She is spot on. Harris doesn't make a better top of ticket.
Ask anyone that wants to remove people off the ticket: Who should they be replaced with?
I haven't heard a good answer yet.
Kelly, Duckworth, Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg, Warren, Franken.
I would legit take time off and drive to a battleground to campaign for Franken...
Reading these comments here, it's obvious either 1. This thread is filled with shills or 2. Democrats have learned NOTHING from Hillary and are ready to score an own goal at the 89th minute.
I'll admit it, I don't want her, either (not that someone like me has any influence). But she'd be a better option than Joe.
Especially if she picks the right VP. And please, for fucks sake, I hope they do a good job picking a VP. Don't rule out cishet white males, as a for instance, FFS. The Democrats love to play stupid identity political games and constantly do these self-owns. Although if AOC has a clone they could choose as a VP, that would be fantastic. But that's not because they tick some arbitrary set of diversity checkboxes....it's about policies.
This is why you never listen to panicking morons by themselves. If you remove the whole ticket they won't even have ballot access.
GIVE IT A FUCKING REST
The whole fucking front page is already filled up with this stuff
WE ARE AWARE OF THE BIDEN STEPPING DOWN THING
Dude I felt bad even posting these two
Because if the whole problem is “RED RED RED RED RED RED” overwhelming anything useful then “RED RED NO IT’S BLUE RED RED BLUE RED NO BLUE NO RED” is not really an improvement
But yes I did feel like both of mine were factually relevant and the minority report should be presented, and I anyway couldn’t produce any real percentagewise increase in the tide if I made it into a full time job and hired assistants
She acts like that's a bad thing. It's the truth, and it's not the "elites," it's most democratic voters, donors, and a sizeable percentage of political elites, i.e. senators and congress people. Don't look now, AOC, but you are one of the elites.
Trading Biden for Harris is just allowing Trump to campaign against the same administration and trading a guy too old to effectively communicate for someone who is just ineffective at communicating.
I don't want Harris only slightly less than I don't want Biden. They're both losers, but not in the vague insulting sense: in the sense that they're both likely to lose to Trump.
This summary from the Independent necessarily cuts out a lot of the nuance of AOC's points - I say "necessarily" because she spoke on Instagram for a full hour - and one thing that she seemed to emphasize - more than the "They don't 100% support Harris either" point - is there there is very little time remaining in the election year to make any changes to the ticket. There are just weeks until the Democratic convention, and Ohio requires the names to be finalized even before that. She also emphasized that any change to the ticket, especially any late change, increases the chance that the presidency will ultimately be decided - if not by the bureaucracy of a swing state, many of which, like Ohio, are Republican-controlled - then by a legal case that goes before the (corrupt, she didn't need to explain, although there were arch eyebrows at this point) Supreme Court, which is just not an ideal situation for democracy.
I'm interested in botany too, but will eagerly vote for a Harris-(anyone) ticket over a Trump-Vance ticket. But for real I want to learn how to keep orchids alive.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News