this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
493 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19172 readers
5096 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This stupid topic again

But sure

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Kamala and AOC would be a lit ticket. I still think we're barreling towards another Reagan era victory by doing this. But that "medical emergency" + instant COVID was almost a sign from the universe.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

VPs are usually picked to shore up an electoral weakness of the candidate in question. I don’t think adding a second brown woman to the ticket would make sense, much as I would personally love this.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The weakness this election cycle, for the dems, is the apathy of the base. In that context AOC would be a pretty solid choice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Much as people on the left like to repeat this, I’m not sure it’s evident that this is the main weakness of the Democratic ticket. Even if true, you’d be solving one weakness by creating another.

But I’d be curious about polling on this, I could be wrong certainly. If Harris becomes the nominee, we might start to see some polling on VP picks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You got a good point there. Its just, who else is palatable? Whitmer + AOC?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think the VP for a woman or POC probably needs to be a boring white guy unfortunately. I think there’s still a lot of racism and sexism lurking beneath the surface in the US so you don’t want it to look like some kind of feminist or minority takeover.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

In terms of quality I would prefer AOC/Kamala to Kamala/AOC, but neither combination is good for electability.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Aoc can't run for president yet.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

She'll be old enough on election day and that's all that matters.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes she can. Otherwise she couldn't be VP.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

She's 35 on October 13th. Fully qualified.