Maybe, but then the swing state could end up with a GOP governor. That’s one reason why VPs are often from safe seats, eg Harris, Pence, Biden, Palin, Quayle…
The shortlist I’ve seen thrown around a lot so far is pretty much Whitmer, Shapiro, Cooper, and Kelly. Maybe someone like Beshear, but I’d call that slightly lower odds than the others. I think they will probably lean away from a 2 woman ticket too
This is why I’m really hoping they don’t pick Shapiro. Having three democratic governors in a row is a fluke in PA and I don’t think we’d avoid getting a Republican next.
That would be cool but I suspect it will be a white, straight man to balance out the ticket for the racists and sexists. Maybe someone from a swing state.
Pandering to the right, yes - but this is just how coalitions work. Obama’s ability to appeal to rank and file white workers in places like Michigan is part of how he won. A lot of Obama voters in those states voted for Trump.
Not everyone on the right is an ideological zealot (even if those are the most visible and make up the base). Being able to pick up some votes among “center-right” voters is a long-standing electoral strategy for the Democrats.
As an outside observer I find it hard to believe that a place as right-wing as the US would elect a woman of colour as president. Isn’t that double red rag to the nutjob bulls?
We elected Obama already, and the people who are so racist/sexist that they wouldn’t vote for Harris are mostly voting Trump. Plus, her being a woman means she can go way harder on Abortion, which is a winning strategy atm since support for abortion rights is insanely high and Republicans are actively trying to ban it completely.
She just did the calculus that Biden was our best shot, due to a whole shitton of different factors from Biden’s support among elderly voters, union support, money raised, polls being pretty crap for a few cycles now, shit like that.
Now there will be logistical challenges, we have a lot of uncertainty ahead. She wanted to avoid that until we got some better answers.
Or you could read her arguments, which were direct and pragmatic. She was talking about how difficult this would be logistically, and that it would have been better to do 6 months ago, you know, when the progressive wing of the party raised the issue.
AOC was “shilling” for some consistency, backbone and party unity out of a pragmatic need to beat back fascism. Now that this choice has been made, I’m betting she will continue with the same intent.
Further, Bernie and AOC are rather well aware that the progressive wing of the party would likely be blamed for “party disunity” if Biden stayed in and lost. They will not do anything to let the DNC scapegoat their caucus.
Politics is about getting the things you want, not dunking on people that disagree with you on a couple of things. You gotta compromise with people to get what you want. People feel like being uncompromising is somehow admirable, but in politics it means you get nothing. MAGAs are uncompromising, and they get a lot of likes on social media for it, but they’ve accomplish exactly nothing after winning the House in 2022.
Biden has been good for the progressive wing of the party, and they may not get as good of a deal with Harris as they did with Biden. They will have to negotiate compromises with someone new and may not get as much.
So do you rather politicians compromising and getting something to benefit you, or grandstanding and accomplishing nothing except providing a small amount of entertainment for you?
![[Mega thread] - Biden ends bid for presidency](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/9a2dc393-619f-4874-875e-80b5d90ecd3b.png){kind=link}
I’m hoping for a Kamala/AOC ticket.
Biden just endorsed Kamala, so that much is likely. The VP will probably be one from a shortlist of 5 or so governors/senators from swing states.
Maybe, but then the swing state could end up with a GOP governor. That’s one reason why VPs are often from safe seats, eg Harris, Pence, Biden, Palin, Quayle…
The shortlist I’ve seen thrown around a lot so far is pretty much Whitmer, Shapiro, Cooper, and Kelly. Maybe someone like Beshear, but I’d call that slightly lower odds than the others. I think they will probably lean away from a 2 woman ticket too
I think you could add Pritzker to that list
This is why I’m really hoping they don’t pick Shapiro. Having three democratic governors in a row is a fluke in PA and I don’t think we’d avoid getting a Republican next.
That would be cool but I suspect it will be a white, straight man to balance out the ticket for the racists and sexists. Maybe someone from a swing state.
Aka what Biden was to Obama
Yes more pandering from the DNC to the far right individuals who would never vote for a Democrat to begin with.
Pandering to the right, yes - but this is just how coalitions work. Obama’s ability to appeal to rank and file white workers in places like Michigan is part of how he won. A lot of Obama voters in those states voted for Trump.
Not everyone on the right is an ideological zealot (even if those are the most visible and make up the base). Being able to pick up some votes among “center-right” voters is a long-standing electoral strategy for the Democrats.
As an outside observer I find it hard to believe that a place as right-wing as the US would elect a woman of colour as president. Isn’t that double red rag to the nutjob bulls?
We elected Obama already, and the people who are so racist/sexist that they wouldn’t vote for Harris are mostly voting Trump. Plus, her being a woman means she can go way harder on Abortion, which is a winning strategy atm since support for abortion rights is insanely high and Republicans are actively trying to ban it completely.
Most of them were already voting trump anyway
Hot damn I had forgotten about a new vp pick in the middle of all this. AOC won’t be it but needs to be.
Is AOC old enough?
Yes she’d be 35 before taking office.
She will be before the election and long before the inauguration.
Ok, 1000 people replied, thank you, you can stop now lol
Yes, she’ll be 35 by election day.
She will be by inauguration which is all that matters.
She will be by the election.
She will be by the time she’d take the oath.
that would be great, but there’s no way they double down on minorities and women in the same ticket. get ready for a biden jr as the VP.
Automatic loss.
Removed by mod
She just did the calculus that Biden was our best shot, due to a whole shitton of different factors from Biden’s support among elderly voters, union support, money raised, polls being pretty crap for a few cycles now, shit like that.
Now there will be logistical challenges, we have a lot of uncertainty ahead. She wanted to avoid that until we got some better answers.
Removed by mod
Yes, that’s an excellent example of uncertainty.
Removed by mod
Nobody knew for sure Biden would lose and nobody knows for sure that whoever is picked will win. It was high uncertainty all along.
If that’s what you call a “plan”, never manage anything, ever.
Or you could read her arguments, which were direct and pragmatic. She was talking about how difficult this would be logistically, and that it would have been better to do 6 months ago, you know, when the progressive wing of the party raised the issue.
AOC was “shilling” for some consistency, backbone and party unity out of a pragmatic need to beat back fascism. Now that this choice has been made, I’m betting she will continue with the same intent.
Further, Bernie and AOC are rather well aware that the progressive wing of the party would likely be blamed for “party disunity” if Biden stayed in and lost. They will not do anything to let the DNC scapegoat their caucus.
Removed by mod
Which is hilarious because Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff were all against Biden continuing in the race…
AOC understands politics and thinks things through, that’s it.
Removed by mod
I agree it was likely more about party unity and not biting the hand that feeds you.
Imo she’s trying to shield progressives from being the scapegoat, like how we got the blame for dem dysfunction in '16.
Politics is about getting the things you want, not dunking on people that disagree with you on a couple of things. You gotta compromise with people to get what you want. People feel like being uncompromising is somehow admirable, but in politics it means you get nothing. MAGAs are uncompromising, and they get a lot of likes on social media for it, but they’ve accomplish exactly nothing after winning the House in 2022.
Biden has been good for the progressive wing of the party, and they may not get as good of a deal with Harris as they did with Biden. They will have to negotiate compromises with someone new and may not get as much.
So do you rather politicians compromising and getting something to benefit you, or grandstanding and accomplishing nothing except providing a small amount of entertainment for you?
Removed by mod
Maybe she had better political acumen and knew he’d do better.
How can one know how well a candidate will do in a future election?
Removed by mod