333
AOC doesn't want to be New York City mayor. Most likely, she has bigger plans
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
333 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19043 readers
3994 users here now
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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's too soon. She's young; we want her to help the progressive cause for years and decades to come. If she were to become president in 2028, she would be retiring after she served, like every other president does, and we would lose her voice.
That's not a rule, you know. John Quincy Adams served in the House after being President, Andrew Johnson became a Senator, and Taft got appointed to the SCOTUS.
I don’t know about Quincy adams, but the other two do not represent what I want more of in American politics
The point is that retiring from open politics is a choice, not a requirement.
Exactly. I mean just look at how a former President conducted the dismissal of bipartisan border legislation!
My point is that it’s too much to ask of her to be president for eight years and then continue nobly serving her country.
The people who still want to be in politics after that aren’t doing it for good reasons.
I was with you on the first sentence.
…but you think Andrew Jackson and Taft were doing what was best for the country?
What? Your comment was about it being a lot to ask of AOC.
Yes, because people don’t want to do that unless there’s a corrupt reason for it, like with Taft and Jackson. It would be way too much to ask of a non corrupt person.
I know, but it's precedent. And I'm sure the secret service wouldn't love her continuing to be active in politics.
I don’t think the secret service gets an opinion on what former presidents do for work
Yeah better wait til she got old and lost her best abilities right? 8 years are 8 years no?
Are you kidding me? She's 34. She's got like 30 years left until she's old.
Why wait?
I have already explained that the reason to wait is so that she can be in politics longer and thus make a bigger impact.
Well I personally do not know how the future will turn out, so I think the best person for the best job right now makes the most sense.
Let's imagine a best case scenario for Democrats. Let's imagine Trump is defeated in a landslide in November. And instead of reforming their ways, the national Republican party instead takes the path of the Republican party in states like California - continuing to double-down on losing policies. In other words, barring election losses, here is a path I could see for Democratic candidates:
2024: Harris/Walz
2028: Harris/Walz
2032: Walz/AOC
2036: Walz/AOC
2040: AOC/?
Walz is currently 60. If he won in 2032 and 2036, he would be 76 when his second term ended in 2040. That's a perfectly viable age to be president. And a seasoned Walz would balance nicely with a younger AOC. Meanwhile, AOC will be 50 in 2040, still quite young by presidential standards. And by then, she would have 8 years as VP to shake off the sense that she is too young and inexperienced.
This assumes Dems manage to win in 2024, 2028, 2032, and 2036. And that would be quite unusual by historical standards. However, considering the Republicans' unprecedented efforts to destroy democracy, it's not impossible. As long as they continue to champion destroying democracy, sane people, regardless of political beliefs, will recognize that they simply cannot be allowed into power until they reform their ways.
However, If there is a loss prior to 2040, I would just move AOC to the forefront. Does Harris/Walz win in 2024 and then lose in 2028? Assuming we still have real elections at that point, I would put AOC at the top of the ticket in 2032.
Fair point.