politics

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Freeposity@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

God, not Booker. He attacked Hasan Piker without even knowing who he was... because a staffer told him to do it.

He's just a starfucking showboat.

The rest are great and I think Van Hollen should run for president.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeesh okay yeah let's pass on Booker. Seems to be the consensus.

I'd also get behind Van Hollen for president. I don't know if he has enough name recognition yet, but that's an easy fix if the DNC gets onboard.

Honestly there's some overlap between my lists of potential SML and potential presidential nominees.

I was going to make a separate post about it later after giving this one some time to marinate, but since you brought it up, here's a preliminary list (just a brainstorm) of potential presidential candidates:

Andy Beshear
Josh Shapiro
Wes Moore
JB Pritzker
Jon Ossoff
Chris Van Hollen
Chris Murphy

Of course I welcome any feedback on any of the named above, as well as any suggestions to add to the list.

It isn't too early to start these discussions now.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] freshcow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

Skip all of that and go for AOC. She will be the one to unite the party and push us into the future

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Copying my thoughts on AOC from another comment because I think it's relevant. Anyone is free to disagree of course.

About AOC:
I would love to see AOC become the first woman POTUS as much as anyone else, but I'd advise caution here and I think even she understands why. That would be like drawing the Queen of Spades and trying to shoot the moon. Awesome if it pays off, but also very risky. And the current pot is just too critical to take a risk like that in my opinion.

This isn't just about her being a Latina woman and a progressive, all of which could make it an uphill battle for her in the general election. She's young too. She has a long career ahead of her and she can still do a lot of good in Congress. I'd love to see her run for Schumer's seat when he's up for reelection, then spend a couple terms in the Senate and run for president when she's in her 50s or 60s.

Even from where she is now in the House, there's so much good she can do. Especially once Dems take back the majority and have a new generation of progressives on her side starting in 2027.

Also, 2029-2032 will be about cleanup. We can certainly run a progressive agenda alongside the cleanup, but we should choose someone that can take a few hits when republicans inevitably try to blame them for the shitstorm they inherit from trump. That's not an ideal environment for a young, progressive woman of color to start her first presidential term off with. Especially if the DNC isn't fully on board yet.

It's far from ideal and it's disappointing that these are the political realities, but we need to be pragmatic/strategic, and I think holding the AOC card for another time is probably the way to go.

(TL;DR: I love her and I would love to see her as president some day, but I don't think 2028 is her time yet and there's still a lot of good she can do in Congress in the meantime).

So yeah it pretty much boils down to the fact that I think it's putting a lot of faith in centrist Dems and moderate swing voters to expect them to unite behind AOC, and I don't think they've earned that trust yet.

Plus, what good would it do to have a progressive Potus, and such a historic one at that, if Congress still isn't on board with a progressive agenda?

We're making windfalls right now. A couple more electoral cycles and we very well might see progressive majorities in Congress.

Why would we play our best card when the rest of our hand isn't even ready to match it yet?

parent

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Even if some people don't like Booker for his stances with respect to Israel, I think he has the energy required to actually effect the change demanded by Americans, which will still include progressive voices, whereas Schumer is using the leadership chair as if it was a retirement home like McConnell was.

If AOC wants to be President in 2028 (this is her choice and she hasn't indicated anything yet), I think even a two-year stint as House Leader will give her enough limelight and any big achievements will be able to bridge her to becoming the Democratic nominee (over scumbags like Newsom), Ossoff is good too to potentially be set up in a similar fashion. She is presiding over some important committees already, but this is a potentially huge opportunity, not that I would be upset with Garcia, Khanna or Raskin becoming leader either.

Jeffries is set to become the first African American sworn in as House Majority Leader in January, I know many Democratic establishment don't want to take away that moment from him, but this moment calls for way more than ceremony.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

Thank you for your input! It's nice to hear something positive about Booker, cause a lot of the feedback I've been getting about him has been different. I was starting to lose faith in him.

He might not be perfect but he could likely get the kind of support behind him that it would take to unseat Schumer. And you're right, he does have energy. That's his biggest strength I think. 'Milquetoast' is not a word that describes him.

About AOC:

I would love to see AOC become the first woman POTUS as much as anyone else, but I'd advise caution here and I think even she understands why. That would be like drawing the Queen of Spades and trying to shoot the moon. Awesome if it pays off, but also very risky. And the current pot is just too critical to take a risk like that in my opinion.

This isn't just about her being a Latina woman and a progressive, all of which could make it an uphill battle for her in the general election. She's young too. She has a long career ahead of her and she can still do a lot of good in Congress. I'd love to see her run for Schumer's seat when he's up for reelection, then spend a couple terms in the Senate and run for president when she's in her 50s or 60s.

Even from where she is now in the House, there's so much good she can do. Especially once Dems take back the majority and have a new generation of progressives on her side starting in 2027.

Also, 2029-2032 will be about cleanup. We can certainly run a progressive agenda alongside the cleanup, but we should choose someone that can take a few hits when republicans inevitably try to blame them for the shitstorm they inherit from trump. That's not an ideal environment for a young, progressive woman of color to start her first presidential term off with. Especially if the DNC isn't fully on board yet.

It's far from ideal and it's disappointing that these are the political realities, but we need to be pragmatic/strategic, and I think holding the AOC card for another time is probably the way to go.

(TL;DR: I love her and I would love to see her as president some day, but I don't think 2028 is her time yet and there's still a lot of good she can do in Congress in the meantime).

About Jeffries:

Jeffries is set to become the first African American sworn in as House Majority Leader in January, I know many Democratic establishment don't want to take away that moment from him, but this moment calls for way more than ceremony.

And yeah I get it about Jeffries, but at this point I think we've learned that "identity politics" (as much as I hate to use the term) is a losing battle when there's no substance behind it. Otherwise Kamala Harris would have performed better.

I mean look at all the historic firsts in this election. Indigenous women and an openly gay man in the Senate, a Black woman governor, a transgender US representative from Alabama of all places. But if you listen to what they say, none of them are making this about their identity. They're saying things like "I'm ready to serve my constituents and deliver for the American people" and "I don't care about being the first, I only hope I'm not the last."

So in this environment, choosing a milquetoast neoliberal AIPAC Dem for House Speaker just because he happens to be a Black man and we want that new landmark, it seems to miss the mark.

And besides, if we choose Cory Booker for SML, then nobody could honestly blame it on race if we pass on Jeffries. This is about his source of funding, his priorities, his policies, his performance. Let's not make this about his identity.

(TL;DR: Read the moment. This is about choosing substance over identity).

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago

Yeah to sum up my opinion for Dem caucus members is vote-shoo-to-Schu-no-matter-who at this point lol. If no one volunteers, then they would best end-run around any stall attempts by him or his backers.