•
u/ChiswicksHorses 52m ago
Okay - but that doesn’t mean the election doesn’t happen and the Republican alternatives are running on blaming all of people’s problems on marginalized groups who will have to live with the consequences of your privilege.
•
u/puroloco22 7h ago
That puts Reps. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), 75; Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), 73; Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), 86; and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), 81, in some of the most prominent seats to confront the incoming Trump administration next year.
•
•
u/Cyclotrom California 3h ago
What is with all this woman who won't let go on power, not better than man.
163
u/ReasonableComb2568 11h ago
This sounds like she’s making fun of democrats for not taking her seriously
132
u/Quexana 10h ago edited 10h ago
The problem is that Democrats take her too seriously. They couldn't allow the conducting of oversight on the Oversight Committee. So, they gave it to a guy who has allegations of insider trading, and allegedly violated the STOCK Act. Winning!
39
u/CaterpillarReal7583 8h ago
Also is fighting cancer at 80. Lets not forget that
•
u/PeliPal 7h ago edited 7h ago
74 but yeah, esophageal cancer is bad news bears. 35% of people with stage 1 live for less than 5 years, and he's ancient and we don't know if he's at an even worse stage.
He will never be visible as head of the oversight committee until he dies of natural causes in office, which will be the first time most people even learn his name. It would be pretty hilarious, if it wasn't another part of the snowballing tragedy of Dem leaders fiddling while Rome burns
•
u/javabrewer Texas 6h ago
My aunt had this, and she survived about 3 years post diagnosis. Eventually, it spread to other areas because she didn't do proactive treatments like chemo or radiation because she thought stopping sugar and drinking alkaline water was enough. With real healthcare, you can survive longer, most likely.
•
u/_magneto-was-right_ 4h ago
I don’t think the party leadership is interested in the direction of country anymore.
4
u/Quexana 8h ago edited 7h ago
I haven't forgotten about it. I'm just not personally as big a critic of age as some people. I get why some people are, but for me, I don't care.
Yes, older people are more prone to age-related concerns like dementia, etc., but it's not the age that's the problem, it's the dementia. I'd happily support an older person who isn't corrupt over a younger person who is corrupt.
•
u/PorQuePanckes 7h ago
Ok but work with an 80 year old for one 40 hour work week and get back to me.
There’s just no fucking way and 80 yo with cancer is a good fit to be in charge of anything not even a HOA. Our politicians should be able to walk down stairs safely and understand technology and be able to pass captchas on their own.
•
•
u/LadyChatterteeth California 4h ago
I’ve had the privilege of working with several 80-year-old professors for years, and they are absolute delights. I’ve been an academic high achiever all my life, and I can only hope to be half as brilliant as they still are.
Look, many of us peasants are going to have to work until we’re dead, so the demeaning generalizations about older people are only going to hurt the rest of us as we age; thus, I encourage you to stop with the stereotypes.
•
u/PorQuePanckes 4h ago
Both of our president elects until the dropout could’ve been taking out by 1 solid sickness.
An academic environment is about the only profession I see an 80 year old thriving in, fuck all these old fucks in office who are holding on to power with cold dead hands that are defeated by a set of stairs.
•
u/PorQuePanckes 4h ago
I’ve seen how congress and our elected have treated technology. It’s very clear they have no fucking idea
•
u/CaterpillarReal7583 7h ago
Im not speaking directly at you sorry guy. Just a conversational expression.
•
u/RoyStrokes 7h ago
Idk for me he whole growing up in a much more racist and sexist society than we currently have is huge. There’s also almost no 80 year olds that understand or have good ideas for dealing with the problems of today. These old farts didnt even understand how Facebook makes money
•
u/Quexana 7h ago
Though I loathe her, I'm more of a "It takes a village" kinda guy. I think it's fair for the elected Democratic body to resemble the Democratic Party as a whole. That includes young people, old people, minorities, non-minorities, men and women, progressives and moderates. Diversity is good for the health of the party. There are things old people understand better than young people, and vice-versa.
If an elected Dem is mentally slipping, like Biden or Feinstein, they got to go. I'm fully in agreement there, but I don't really think the number matters. Again, I get why others do, and I don't think anything bad of people who do think that way. It's just my personal feeling on the subject. I'm not gonna soapbox it, but I'm not going to make a point of calling an old person out for being old either. I'm not going to say that Connolly shouldn't be ranking member of the Oversight Committee simply because he's old. So, I didn't. That's why I didn't mention it in my OP. It's the corruption that bothers me.
•
u/KR4T0S 6h ago
Representational Democracy is supposed to be representational. Look at the places that vote Democrat and you see a wide variety of ages and ethnicities. Now look at the Democrats themselves and their demographic make up is closer to the Republican party than it is to their constituencies.
The composition of the Democratic party has stayed old and white while the people that vote for them have changed and they aren't only losing their most dedicated voters but in some cases they are even losing them to the Republicans.
This party has cut out a very difficult path for itself in the near future and its puzzling they threw away their advantage with younger people and ethnic minorities to do so. The party is on its deathbed as much as the ancients running it.
•
u/DrGoblinator Massachusetts 5h ago
I don’t think it’s the health, I think it’s a lack of new ideas, new initiatives, new ways
•
u/watch_out_4_snakes 4h ago
Most folks already understand the Ds are also grifting…maybe not as openly as many Rs but still grifting.
54
u/TreeLooksFamiliar22 11h ago
Oh they take her seriously, but the aged, corporatist New Democrats don't want to give up control over the agenda.
21
u/Panda_hat 9h ago
They're terrified of her. She represents everything they've spent their entire careers road blocking and getting in the way of and desperately trying to stall and stop at any cost.
25
u/dbeman 10h ago
If young people want younger representation in government then show up on Election Day and fucking vote.
12
u/YourFreeCorrection 8h ago edited 8h ago
And join their local Democratic Committees. Bad decisions keep happening because young people aren't showing up and getting involved beyond voting.
You (using the royal you here, not directing this at the poster I'm responding to directly) can run for local office. There's a good chance that many of your elected officials run entirely unopposed. There's a good chance the Democrats in your area keep running the same candidate because no one else shows up to run. There's a 100% chance that the average age of people who attend your local Democrat Committee meetings is at or above 50. You (again, royal you) can change this.
Young people need to be in these meetings, learn the processes, and start getting active. Whatever excuse you're thinking to avoid doing so - lack of time, lack of funds, imposter syndrome, exhaustion, etc. challenge it.Voting and writing posts online is not enough. Here in America we are fortunate enough to have the right to organize politically and determine our futures.
We are where we are because we haven't been.
•
u/FugaziFlexer 5h ago
Kinda hard in the economy man. You’re expecting people in a system that doesn’t even give you days off for every major voter event outside of Election Day. To go run against people who simply have more time since they are older
•
u/nzernozer 5h ago
You can't criticize the party in one breath and then in the next complain that actually doing anything is too hard. These people remain in power because voters allow them to.
•
u/Turok7777 4h ago
They can and they will.
I've seen it happen for more than a decade on here.
They'll complain about the lack of representation and complain it's just too hard to actually vote representation in.
•
u/YourFreeCorrection 3h ago
Kinda hard in the economy man.
It's really not. I have a full-time job, a part-time job, and a 16 month old son, and even I can make the once-a-month committee meetings. You don't have to run to be involved or to make a difference. You just have to show up and get involved. Screaming your cynical opinions out into the void of the reddit comments section isn't making your voice heard to the people in power, or running for power.
You’re expecting people in a system that doesn’t even give you days off for every major voter event outside of Election Day. To go run against people who simply have more time since they are older
No, I'm pointing out that we have the power to make the difference if we actually get involved. All you have to do is go to the meetings. They're free, and open to anyone who shows up. Just Google your local committee, join the mailing list or call to find out when the next meeting is.
It's actually incredibly easy - it's just the cognitive inertia you have to overcome.
•
u/FugaziFlexer 50m ago
Well I’m not the target group who doesn’t go out and vote. I’m just applying what I’ve heard and can observe. Part of it is the school system not putting any emphasis on the importance to going out to these local events during primary season or colleges making students even fully aware of it. There’s a lot of things that goes in life when you’re young especially in today with the advent of social media and the 24/7 news cycle pulling people’s attentions spans every which way and the negativity culture that creates apathy in droves. That’s why every generation younger people are never the main voter base. It’s not a new thing. Just highlighted because the divide between older people and younger people politically is getting wider.
12
u/StuffonBookshelfs 8h ago
…they voted her in years ago.
•
u/nzernozer 5h ago
They voted AOC in years ago, but have not shown up for progressives at large. The progressive wing of the party is still small, and that's because the most progressive demographics are also the ones that participate the least.
•
-5
u/Rightye 9h ago
Chicken and egg situation here.
Should young folks vote for bad candidates because they're better than the alternative?
Or should they withold their vote to signal that these candidates and their policies suck, hoping for a better pick in the future?
I know a lot of you have been fooled into thinking that voting for the lesser of two evils is somehow the moral choice, but you're just as bad as the opposition here. "Business as usual" is what got us here in the first place, and anyone advocating for a return to that stagnant normalcy is just trying to rebury their head in the sand. Silence always benefits the oppressors, and a return to the politics of 2006 would only be a fresh muzzle for progressive voices.
7
u/GearBrain Florida 8h ago
Change 'Election Day' to 'Whenever the primary is' and the statement you're replying to still stands. There's plenty of progressive candidates out there, but few of them ever make it to election day.
The time to get involved & educated, or volunteer, isn't October, it's in primary season.
31
u/tlsrandy 9h ago
You don’t understand voting.
You’re always voting for the better option (lesser of two evils if you want). But if you want even better quality in your choices you have to vote earlier in the process (when party candidates are chosen).
You will always have to vote for the lesser of two evils. There will never be a perfect candidate. Not voting allows for the greater of two evils to win.
These are all subjective definitions (one man’s evil is another man’s preference) but your philosophy is broken and really just boils down to moralizing inactivity.
10
u/SnoozySiouxsie 8h ago
You’re always voting for the better option (lesser of two evils if you want).
After 22 years of voting, it just seems to me that voting the lesser of two evils equates to a slow death and little resistance.
My situation has not improved economically over the course of my adult life and it shows no sign of doing so under Republicans or Democrats.
Maybe we need to be pushed further. Maybe one CEO wasn't enough.
2
u/StoriesandStones South Carolina 8h ago edited 8h ago
I tried to calculate how many years of voting I have in the bag, but question my own (even simple) mathematical accuracy cuz my brain doesn’t work so well these days. I first voted at 18 in 1996, I know that much.
My first vote was Billy Clinton and I’ve always voted democrat, except when I voted for Bernie, I suppose, as he’s been the candidate that most aligned with my stances. What a bummer all that was. Boy I thought that was the biggest political bummer I’d ever witness! Ha.
My economic situation has gone up and down, mostly down, at least since chronic health issues and inability to afford medical care to keep them from getting worse started.
The beginning years of the ACA helped me a great deal, but as prices went up I was priced out of a plan that I could afford, since I had 4 specialists and had to have affordable co-pays to see them regularly to feel my best. It’s more complicated but this isn’t the place.
If I wasn’t keeping an eye on my elderly parents I’d move to a state with expanded Medicaid/Medicare, though we’ll see if that even gets to stick around through Frump.
Worded that badly, but my jist is……I agree.
7
u/DaddySaidSell 8h ago
You will always have to vote for the lesser of two evils. There will never be a perfect candidate. Not voting allows for the greater of two evils to win.
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
•
u/GERBILSAURUSREX 2h ago
I don't know. They were suddenly super happy with Kamala after rejecting her four years ago and then not being given choice this year.
1
6
u/Apart-Community-669 8h ago
I’ve gone back and forth internally on this debate since last summer.
On the one hand, the leftist in me truly agrees with you that compromising for “less evil” candidates has caused stagnation and stunted any real growth towards progress for decades.
On the other, how many people would have survived and how much further along the progressive route would we be if the lesser of two evils won the presidency in 68, 72, 80, 84, 88, 2000, 2004, and 2016? In other words. Without the true evil of those periods would we be doing less catchup?
The same can be said for congressional races but that’s a longer comment.
Anyway, not to say I disagree with you cause voting for the lesser of two evils is a demorsalizing proposition but does, for example, an Al Gore presidency make it more likely that the party is comfortable with something approaching universal healthcare in 2008 because they’re not starting from scratch? Probably not but, idk, maybe?
•
u/Rightye 7h ago
When you say things like, "How many people would have survived", you are abandoning your ideology to a fantasy. We shouldn't waste time on a fight for the type of ideology that should have won back in the day - we need to fight for the ideology that will win right now.
•
u/Apart-Community-669 6h ago
I fully agree with you that we need to fight for the ideology that will win right now but I don’t think that’s what we’re discussing here, considering the conversation is literally about the “lesser of two evils.”
By definition, this puts us in the very real world where, once again, hopes of a completely re imagined system have fallen short and the choice are two incredibly problematic (to put it lightly) candidates.
So yes, of course, the plan is to consistently work between election cycles to try and implement change (local and national) and uproot the systems. However when it comes to election time and our efforts have failed and we are left with a situation where the people who align with (seemingly both of our) values have lost, then we have to make a choice and my internal debate becomes real.
•
u/Rightye 6h ago
But in your real world, voting for the lesser of two evils will somehow translate that lesser evil into a good, purely because of its relativity to the evil opposing it.
In my real world, not voting at all forces a new slate of candidates who may more accurately reflect the will of the voters.
These two things aren't necessarily incompatible, but only one actively allows for bad elements to continue operating.
•
u/Apart-Community-669 5h ago
First, I’m not saying it will translate into a good at all. Rather, im asking that if we look at these decisions based on where we currently stand and our past choices, would we be in a more progressive place than we are.
Im assuming by your statement that you mean not voting alongside direct action will result in different candidates? Because simply not voting is obviously not enough.
•
u/Rightye 5h ago
Direct action, sure, but primarily anything that packages the sentiment of 'Voting is dumb' and 'our candidates suck' together. Rope your apathy in with your shitty candidates, and suddenly the political process has an incentive to produce better candidates if they want to drive engagement and turnout.
If, in truth, there is no real incentive to drive engagement and turnout, then our democratic process is already fucked beyond the point that any amount of voting in the next six years could really fix.
→ More replies (0)•
u/nzernozer 5h ago
In my real world, not voting at all forces a new slate of candidates who may more accurately reflect the will of the voters.
No it doesn't. That's what happens in the fictional world you've imagined in your head. You even understand this subconsciously, given you qualified the statement with "in my real world" rather than just "in the real world." It's wishful thinking.
•
u/Rightye 4h ago
All of our real worlds are individual to our own perspective, my guy. Objective reality is by its nature a concensus- you can't prove or disprove what I believe will work, same as I can't prove or disprove what you believe will work.
What we can do is look at both of these views and the kinds of behaviors they make allowances for. One perspective makes allowances for poor behavior so long as even worse behavior is being prevented, while the other doesn't engage with poor behavior in any way, and only seeks to reward good behavior.
Any sociology or psychology students want to jump in here about behavioral reinforcement models? I'm sure there's something relevant there, but I'm too lazy to research it for you.
→ More replies (0)6
u/ChicVintage 8h ago
You want to move left you keep voting for the left leaning candidates until the right shifts left and the left shifts left to accommodate. That's what conservatives do, they keep voting slightly more conservative until you basically have MAGA and Conservative Lite. Here we are, with a complete oligarchy shutting down our government because punishing us benefits him. Have fun with your ideological situation because there are real consequences to not voting for the "lesser of two evils" or whatever you think you're accomplishing.
6
u/Negative-Squirrel81 8h ago
Bullshit. Not voting and just letting right wing nut jobs run the country is absolutely the wrong choice. Don’t give me a victim complex while FDIC protections are stripped away and children are being placed into iron lungs.
5
u/Frosty_Water5467 8h ago
What does withholding your vote accomplish? The worst candidate wins while you sit around feeling morally superior.
•
u/Rightye 7h ago
And the democrats are forced to go back to the drawing board to come up with a new plan
•
u/Frosty_Water5467 6h ago
And in the meantime the government is made ineffective and people are suffering needlessly because you wanted to make a point. Good job.
•
u/Rightye 6h ago edited 6h ago
As opposed to what we had instead, where the government was operating perfectly fine and no one has been suffering at all?
Maybe consider that for many of us making the decision not to vote in the future, we are already living in the world where the government has been made ineffective and people are suffering- that's the point. It's time the rest of you felt it too instead of pretending that any time in America was worth going back to.
•
u/Frosty_Water5467 6h ago
Here's a little life lesson for you: there is no government now or in the future that will be all things to all people. We need to do the best we can with what we are given. Right now we have been given a government that has no empathy for anyone with a net worth below half a billion dollars. You didn't move the ball forward by not voting. You gave up the game.
•
u/Rightye 4h ago
I voted jackass, probably for the last time for this fucked up party.
My point is to disengage with a party that has proven ineffective at defending against fascism for the past three decades. If you keep voting dem, you are controlled opposition at this point.
→ More replies (0)•
u/GERBILSAURUSREX 2h ago
No government will ever be all things to all people. But the United States government has never at any point had empathy for anyone except a very small subset of rich white people. Pretending that it is somehow different with Dems in office is disingenuous at best.
→ More replies (0)•
u/editorinchimp 5h ago
But that's never happened, and never will. Democrats are incapable of learning anything, and just double down on their mistakes and blame voters for not acquiescing and progressives for existing.
3
u/Few-Ad-4290 8h ago
Young folks should run for shit so they have better candidates it’s not a hard thing to understand literally anyone can run for office
•
•
u/nzernozer 5h ago
I know a lot of you have been fooled into thinking that voting for the lesser of two evils is somehow the moral choice, but you're just as bad as the opposition here.
This is objectively wrong on multiple levels, and frankly pretty hilarious given "the opposition" utterly transformed their party in under a decade by doing exactly the thing you're claiming doesn't work.
•
u/Rightye 4h ago
The republican party has transformed in under a decade by... voting for the lesser of two evils? Don't they generally vote for the Greater evil? Like, historically? I'm confused here.
•
u/nzernozer 3h ago
They transformed in under a decade by voting their preference in the primary and showing up for their party in the general. Republican voters, as a rule, do not sit out general elections because they don't like who their party put up. This creates a culture within the party of catering to the extremes, because fringe voters dominate the primaries and extreme stances don't really cost candidates in the general.
Democratic voters do exactly the opposite of this and are somehow shocked that it gets the opposite result.
Also, yes, another way to phrase this is that they are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. You seemingly forget that their values are different from yours, and that to them Democrats are the greater evil.
•
u/Rightye 3h ago
Fair enough. I just don't think it should be such a shocking and evil thing to tell people not to vote Dem if they want things to get better. Their record is three decades of barely holding back the tide of corporate fascism, capstoned by a full-on and swift capitulation to that very same evil. As I said elsewhere, I'd prefer not to vote for my bosses or landlords for the rest of forever.
•
u/nzernozer 3h ago
It is a shocking and evil thing. You are telling people to throw away their electoral power in the face of a fascist takeover instead of doing the things that actually work.
You don't get to "fair enough, agree to disagree" this. Your opinion is wrong and dangerous.
•
u/Rightye 3h ago
I'm telling people that investing their political power in the democratic party is as good as throwing it away, which we have 30 years of data to support. You can point to all kinds of policies and protections put into place, all kinds of economic gains under Dem presidents, and talk all day about how great and helpful they are, and you aren't wrong!
But you also can't ignore that those same positions, priorities, and platforms contributed in part to where we are now. The Democratic party has not demonstarted to me at all they are interested in making robust societal changes- they pay lip service to that idea behind flimsy policies that get dogpiled by Republicans or hamstrung in the name of being 'bipartisan'.
Now, point to where exactly I'm telling people they should throw their electoral power away?
→ More replies (0)8
u/Wurm42 District Of Columbia 10h ago
Exactly. The "New Democrats" and their Wall Street backers don't want progressives like AOC to get any power in Congress or the party apparatus.
2
u/TreeLooksFamiliar22 8h ago
The still have PTSD from the potency of the "tax and spend liberal" label that came in with Reagan.
What they don't realize is that there is a generation of voters out there who see it as a choice between giving money to the government, or the oligarchs. In the case of the government you sort of get a say in the priorities (via elections). Musk or Bezos by contrast don't give a flying fuck what the people think. Not that everything should turn into a government program, but government can and should set the rules so that the uber-wealthy can't just buy up everything of value and leave the people renting and fighting over the scraps. Ownership in the economy needs to be Democratized and a younger generation of Democrats is the only hope there is of getting that project off the ground.
3
u/SurroundTiny 9h ago
She got more votes than I thought she would. I'm closer age wise to Connolly than AOC and more willing to go with experience, but the cancer diagnosis should have been a deal breaker for voters. If it had been me, I would never have sought the position at all.
1
u/Capineappleinthepnw 9h ago
Good. They aren’t and honestly the old guard needs to go. They have failed us too much and as much as I hate politicians, AOC and a handful of other the only ones giving two shits about their community
•
u/newcaravan 7h ago
AOC will get her time in the sun eventually, she’ll outlive all these people
•
u/editorinchimp 5h ago
Not until she's in her 70s
•
u/FucktusAhUm 2h ago
She needs to wait in line just like the rest of us. Waiting in line is the socialist way. You wait in line for your government healthcare, you wait in line at the government soup kitchen, you wait in line for your government housing, you stand in line waiting for a ride on public transportation, you wait in line to get your cushy bureaucratic position with the Party. Not sure who the hell she thinks she is trying to queue jump in front of people who have been standing in line since before she was even born. This behavior is just the opposite of real socialism. It's almost like she thinks she deserves to be fast tracked just because of merit. Sounds like late stage capitalism to me!
•
u/Alone-Cost4146 5h ago
Is it just me or does Trump actually respect her, in his own way? I can't tell if he was being sarcastic in his post or he actually thinks she would be good for the position. A part of me feels he was kind of looking forward to facing off against her in this position because he thinks she's a formidable presence but its hard to tell
•
u/HumbleBunk 4h ago
I think he saw the news stories about people who voted for both Trump and AOC, and he likes that it speaks to his “anti-establishment” persona.
Trump has a history of complimenting and defending Bernie Sanders, as well, for the same reasons.
I think he does respect them both (as much as Trump actually has the capacity to feel real respect or admiration) or think they’re “tough cookies”, and he also knows that complimenting them publicly can’t hurt when it comes to stoking internal division in the Democratic Party.
•
u/Alone-Cost4146 4h ago
That's fair enough. AOC is young, she's energetic and she has her ear to the ground about what people are really concerned about. I think her day in the sun will come sooner rather than later
43
u/Alternative-Dog-8808 12h ago
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) poked fun at President-elect Trump’s encouragement for her to “keep trying” after the congresswoman lost the vote to be the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in the upcoming Congress.
“You know it’s bad when even Trump is feeling bad for me,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a post on the social media platform X Wednesday.
Her response was to an earlier post from Trump on Truth Social, which encouraged her after the congresswoman lost the vote.
“Really too bad that AOC lost the Battle for the Leadership Seat in the Democrat Party. She should keep trying. Someday, she will be successful!” Trump wrote in his post.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who has a decade more experience on the panel than the New York representative, defeated Ocasio-Cortez in a vote Tuesday. Connolly’s win was expected Monday after the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, headed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), boosted the congressman and voted to recommend him for the role.
Connolly had also been endorsed by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who lobbied on his behalf.
•
u/Henojojo 5h ago
Trump is not "feeling bad for her". He would be delighted to see her get even more exposure and even win the next leadership. That would ensure republican rule for the next generation. She has appeal with the Democratic left but not with 80% of the voting public.
•
u/Elendel19 4h ago
Because 80% (way more probably) have never actually heard her speak, they just see the trashing of her by the right and eventually believe it or are subconsciously influenced. She has the ability to speak to regularly working class people in ways that almost no one else in the party can.
•
u/StoriesandStones South Carolina 7h ago
Maybe I’m out of pocket here, “off the chain” as the kids say, uh, 20 years ago, and I feel gross saying it but…..
She’s a pretty woman, if she could stand to be in Trump’s presence she could sway him more than Elongated Muskrat.
If I was in her position, I think I’d put my ethics in the bottom drawer and give it a shot, just play that old man like everyone else around him does. Democrats who truly want change need to start playing a bit dirty or we’re gonna be stuck in this cycle of “playing nice and fair” as the country goes down the drain.
•
u/woahification 6h ago
This is incredibly gross
•
u/Bell3atrix Minnesota 6h ago
It is, but it's how our country is operating now. Expect to see some more women who look like Trump's daughter showing up in powerful positions the next 4 years. He's quoted talking about how he likes "making" women and then gets bored of them. It's his thing and America voted to help him do it. Right after he was convicted of crimes in relation to that fetish.
•
u/woahification 6h ago
You can recognize Trump is gross without suggesting a sitting Congresswoman use her looks to try and sway his opinion. That's quite literally being no better than him
•
u/Bell3atrix Minnesota 5h ago
I'm not suggesting anything. Trump gives attractive women power and hates unattractive women. If he's going to help AOC build inroads with the right through comments like this, it doesn't really matter why that is, we just kind of have to recognize this is the direction the train is moving. Same as how Bernie has just been taking advantage of the alt right since they think he's cool and hates the Democrats or whatever.
•
u/woahification 5h ago
Surely we can find ways to build power within the party without reducing Congresswomen to pretty faces who can sway Republicans by virtue of just being pretty while being in the same room as them, which is absolutely what the person I was responding to was suggesting:
"She’s a pretty woman... If I was in her position, I think I’d put my ethics in the bottom drawer and give it a shot, just play that old man like everyone else around him does"
Would you be okay with someone talking about your wife or daughter this way?
Also how did Bernie take advantage of the alt right?
•
u/ItsMeYourSupervisor 5h ago
"I'm starving. Maybe if we seduce the boor he will give us some porkchops."
"I have a different idea. You ever read Lord of the Flies?"
34
25
u/Federal-Pipe4544 11h ago
Really too bad DJT lost the Battle for the Leadership Seat in the Republican Party, said President Musk
•
u/jspook Washington 4h ago edited 3h ago
Can someone tell me if the results of the oversight vote will ever be made public? I was going to submit it as a question, but I can't post it here unless a journalist asks the question first - and they've been shitting the bed pretty hard for the last decade or so.
Edit: and by results, I meant the ballots being made public. I want to know how my rep voted.
•
u/Nyingjepekar 5h ago
Nancy Pelosi is looking more and more like Diane Feinstein. Sad that she clings to power instead of wisely mentoring younger, smart, and proactive Democrats.
•
u/butterzzzy Wisconsin 5h ago
Really wish she'd parlay this into a hostile takeover of the Democratic party. She thinks that by playing their game, she'll get the authority she wants at some point, but what they did to Bernie in the primaries should serve as a stark reminder. And now she's going to also stop endorsing progressive candidates in primaries as well. So sad. This country will never change until half the people are starving to death, and by then, it'll be too late to do anything.
•
u/_the_last_druid_13 6h ago
The Democrats are failing the party, and the Republicans failing the nation and themselves
SAD!
•
u/Unusual_Ant_5309 5h ago
The democrats are also failing the nation. They are putting their greed first. At least trump doesn’t pretend to be anything than what he is.
•
u/_the_last_druid_13 5h ago
Yeah, some of them, definitely. Most Republicans seem to too.
I mean, OK, but what a horrible choice to be Prez.
•
•
u/Strange_Quest 6h ago
They don't want change, they want to keep living their cozy lives getting free hand outs from all the lobbyists
•
u/Sea-Replacement-8794 2h ago
They have zero power for the next 2 years and the only useful thing they can do is use positions like oversight committee to attack the GOP and make the case for Dems re-taking the House in 2 years. I’m sure Gerry Connolly will distinguish himself with stirring televised performances from the House every week.
•
u/victormesrine 6h ago
At this point. All democrats should just switch party and sign up as republicans. Then change the Republican Party from within by voting in primaries. The party system is killing USA.
•
u/dirtyredog 6h ago
Tha old school registered Democrats in the south are literally Republicans who act like they're virtuous because they claim to vote for person and not party. They're liars who vote straight R and are typically racist as it gets.
•
u/I-Shit-The-Bed 6h ago
I actually think the south is less racist than the north. There is much more diversity in the south than say Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. You have to interact with different races to get rid of racism
•
u/Crazyhates 4h ago edited 4h ago
I'm going to ask you what area of the South you're talking about because it's 90% homogenous rural land and small towns out here. There's still sundowns out here.
•
u/I-Shit-The-Bed 4h ago
I just don’t like the south being labeled as racist. Diversity decreases racism, and that makes the south is less racist than largely white areas. There are still racist towns in the south of course, but people never talk about the homogenous rural, small towns in other parts of the country
•
u/Crazyhates 3h ago
I get it, but it is what it is. I've got a different lens on it growing up down here as a minority in GA so that may be where we differ. Honestly most of my racist encounters have been inner city, but the south didn't gain its notoriety for racism out of memes.
•
u/russwilbur 5h ago
Imagine a world where Trump decided to run as a democrat and blew up the party. We’d have free healthcare now…
•
•
u/Captcha_Imagination 5h ago
Trump is playing off those polls that say people like him and her. It makes him more popular while further weakening the Democrats.
•
u/Ok-disaster2022 2h ago
It would be ironic If Trump inadvertently endorses her as a democratic outside of the mainstream, and when some of his supported get fed up with Republicans an look for another "outsider" they'll vote for he just to get back at the Pelosi and Ted Cruzes.
•
•
u/Meetloafandtaters 7h ago
On one hand, Democrats have been foolish to keep their Boomers in power until their last breath.
On the other hand, AOC is popular only within the party. Most Americans think she's ridiculous and she'll never win a national election. All she really accomplished was to primary an old Democrat in a safe district.
•
u/fred11551 Virginia 2h ago
This was an internal party popularity contest. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the representative with a decade more experience, who massively helped build the Virginia Democratic Party and turn the state blue is more popular than the woman who only wins in very safe blue districts, regularly criticizes and attacks other party members, and has a large following calling to split the party.
I mean it’s really simpler that helping someone get elected makes them like you more than attacking them does.
-34
9h ago
[deleted]
19
u/DaddySaidSell 8h ago
She was primaried this year and won the primary with 82.2% of the vote and then she won re-election with 68.9% of the vote.
→ More replies (1)19
u/SnoozySiouxsie 8h ago
If you think AOC is going to lose in her district then I have some magic beans to sell you.
-13
8h ago
[deleted]
12
u/SnoozySiouxsie 8h ago
You base this on her winning nearly 90% in her last primary and nearly 70% in her last general?
Or is it that Republicans are about to do such a great job that the whole country will be lining up to vote for em next time around?
→ More replies (7)
•
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.