Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has issued a dire warning to her party about the chaos that could ensue if they succeed in pushing President Joe Biden off the ticket. And she criticized Democrats who’ve given off-the-record quotes that suggest the party has resigned itself to a second Trump term.
In an Instagram Live video on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez warned liberals that a brokered convention could lead to chaos, in part because she says some of the Democratic “elites” who want Biden out also don’t want Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee in his place.
“If you think that is going to be an easy transition, I’m here to tell you that a huge amount of the donor class and these elites who are pushing for the president not to be the nominee also do not want to see the VP be the nominee,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez claimed none of the people she’s spoken with who are calling on Biden to drop out — including lawmakers and legal experts — have articulated a plan to swap out the nominee without minimizing the serious legal and procedural challenges that are likely to ensue.
Ocasio-Cortez also highlighted the racial, ethnic and class divisions that appear to have formed between the majority of those pining to blow up the ticket — led mostly by white Democrats and media pundits — and those elected officials who feel they and their constituents have too much at stake to upend the process at this point and so are willing to do the work to re-elect Biden-Harris. She alluded to this cultural divide in her video when she spoke out against anonymous sources expressing a sense of fatalism on behalf of Democrats about what might happen if Biden remains on the ticket:
What I will say is what upsets me is [Democrats] saying we will lose. For me, to a certain extent, I don’t care what name is on there. We are not losing. I don’t know about you, but my community does not have the option to lose. My community does not have the luxury of accepting loss in July of an election year. My people are the first ones deported. They’re the first ones put in Rikers. They’re the first ones whose families are killed by war.
This is a good fucking take, have to say. She very obviously knows what she's talking about extremely well, has the best interests of those she represents at heart, and knows how to express it all clearly for the average layperson. You don't get a lot of politicians of that caliber.
No wonder the Republicans hate her so much!
I can’t understand the people who dislike her. My sisters don’t like her either and think she’s “dumb” but every time she speaks, she makes what seems to me to be well thought out, rational arguments.
Because she's actually left and they know it. Most Democrats are centered left or even right.
I see a lot of people who hate her for not being left enough. Whilst I sympathise with that stance to an extent, from the perspective of someone in the UK, the US seems so shockingly right wing that I'm surprised that a figure like Ocasio-Cortez exists at all. That is to say that I wish America had more left wing politicians, but given the current lack, AOC is a refreshing presence.
Supporting Genocide is never left. She is a centrist.
Do you ever get tired of huffing your own farts?
Does defending Genocide ever get tiring?
The dumb person is your sister.
Because they're gobbling up the mainstream media narrative that labels both progressives, and women who are politicians, as irrational and naive. AOC gets the whole venn diagram of bullshit thrown at her.
Yes, even women can internalize misogyny. You only have to go as far as your local fundie churches to hear women saying FeMaLEs are too emotional to be president or that women should be subservient to their husbands because women just no brain good compared to men.
I wouldn't say I dislike her, but I don't like the AOC worship here.
Yes, she voices what we're all thinking. She elevates our voice.
The problem is that she's also unrealistic in expectations, and that can cause a rift. I wouldn't say her comments cause a rift in the party itself, but among voters.
For example, she was all in on the expanding the SCOTUS bandwagon. Functionally, it's untenable. Any politician should know that. There's some loophole that would allow you to do it with simple majorities in house and senate, but that loophole is sketchy and likely won't work out. And if it does, that opens Pandora box to completely railroad this country next time Reps get simple majorities in both houses. Which may be half a year away.
But it seems like a brilliant workaround on the surface. And people who bought into that pipe dream became extremely disruptive, causing fights amongst blue voters.
And this isn't the only time. She's a consistent voice of the Progressives. Which is fine. Idealist should have a voice. But I would prefer it if her and Bernie would also include pragmatic expectations with their ideas in a way that doesn't put their more moderate colleagues on blast for no reason.
To give it a real world hypothetical we can all probably relate to. I'm a programmer, so I'll put it in those terms, but this applies to pretty much any job one way or another.
Let's say you're maintaining a code base that has a lot of problems. Maintaining it is a nightmare. Ask an experienced engineer, I have identified a number of solutions of varying effort and effectiveness.
The best solutions would require giant re-writes and would require parallel effort from other teams to support our effort. Risk is large
The next best requires extensive refactoring of our teams code base, but can be done in isolation from other teams for the most part. Risk is still large because we're going to need to swap out major parts of our internal infrastructure, but no impact to other teams.
And then there's the shortest path. Fix problems as they come up, make small refactors as you can to help relieve some headaches. Let's you move fast and not be disruptive, but the underlying problems stay around. Smallest risk.
Now, having brought these to the table, management chooses the least risky option because they can't or won't commit to larger scale efforts because of other priorities.
Do I talk shit, be extremely negative, try to get other non-management colleagues to join my outcry for the "right" solution? I could. I have. But if I do, I'm putting my employment / influence at risk. And sometimes it's more appropriate to just keep the ideal solution on the backburner, do what's immediately effective, and bring the best solution to the table at a better time.
To me, AOC and Bernie are those coworkers that won't shut up about the "perfect" solution. And maybe even attack their colleagues for not supporting them in their pursuit of perfect when they're just trying to tread water and get the easier wins to the finish line.
Damn straight! Us software developers know better because we're expected to learn any domain. Obviously the government works a lot like software and that makes me a theoretically political scientist.
Fuckin tech bros are worse than doctors and the "as a mom" people
And what specific points do you disagree with.
Great job ignoring the point.
Wisdom is choosing when to pick a fight. AOC is intelligent, but not very wise.
She's very popular with the progressive crowd who want to hear their problems and solutions echoed by a prominent politician. But she's also tact-less. Stirring up shit that has zero chance of becoming reality.
And again, I think it can lead to healthy discussion of what things could be like. If we had a possible super majority and could really reform the government. If it were phrased as such, I wouldn't have any problem.
But in practice, I find her antics to be more screaming into the wind than being productive. And it has only served to weaponize the "leftists" against the party to the point we're losing votes and not gaining anything.
You make a lot of claims and generalize from there, but I am not sure what specifics you are talking about. In the specific case of Kamala, it seems she was right and got her way (breaking news). So really, your point (which I am not sure if it goes beyond personal attacks) is rendered moot.
I like AOC, but do you really think she has her constituents best interest at heart if trump is leading the polls?
How does that logic make any fucking sense?
There's a fun thing that happens when people are deep in rabbit holes. They get led to insane conclusions by a breadcrumb of bullshit, usually starting out with a semi reasonable premise.
But then sometimes when they pop out of their rabbit hole they just jump straight from A to X, without explaining the chain of bullshit that led them down to X.
It's why Trump and other MAGAs say shit that is insane, not like as a metaphor but like stuff that has zero connection to reality, regardless of what politics you believe in. You just haven't followed their path of increasingly absurd propositions, but they followed it because each new proposition was only slightly more out there than the last.
In this case, I suspect there was something like
(A) Trump is leading polls --> (B) Biden cannot beat trump --> (C) we need to replace Biden --> (D) replacing Biden is the best thing to do for the nation --> (E) anyone who supports Biden is acting contrary to the best interests of the nation
By this logic, the more (A) is happening, the more (E) is correct. But he skipped B through D, so it's more clear how absurd the conclusion is because you didn't get the frog-in-boiling-water parade of misinformation and propaganda.
Mad props for trying to explain the mental gymnastics.
My conclusion is not insane, it’s practical. I was a 100% Biden supporter, defended him vehemently. You can check my history here and in Kbin. He was my pick in 2016 (ironically though, after Kamala and Booker dropped from the race). Hell, I fucking stood up and cheered during the SOTU. My wife calls him her grandpa.
And then I watched that disastrous debate. He clearly isn’t all there anymore. And my eyes opened entirely. The signs have been there for years.
I love what he’s done for our country. I love his cabinet. I follow politics probably more than 90% of y’all here and have for decades. I was there for Bill when he won against all odds. I was decimated when Al Gore, who was probably our best shot for climate change policy, lost to Bush and Nader. And again I was spurned when Hillary lost by thin margins in swing states while trouncing the popular vote.
Hell, I’ll likely run for some office someday. How many else of you would actually belly up to the bar rather than just bluster here?
Our guy’s mind is deluded. The tip of our spear has blunted. It’s time to take grandpas keys away before he wraps our family’s only car around a lightpole.
Ah, yes, you were with him up UNTIL the debate. Would've been more believable if you said genocide instead, lol. Totally believable, not a flagrant lie at all. How does this argument even have to do with what you originally said?
I’ll be 100% honest with you here. My feelings on the Jewish / Palestine conflict are very mixed.
If you care about the Palestinians because you disapprove of war and genocide, then I think you should also understand that Hamas made their bed when they murdered and raped Jews at the start of the conflict. And believe me, I know the cassus belli for this have been there for even before my parents were born.
I also am aware that most of you will downvote my opinion on this matter. That’s your right, but the world is indeed nuanced, neither side is in the right here and the evangelicals will only continue to fan the flames until their perceived Judgement Day has come.
If you care what’s happening there, you should also care about what’s happening in Ukraine, Darfur, with the Rohingya, the Congo, Yemen, the Uyghurs and the First Nations in America, and likely more that I don’t even know about.
But the way through those is to ensure we have a strong state department. You know who would tear down the state department like he did in his first term?
Again, what does any of this have to do with your original statement. You're all over the place.
Please refer to your comment that I responded to. You mention that you’d think I should have said I supported him until the genocide. So I gave you why I still supported him.
I have no qualms to having side discussions on my views, it may help you see my perspective and why my conclusion of the main topic differs from your own.
Hamas did not rape any Jews on 7oct. In fact the UN and recent HRW report stated there is no evidence of any rape on 7oct
You are confusing Hamas with israel who mass rapes Palestinians through history.
Your information is outdated.
2/3 down the page. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/17/questions-and-answers-hamas-led-armed-groups-october-7-2023-assault-israel#:~:text=Human%20Rights%20Watch's%20investigation%20found,without%20consent%2C%20of%20sexualized%20images.
They also state Israel doesn't have any forensic of video evidence.
Did you read one paragraph lower?
Did you? Did they find evidence of the thing they stated they found no evidence of?
Bullshit. If you actually loved Biden's cabinet and his team, and if you actually believed that his cognitive ability was in decline, you'd tell us to vote for him and then have him step aside AFTER the election, so the EXTREMELY WELL-ESTABLISHED PROCESS of taking over from an incapacitated POTUS can begin.
I’ll vote for his corpse, but I’m not sure Joe voter in Pennsylvania will.
Joe voter in Pennsylvania will absolutely not vote for "insert Dem here".
Disrupting the Democratic campaign is a right wing strategem.
Again to poorly quote John Oliver, if the Brits and French can do it in a few months, so can we.
How refreshing would it be to have someone who is actually eloquent who can clearly convey his/her progressive ideals to the public? Remember how inspirational Obama was? Joe voter absolutely voted for that kind of candidate and would do so again.
You realize that the UK and France are entirely different countries with an entirely different system of government and voting, right? What the hell?
Sure, the time to make that argument was a year ago. Now, it's just fucking up the Democrats. That's the only reason this is even a thing.
When you look at the history across the world where you have a wounded weak incumbent and a conservative firebrand, who usually wins the election? Do you really think we’re so much different?
At my job, when a company says “we’re just too different” we challenge that and ask “in what way?” The majority of the time, it’s just that company is too rigid to change.
To bring it back to politics, we have a convention for a reason. It’s only up until recent history where the convention is more of a rubber stamp rather than a true conversation about the direction of the party.
Would you have supported the idea a year ago? I wouldn’t, and I doubt you would have either.
This isn't a company that can just change.
Being the president isn’t a televised debate, it’s a 3,000+ person job of leading the executive branch. Biden has a speech impediment, and the older you get the more difficult it is to hide those shortcomings.
He has done an amazing job considering the absolute catastrophe fuckface draft dodger left for him. Given the choice between old draft dodger bitch and old guy who loves his children and has a speech impediment, it’s not a difficult choice.
Sure, I get what you’re saying 100%, but it’s not me and 99% of the people on here that you need to convince.
I get it, and these people are the same reason we got Trump in the first place. They are willing to forgo voting for Biden because he is not the perfect candidate, or their candidate.
Instead we get “their” candidate which is abortion and porn banned, increased taxes for all of us, corpo tax breaks, and much less freedom. But they will turn around and say “it’s not my fault, democrats should have ran someone else to make me happy to vote”.
People lack the ability to be adults about voting and vote against literal fascism.
Trump is beating Biden by a wide margin at this point. So pushing for Biden is likely leading to a Trump win
This usually happens after the respective party conference every four years.
Polling is also massively inaccurate as everyone younger than 45 mutes/blocks phone calls from these people.
Polls were historically accurate in 2022.
But I know the facts don't matter, only the narrative that you bought.
I think most of these polls came out of the debate.
And unfortunately, the discrepancy between polling and election results has had a tendency to skew in republican favor. But its not like weve got any say in biden staying in or not at this point, lets see how the polls look after the democrat convention.
i don't think pushing for Biden is leading to a Trump win, because i don't see many people pushing for Biden. i see a lot of people (social media, talking heads, news outlets) complaining about Biden.
if Dems and progressives want to defeat Trump, well, you coulda fooled me because that's not what their behavior accomplishes. it looks like a great many are weakening and undermining our current path to success. right now, with no compelling alternative, that means a Trump win.
as far as i can tell, we can support Biden or continue to shoot at our own feet in a panic which only makes the opposition stronger.
this is...incoherent. I dont think fire is hot because I dont see many people sticking their hands into fire
let me try this another way. i don't agree with the statement that a is currently causing b, because i don't see a happening. b has some other cause.
How are we having this conversation if no one is supporting Biden?
edit - just saw the news, my comment is moot, i suppose.
It's amazing that you seem to think she has a direct influence on how trump and biden are polling.