• John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    4 months ago

    Seeing AOC oddly shill for Biden before he dropped out… which I’d expect from Pelosi, Schumer & Schiff, but not from her. She may actually be trying to get the VP spot.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        Biden bros: No one has a plan if Biden drops out. Everyone else: Here is our plan. Biden bros still: No one has a plan if Biden drops out.

        Plan was open convention where delegates decide.

          • John Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

            What is better… knowing Biden would lose to Trump, or being uncertain who the delegates will choose before the convention?

            • ilmagico@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Nobody knew for sure Biden would lose and nobody knows for sure that whoever is picked will win. It was high uncertainty all along.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • TipRing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Biden was going to lose and he was making other Democrats lose. What did you expect the party to do, unite behind losing to Trump?

        AOC was prob smart, saw Biden didn’t believe he was going to lose and saw an opportunity before it played out.

    • the_tab_key@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        AOC has always been considered an outsider to Democrat leadership. She prob was thinking things through, but I don’t think it is because she thought Biden was going to win.

    • revelrous@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Imo she’s trying to shield progressives from being the scapegoat, like how we got the blame for dem dysfunction in '16.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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?

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Biden has seriously hurt the party. If they enthrone Kamala without doing some balanced process to have her debate or compete against anyone else, and she somehow beats Trump then… I fully expect Republicans to take the House & Senate because of the damage Biden did to the party.

        Politics is about compromise. I fully agree with you on that. To get things passed, you actually have to call up Republicans and ask them if they’ll try to work with you and what their vision is, and what they’d like to do… and try to come to an agreement.

        AOC has likely done the same here. She saw an opportunity to get something or to help progressives in some way, which required taking a backseat for a little while, but ultimately she’ll get something in return. I get it and understand that. It was just surprising.

        The DNC & Clinton seriously damaged the Democrat party in 2016, and Biden has restored some consistency, but it shifted significantly the right after that. Lest not forget Biden gleefully supporting a genocidal maniac and sending weapons to kill thousands of children. Its pretty sad when Democrats argue that more children would have died under Trump, so that somehow makes it okay.

    • timbuck2themoon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe she had better political acumen and knew he’d do better.