Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
She has presidential material. that's why conservative media was so quick to try to vilify her.
I also assume that's why she's pretending to play ball with Harris. If she continued being an actual progressive the Democrats would never let her get nominated.
She better up her time line then. 20-30 years as a conservative punching bag will leave her so entangled in the media machine it will bury her.
I don't want her to be NYC mayor, either. I want her to be President!
Seconded.
She's obviously Bernie's heir apparent and will replace him as The Left Wing Democrat to come in 2nd in the primaries now that he's too old and she's old enough.
On a more optimistic note, a true heir to Bernie will know how to negotiate with the center left to accomplish some of their goals in exchange for the support of progressives to win elections.
I’d LOVE to see her run in 2028.
It's too soon. She's young; we want her to help the progressive cause for years and decades to come. If she were to become president in 2028, she would be retiring after she served, like every other president does, and we would lose her voice.
she would be retiring after she served, like every other president does, and we would lose her voice.
That's not a rule, you know. John Quincy Adams served in the House after being President, Andrew Johnson became a Senator, and Taft got appointed to the SCOTUS.
Yeah better wait til she got old and lost her best abilities right? 8 years are 8 years no?
Are you kidding me? She's 34. She's got like 30 years left until she's old.
Why wait?
I have already explained that the reason to wait is so that she can be in politics longer and thus make a bigger impact.
Well I personally do not know how the future will turn out, so I think the best person for the best job right now makes the most sense.
Let's imagine a best case scenario for Democrats. Let's imagine Trump is defeated in a landslide in November. And instead of reforming their ways, the national Republican party instead takes the path of the Republican party in states like California - continuing to double-down on losing policies. In other words, barring election losses, here is a path I could see for Democratic candidates:
2024: Harris/Walz
2028: Harris/Walz
2032: Walz/AOC
2036: Walz/AOC
2040: AOC/?
Walz is currently 60. If he won in 2032 and 2036, he would be 76 when his second term ended in 2040. That's a perfectly viable age to be president. And a seasoned Walz would balance nicely with a younger AOC. Meanwhile, AOC will be 50 in 2040, still quite young by presidential standards. And by then, she would have 8 years as VP to shake off the sense that she is too young and inexperienced.
This assumes Dems manage to win in 2024, 2028, 2032, and 2036. And that would be quite unusual by historical standards. However, considering the Republicans' unprecedented efforts to destroy democracy, it's not impossible. As long as they continue to champion destroying democracy, sane people, regardless of political beliefs, will recognize that they simply cannot be allowed into power until they reform their ways.
However, If there is a loss prior to 2040, I would just move AOC to the forefront. Does Harris/Walz win in 2024 and then lose in 2028? Assuming we still have real elections at that point, I would put AOC at the top of the ticket in 2032.
Being NYC Mayor is harder than being President. You've got the same 24/7 spotlight and much less actual power.
If Giuliani could do it how hard can it be? Seems that you don't even have to have a grasp on reality.
9/11 era Giuliani was more coherent. The man is losing it.
You mean the same Giuliani who lost an election and took a mob of racisr police to occupy city hall to prevent a black guy from being sworn in as mayor?
Someone lied to you.
David Dinkins was Mayor before Giuliani.
He lost his election.
Rudy did bring a mob of cops to city hall, but they never "occupied" it.
I hate Rudy as much as anyone, but keep the facts straight.
9/11 era Giuliani was also more or less working directly with the Russian mob, because he did a great job in the years leading up to it of scraping out the Italian mob (say what you will about them, but at the end of the day, they were staunch anti-fascists), leaving an enormous power vacuum that the Russian mob quietly filled. It was very much a situation of “better the devil you know” that was categorically and intentionally ignored. Organized crime is of course not great, but at the same time, the Russian mob is on a whole different level - not to mention, they’re effectively a branch of the Russian state.
The man is losing it.
LOL that happened a long time ago.
9/11 era Giuliani was more coherent. The man is losing it.
Chronic alcoholism finally caught up with him.
In some ways you have more concentrated power.
To quote a mayor of NYC: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom's annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have."
Why would she want to demote herself to mayor? That wouldn't make any sense.
Mayor is generally a demotion. Mayor of NYC is like being an authoritarian over a small but major nation with large, critical economy and the 7th largest army in the world. So arguably that would actually be a large step up for AOC, if we're just talking about pure power and authority.
NYC is 7.4% of the US economy. I'm saying that to agree with you, that's bigger than Florida, bigger than every state other than CA, TX, and (obviously) NY.
and (obviously) NY.
Stupid recursion
The real issue isn't that being mayor of NYC isn't a serious and respectable position; it obviously is. The real issue is that being mayor of NYC is a political dead-end, especially for a Democrat. NYC is fundamentally very different from the rest of the country; it's unique. Nowhere else in the country is anywhere near as urban as NYC. Nowhere else in the country has a greater share of its population that commutes via walking and public transit. Nowhere else in the country has such a large share of the population living in multifamily housing.
Comparing it to entire states or other nations isn't just about economics. It very much is a world unto itself. Its boroughs have their own unique cultures and even dialects! NYC has such a unique identity; it is a nation within a nation. If NYC broke off from the US, it could absolutely be perfectly viable as a city-state like Singapore. No other place in the country could as easily pull that off as NYC could. The lifestyle, the culture, the history, and even the language of NYC is markedly different from everywhere else in the country. It is part of America while being a part from America.
The point is that NYC is insular and unique. And to most of the country, NYC is a very alien world. The places where the vast majority of Americans live look nothing like NYC. And if you serve as the mayor of NYC, you will be forever linked to that alien place. To most Americans, NYC means the biggest of big cities, and all the political realities that entails. If you are a mayor of NYC, you will forever be seen as not really representing and understanding the way the vast majority of Americans live. You'll be forever linked to old money, old-school big city Democratic machine politics. There's often talk of "real America," and NYC is the polar opposite of that. And that just is never going to be popular in the places that you need to win over in order to win the Electoral College.
The one exception to this is if you are running as a Republican. A Republican, by nature, seems to be antithetical to big-city Democratic politics. You're not as tainted by it. This is why Giuliani actually had a not-completely ridiculous shot at being president for awhile (but even that required being mayor during 9/11.)
Being mayor of NYC is a noble thing. But in terms of national politics, it is a political dead-end. You could probably run for a US Senate seat from New York after being mayor of NYC. But if you serve as the mayor of New York, your chance of ever being president is essentially zero. NYC is simply seen as far too alien by the rest of the country to elect a mayor of that place as president.
A a politician, run for mayor of NYC if you wish. But do so knowing that if you win, you will have to forever write off the chance of being president of the United States.
Thanks to the antics of old time Mayor Jimmy Walker and Tammany Hall, a lot of NY's power is controlled by the Governor of NY State.
That's really only true with the emergency powers of the governors office. Given the power to appoint 40+ commissioners in NYC and the de facto power the mayor exerts over NYC (despite de jure description) is immense. Give the political, police, and financial power of NYC, I would say the mayor still exerts more authority than the governor.
That being said, the governor of NYC has the power to declare a state of emergency and wildly broaden his power to near authoritarian levels. If that were to occur and then the governor and mayor were to somehow end up toe-to-toe, it would be interesting. But in actual practice, I think that might be a more even match up than you think.
On the other hand, the mayor is point man for literally hundreds of crises. Lindsay had a good shot at becoming President, and lost it because of a snowstorm; Dinkins got screwed by a Korean grocery store boycott.
All three major networks have stations in NYC, plus Fox News and CNN, plus the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. That's not counting the Congressional delegation and the New York Stock Exchange.
The mayor is under a microscope with no Secret Service protection.
Now let's pivot to what 'real power' is. Let's put Lex Luthor as US President and as NYC Mayor. Either way, Lex can have one person killed anywhere in the world, but only as President can he start a war of bring a nation to their knees.
I estimate that Lex could get a billion in brides and kickbacks in one term in office; he could call the Saudis on Inauguration Day and have $50 billion in a Swiss account by the ned of the business day.
If she wanted to be President, mayor of NYC isn't a path that's out of the question. It's one of the only places where the office of the mayor gets a lot of national attention. It can be more prestigious in practice than NY governor.
That said, former NYC mayors haven't exactly done well in runs for the President, either. Rudy ran in the Republican primary in 2008, and his performance was summed up as "noun verb 9/11". Bloomberg tried in the Democratic primary in 2020, but nobody wanted to vote for a stodgy billionaire. I conclude that this would not be a good fit for her if she wanted to be President. This conclusion comes to you from two datapoints, which is the typical level of data to produce strong conclusions in the media.
Mayor of New York seems like a pit trap. I admire the city from afar but any meaningful way of making it better will be met with red tape, corruption, and mob like fuckery.
guvnah to start
I feel like she might go for Senator in 2028.
Outside of Trump, Presidents typically win a state office before going on to President. While AOC could go for governor, I don't see her really going for that role.