Ocasio-Cortez endorses Biden's reelection campaign, sending a strong signal of Democratic unity
independent.co.uk
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, a sign of the president’s strength in uniting his party to have the backing of one of its most liberal members
You are viewing a single comment
Like I get that is what we probably are getting, and fine, he is better than whatever the republicans are putting forward, so I'll vote for him.
But
Come on
I wish, so much, we had a better candidate
You need a better voting system.
Any single-winner system is inherently flawed, which is why presidential systems are just straight-up worse than parliamentary ones. They're by their nature going to be less representative. A system where the president is largely a figurehead is far better, along with a legislature which is elected proportionally using something like Mixed-Member Proportional, Single Transferable Vote, or party-list PR.
But failing that, the bare minimum to call your system democratic is to use Instant Runoff Voting. First Past the Post is just straight-up not democracy. It's a farce. The idea that two candidates with similar views both being very successful actually makes it less likely that either will win is an obvious complete failure of the system. (And, fwiw, you could have IRV presidential elections for a powerful POTUS while also improving congress by making it proportional, if you want to go a step further than just making Congress & President both using IRV, but not as far as the fundamental constitutional change required to make the president a figurehead.)
And how do you expect us to do that, revolt? Because it turns out elected officials are reluctant to make significant changes to the system that elected them from which they profit handsomely.
Suspending reality, it would be interesting if enough progressives moved to states like Wyoming (pop 580k) and the Dakotas (780k and 890k) to move them blue. Then vote in progressive senators. For reference, NJ alone has a population of 9.2m.
If that could happen It would be great to link senators to state population.
I agree with you but it'll never happen. That would require a constitutional amendment and that bar is so high it can only be cleared under the threat of national revolt (like when the voting age was lowered, or prohibition was repealed). States would not be so eager to give up their power, and three fourths of them would have to agree.
I don't know how you achieve it, but if you haven't got at least IRV, then electoral reform should be the top issue people push their elected representatives for. As I understand it, some states have already done it in some elections, so it's not like it's impossible. Without a functioning democratic system, you can't ever get good outcomes on the things that actually matter. And with FPTP you don't have a democratic system.
A parliamentary system with fully proportional representation would be best. The US is big though, so I think an electoral threshold of 4% may be needed. That, or require parties to fulfil the below condition before being able to participate in elections.
• They need enough support through party membership from the area's population, as a % of the latter. On counties, this would be about 4%. On a state level, that would be 1%. On a national level, 0.25% would be enough.
You might think, why lower with each level? But the larger the population size is, the smaller the membership can be while remaining representative. This also stimulates smaller parties since now they have a chance to actually grow.
Electoral districts also need to be thrown away -- counties, states, and the entire country, are where the elections get held in. Because of proportional representation, it doesn't matter however you were to divide up areas: 25% of votes on one party means 25% of seats.
Lastly, force the Democratic and Republican Party to break up into separate parties with each no more than 20% of all seats. Or tell the parties that putting through with proportional representation as an agenda point will give them more votes. The Dems can argue, "One man, one vote", the Reps can argue "America NEEDS to keep it Great! Vote the Dems away, get Proportional!". Both should have this as agenda point.
I also think it critical that the supreme court of the US isn't 7 judges. It worked for a country with 2 million people, but you lot are a country of 300+ million now. You need something like 100 members, and make the supreme court appointed by the judges themselves, who are chosen by multiple random ballots themselves.
The US Congress also could be expanded. Make the House go from 435 to 500 members, and the Senate to 250. They need to be updated for a big country.
It also makes it harder to manipulate politicians, since there are far more needed to bribe.
I have a whole writeup, if anyone is interested. I think that both Dems and Reps and anyone else can find themselves in it.
I have absolutely no problem with such a threshold.
Okay so here's a really controversial take. I think the problem with the SCOTUS actually stems from there being too many rights enumerated in the American constitution. I should note that I'm not a legal scholar, but I've read a lot of opinions from non-American lawyers who have explained this viewpoint, and it makes sense to me.
Where I live in Australia, our constitution is largely uncontroversial. It doesn't say what rights people do and do not have, but really just lays out the basic functioning of our democratic institutions, like how elections work, how Government works, how the Commonwealth interacts with the States, etc. Rights are left to Parliament to implement. This has the interesting difference from America in that it means that our High Court decisions are largely far less political than SCOTUS's. Because the High Court of Australia doesn't get to make the inherently political ruling of deciding how to interpret individuals' rights as laid out in the constitution. By putting the right to bear arms in the constitution, SCOTUS is inherently given the power to decide what should be a legislative matter of how much people are allowed to own guns. It's what lead to the morally-good but legally-nonsense decision that lead to Americans having the right to abortion*, which itself stopped the legislature from ever feeling like it needed to do its job in relation to abortion protections, which is in turn what made the disastrous outcome of Dobbs possible.
This is, obviously, something so deeply ingrained that it would be basically impossible to change. Americans view their constitution almost like a religious text. Even though some of the founding fathers supposedly thought a constitution is something that should be basically rewritten from scratch every few decades, Americans view it as written in stone and as something that must not be changed except perhaps to enumerate more explicit rights. But fundamentally, a less politicised constitution would lead to a less politicised judicial system, which would allow each branch of government to do its part without encroaching on the others like they currently do.
I'm with you on increasing the size of the legislature though. 2 senators per state is far too few (and makes it impossible to reasonably add in a proportional system on a per-state basis). I have much the same feeling about my country. I'd like to see our Parliament almost doubled in size, especially if we were to move to a more proportional system (we currently have a proportional Senate, but use IRV for our House of Representatives).
* legally nonsense because if you look at how SCOTUS justified it in Roe, it just doesn't make sense, legally. Somehow the right to an abortion is derived from...a right to privacy? That doesn't make sense. And it makes even less sense when you consider that the right to privacy itself is somehow derived from the right to due process and equal rights under the law.
My only real misgiving with Biden is age, but I do still agree. With how crazy and dangerous Republicans have become however, we can't afford to take any risks. We don't just need to beat them, we need to beat them by the largest margins possible. We need to send a sharp condemnation. Biden's incumbency advantage is indispensable for this.
You really don't have any additional misgivings about a man who sold out the people of the United States to the credit card companies for a few measley hundreds of thousands of dollars, and who cosponsored a large percentage of why our student loan crisis is as bad as it is? There is a reason that all predatory credit entities are based in the state he represented for his entire political career. He doesn't get a pass after decades of being a predatory corporate shill selling out the American people. How can the Dems not be capable of fielding literally anyone remotely electable if they weren't competing opposite truly garbage candidates like Desantis and Trump? I have the same question for the Repubs, for fielding Desantis and Trump. And neither side actually solving abortion rights, gun rights, healthcare, etc when they hold all 3 branches because they are all afraid of losing their major wedge issues, without which they aren't confident they can win elections.
The problem is really that the whole system is fucked up.
Elections being about "the lesser evil" instead of voting FOR what you actually want is just horrible - no wonder so many people are losing faith in democracy over there...
Biden was a clear "best choice" instead of a "lesser evil" for me. I think he's a great guy doing a great job.
I want someone who wouldn't have greenlit the Willow Project in the Arctic. We are way past making compromises in the climate emergency.
I am literally a climate lobbyist. I have a meeting with a republican rep in 2 weeks. His stance is that climate change is probably real, but is undecided on if humans cause it.
That's what we have on the other side. That's a MODERATE position for the other side right now. Compromise is the only way we're gonna make any progress if we can't get them out of office, and majorities are tough to come by
Approval of drilling projects is an executive decision. The president doesn't need to compromise with anyone in making those decisions.
That is not how politics works at all
Ok, what environmental benefit did he gain for us from compromising on his executive authority, Mr. Politics Understander?
That's again, not how politics works.
Biden's top goals are to placate and provide for the American people.
This move checks both boxes, to the detriment of a minor part of his climate progress. It's an easy political trade to make.
Note that I am a literal climate lobbyist. This doesn't exactly get my dick hard. I'm just living in the real world and understand how the machine works.
So it's not actually compromising to advance climate needs, it's compromising the environment to advance other political goals.
Being a lobbyist doesn't actually make you an expert on politics, particularly when the cause you're working for has basically continually failed to secure the changes needed for decades. It's not like you're working for Exxon and have a string of successes to make the value of your understanding self-evident, you're just making excuses for why a better world isn't possible, which come to think of it, IS a very good understanding of how politicians work.
Those other political goals include climate action. The IRA was the best climate bill in US history, as an example
What exactly has Biden done wrong? He may not be as crazy left wing as you'd prefer, but really I don't see why so many on the left are saying he's so bad
Although I think Biden has overall done a good job I am disappointed that they're running someone who is 80 years old. I would also like to see a general shift to the left, but at the same time I realize that the increased political division in the US makes this unlikely in the near term.
Giving up the incumbent advantage at a time like this is short sighted at best, and destructive and dangerous at worst.
People always have some reason ready to roll out when telling you to settle for some shitty candidate you don't really like. I'm done with it. I compromised on Joe Biden to save America from Trump. I compromised in every election for my entire adult life. Now I'm voting for people I actually like. If the US is collectively dumb enough to go back to the GOP then we deserve the consequences of that choice.
You can call that selfish if you want but I've been waiting 35 years for the compromise candidate to be the one from my camp and there's always a bunch of armchair poly-sci experts coming out of the woodwork to explain why that would be irresponsible in the current political climate. Well too bad, I'm not voting for the geriatric anymore.
Must be nice to be a wealthy, single, white man who knows he won't suffer under a Trump admin.
Fuck the rest of the country, right? And our overseas allies.
Like I said, if America is collectively dumb enough to vote Republicans into power after everything that's happened then another 4 years of a boring Democrat isn't going to fix that problem. If we're headed for some sort of collapse I'd rather deal with that now rather than later. Call that what you like but it's not my way of doing things that got us in this mess in the first place so you'll have to forgive me if I don't put much stock in your "keep doing the same things and hope something magically changes" approach.
I personally believe someone in the Bernie Sanders mold has a better chance of pulling in moderate voters than a Joe Biden does.
I'm sorry but the idea that Bernie Sanders brings in moderate voters is obliterated by the fact that he gets blown out in primaries because of moderate voters
I don't think it's correct to assume politics is a sliding scale from left to right, and failing to appeal to democratic primary voters is a certainty of failure in a general election. I would paint democratic primary voters as very in favor of the institutions and systems of this country, and I don't think republican votes are fans of either.
They're most assuredly not fans of socialism, which is what they view progressives as espousing.
I'm sure plenty would vote against him for being a socialist, but I also think a good number would agree with his criticism of greedy billionaires ripping off sick people, or huge companies paying less in taxes than they do. I don't think everyone that voted for Trump was an absolute right wing nut, I think a good number of them think 'both parties are bullshit and at least Trump is outside the system'.
I'm aware that you think this, but if this were true he wouldn't lose by 3 million votes.
Again, the democratic primary voter is not a representation of the entire countries values, and those that hated Obama, and hated Hillary, are more likely to vote for someone that is willing to criticize the system than long standing democratic insiders.
Ultimately at this point I don't care to constantly speculate on possible differences in past elections. My point was to hopefully convey that the idea of political views of the people in America as a left-right slider is flawed, and the current selection process biases towards mild candidates that fundamentally are not effective enough in solving the problems we are facing.
I really don't understand this attitude after how far the entire country backslide under Trump after 2016.
Like, I get it, I felt the same way in 2016 and pissed away my vote, but you've got to realize how counter productive this is after how much more fucked everything got in four years right? Assuming you aren't leaving the country, you do have to live with the consequences of another Trump presidency and further erosion of your rights.
Ribbit
Thanks for the pointless reply. Next time just downvote and spare people from having to read "I disagree with you" but in dumber form.
Because he's ancient. He's a half century older than the majority of the voting population.
Why is this a bad thing, specifically? Like, articulate reasons that this is bad.
Because he isn't the one that's going to have to living in and running the world in another 20 years or fewer.
Because there are plenty of other choices that better represent the current and future population.
Because he was alive during a time that is so drastically different than the current world.
I don't want a representative of the population. I want someone competent who can accomplish policy objectives I share.
That's a very individualist way to look at a national decision.
I don't understand what you mean. The rest of the population can make the same choice in the same contest
That's what voting is.
Right. And when the rest of everyone votes with the same exact mentality, what's the result?
I'd assume we get competent leadership and avoid populism.
To say the quiet part out loud, he simply isn't charismatic enough to hold the President position. Common people don't feel their future to be secure under his leadership. Look at GOP's candidates meanwhile (DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Trump) - they are all populist if not anything else.
And like it or not, this perception matters. I can guarantee he'll recieve less votes this time (compared to last year, he can still marginally win simply because of how unpopular the Right has become).
Populists should be fought because populism is a cancer. Biden is exceptionally charismatic, in my view. Significantly more so than most Presidential candidates not named Obama or Clinton.
Populism alone isn't bad. Sometimes, it's the only way to get a perspective or idea out there, and make it not seem like a taboo anymore. And some ideas out there are worth supporting.
Populism is indeed always bad
Do you have any evidence that populism is inherently bad? Yes or no? Incidents can be easily rebuked with incidents where populism has allowed progress or improvement into quality of living. So, if incidents is all you have, simply say no.
Yes I do. Every populist politician in human history.
You're welcome.
So, you don't actually have a case here? Could you please break it down and disseminate that statement in order for it be looked at and with scrunity?
Populism is the appeal to the basest of human emotions, exploited by demagogues to seize power and, at absolute best ignore their mandate and consolidate power for themselves and at worst, the Terror of the French Revolution or its parallels in China during the Cultural Revolution.
It is never, ever, guided by reason, sound policy, or best practice. It is what led to the USSR. It is what led to the Trail of Tears. It is what led to the secession of Southern states during the US Civil War. Populism didn't just give us Trump, it consistently gives us the worst society can be, because it is based off of the worst of society's emotions - fear, jealousy, anger, and resentment.
Please, author any defense of populism. I'm all ears.
I understand this is argument probably coming from some Sandersite-progressive "we only have good intentions" place, but that just makes you an enabler, not enlightened.
If good ideas can stand on their own, they don't need to be driven by resentment or fear of an "other."
What you're arguing is based on the assumption that populism is and has always been used by demagogues, and as populism is rather more accurately described as a political campaign strategy, it only requires one example to tear down the always assumption. All I need to point out is Bernie Sanders and the results of his works makes it so that understanding the questionable aspect of our own society is not to be seen as taboo, and making healthcare more accessible as well as reducing wage gaps is not a bad thing. In fact, he alone enabled a faster rate of political shift to that direction and removed the taboo of those stances. Your stance should be that populism is questionable, rather than a firm always bad as that can be teared down by examples of people trying to raise the flaws of socio-economic structures.
One could argue anything as bad if it has been used by demagogues. Moderation is even a example. You could argue that moderates enables a form of negative peace by allowing structure of society to retain gaps between people, and arguably leads to increase of gaps by simply pushing asides forces that wants to address those gaps. Moderates could be argued to lead to Trumpism due to those observation.
At the end of the day, what matters is the impact of political strategies and whether they have been used to benefit others. It is how they're used that matters at the end of the day.
I'm sorry, but that's a delusional take. A fricking potato has more charisma than Biden.
It must be weird to be so wrong about what is cool or not.
Results will tell.
They really won't. This will most definitely not be an election based on charisma, and then Biden will retire.
This comment will stay in the negatives, but anyone who is looking at this objectively knows you're correct. They just don't like it.
It's getting downvoted for the "crazy left wing" part, not the "what has Biden done wrong" part.
He ran on getting kids out of cages and there is still a giant open-air prison for refugees on the border. He busted the railroad union. Those are two pretty big issues for the left. He's further right than Obama, and probably futher right than Nixon, if you compare their platforms. Fighting fascism by moving further right is a really bad way to fight fascism.
Biden has been great. The most transformative policies in 80 years. Great for the world.
dafuq are you on about? Do we already have political shill bots on here?
Being able to see through the RW/Kremlin propaganda fog does not make me a "shill bot." I suppose by your metrics, AOC is also a "shill bot" for supporting Joe Biden? He's the first in a LONG WHILE to promote any kind of true global unity on important issues. Not perfect, but DAMNED good.
Yes. AOC is controlled opposition at best. Biden's only redeeming quality is that he's not Trump.
How is RFK Jr. the primary opposition? I know he wasn't, but it feels like he was put there by the dem establishment as a threat. When I'm feeling like I would support any other democratic candidate to run in place of Biden, this barely younger absolute crank leans in and goes 'anyone?' Ah fuck, let's go dark Brandon... if i have to... I guess.
Hahahahahaha, no. He's been entirely enabled by those on the right and their hangers-ons in the podcast dork-o-verse. He's an entirely artificial candidate that only appeals to the fringe 5% or so that would have otherwise voted for Nader, or Jill Stein, or Kanye West.
Don't lump Nader in with those kooks. He would have been a decent president. There's no way he could have won, but he would have done the job fairly well.
I think he was actually bankrolled by Bannon and the like. I'm not sure why they thought a far right loon like RFK would weaken Biden. Like you said, his candidacy feels like a purposeful Biden advertisement.
Because they fundamentally don't understand how left-leaning people think, which means they don't understand what we want in a candidate. These are the same geniuses who convinced Kanye to run for president in 2020 because they thought he'd peel away the Black vote from the Democrats just because he was Black. (Did I mention they're all racist AF, too?)
Newsom? I guess? Though I suppose he will run next cycle when his term as governor is up.
Yeah, the Democrats really fucked up by uniting against Bernie in 2020, and Warren fucked up by not getting behind him.
So we're stuck with Biden, who aims too low on all our critical issues.
But it's vital to understand that we ARE stuck with him. There's no path to victory for anyone else in the party.
So it's Biden or ... A fascist takeover of the country.
Easy choice.
Painful. But easy.