Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warns anti-Biden Democrats about what comes next if they succeed
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warns anti-Biden Democrats about what comes next if they succeed
The progressive New Yorker spoke on Instagram about the potential risks of pressuring President Joe Biden to end his campaign.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has issued a dire warning to her party about the chaos that could ensue if they succeed in pushing President Joe Biden off the ticket. And she criticized Democrats who’ve given off-the-record quotes that suggest the party has resigned itself to a second Trump term.
In an Instagram Live video on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez warned liberals that a brokered convention could lead to chaos, in part because she says some of the Democratic “elites” who want Biden out also don’t want Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee in his place.
“If you think that is going to be an easy transition, I’m here to tell you that a huge amount of the donor class and these elites who are pushing for the president not to be the nominee also do not want to see the VP be the nominee,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez claimed none of the people she’s spoken with who are calling on Biden to drop out — including lawmakers and legal experts — have articulated a plan to swap out the nominee without minimizing the serious legal and procedural challenges that are likely to ensue.
Ocasio-Cortez also highlighted the racial, ethnic and class divisions that appear to have formed between the majority of those pining to blow up the ticket — led mostly by white Democrats and media pundits — and those elected officials who feel they and their constituents have too much at stake to upend the process at this point and so are willing to do the work to re-elect Biden-Harris. She alluded to this cultural divide in her video when she spoke out against anonymous sources expressing a sense of fatalism on behalf of Democrats about what might happen if Biden remains on the ticket:
What I will say is what upsets me is [Democrats] saying we will lose. For me, to a certain extent, I don’t care what name is on there. We are not losing. I don’t know about you, but my community does not have the option to lose. My community does not have the luxury of accepting loss in July of an election year. My people are the first ones deported. They’re the first ones put in Rikers. They’re the first ones whose families are killed by war.
You're viewing a single thread.
"Trust me, it'll be super bad (in non-specific ways) to swap out Biden. There are unspecified people pushing to replace Biden for unspecified bad-faith reasons. Just ignore the obvious problems with the candidate, stop saying critical things and get in line. You naysayers don't want to be responsible for handing Donald Trump the election, do you?"
Super strategy, guys.
"Trust me, it'll be super bad to replace Biden without a strategy, and nobody can agree on a strategy"
Much better to stick with the strategy of browbeating anyone who points out Biden is losing and only speaks in complete sentences about half the time.
That's not a strategy.
I forgot to include "Run out the clock until it really is too late to replace Biden" and "Hope for a miracle in November."
You've already proven that you haven't read the article, so anything you say at this point can be dismissed.
Okay, I guess if I don't read so good, someone as smart as you can point out to me the part where AOC articulated the strategy to win while keeping Biden on the ballot.
By calling out how there is no strategy behind the folks asking for him to step down. They have alluded to the fact that they don't want Harris either. It's a hard pill to swallow since it doesn't fit your narrative, but you're going to have to accept reality.
By calling out how there is no strategy behind the folks asking for him to step down.
That's not a strategy to beat Trump in November; it's just a strategy to keep Biden now so he can lose to Trump in November. Clinton lost because she didn't bother to campaign in swing states. We're sticking with someone who can't campaign as much as is needed.
Still waiting to hear even a broad outline of how this can be turned around with Biden at the top of the ticket. Been waiting a few weeks, honestly. Take your time.
Pointing out those things isn't a strategy either.
The strategy this entire time has plainly been for him to voluntarily step aside and endorse a replacement, probably Kamala.
“If you think that is going to be an easy transition, I’m here to tell you that a huge amount of the donor class and these elites who are pushing for the president not to be the nominee also do not want to see the VP be the nominee,” she said.
Maybe read the fucking article. They're clearly aiming at having neither Biden nor Kamala as a choice.
We can only hope
I watched her stream, hence the reference to unspecific people for unspecific bad reasons. She vaguely alluded to chaos at the convention, which is highly unlikely if Biden endorses anyone.
Keep digging your head in the sand, then. Ain't gonna waste my time.
As opposed to the strategy that's been spammed here for months:
"Well clearly the Democrats are useless and are going to lose. It's Weekend at Bernie's out there except it isn't even Bernie. The DNC has never done anything for the people and have decided to roll over for Trump. My friends and I are just not going to vote, that'll give the party a wakeup call."
Unification is about the only strategy that will win this. I will absolutely vote blue no matter who, but if anyone was serious about replacing Biden they would have had to unify behind another candidate weeks or months ago. "Maybe Newsom" is NOT A STRATEGY.
My friends and I are just not going to vote, that'll give the party a wakeup call
Then they'll go all surprised Pikachu that there are no elected officials or candidates pushing their views the next time around.
I was with you until not voting. I have very real concerns about Biden's ability to even be on the campaign trail. The dude struggles through schedules interviews and appearances in ways that he clearly didn't used to. It seems to me that they did everything possible to hide his present condition so that there wouldn't be a real primary, which is a shame, because I think that he's no longer fit to serve the role of the presidency given present evidence. That said, I would vote for a dead body before I vote for Trump; I'm just frustrated that the democrats are making me.
I'm also absolutely vote blue no matter who. It's seemed pretty clear to me that the strategy of the people who want Biden to drop out has been pressuring him into doing it voluntarily and endorsing a replacement, likely Harris.
I'm also absolutely vote blue no matter who. It's seemed pretty clear to me that the strategy of the people who want Biden to drop out has been pressuring him into doing it voluntarily and endorsing a replacement, likely Harris.
Again, doubling down on your stupidity isn't going to change the fact that they don't want EITHER as a candidate.
Keep on, these Ad hominem attacks are surely going to get folks to line up behind you.
This thread is the first I’ve seen where the keep Bideners are in stronger numbers than the ditch Bideners.
It’s refreshing, but, just like the .ml folks, I think y’all need to also look outside your own bubble.
Every single one of these threads, I ask the ditch Bideners for a strategy and have never gotten a single one.
So whatever bubble you think there is, I'm in reality where Biden is the nominee until he isn't, and the "fuck you I'm taking my ball and going home" crowd are motherfucking fascist apologizers.
The game is on whether or not you take your ball and go home. The lack of a plan or strategy makes it clear that you're either not serious or panicking.
You know it's hard to make a strategy if instead of talking about it, someone keeps screeching over it with "Wrong!!! Won't work! WRONG!!" And keep vilifying anyone thinking what lots of others are as something worse than the actual enemy.
I think panicking is fine and a normal response to situations that require it. If you think yourself above having to make a snap response you might just miss the chance too.
You know it’s hard to make a strategy if instead of talking about it, someone keeps screeching over it with “Wrong!!! Won’t work! WRONG!!”
I mean...maybe stop suggesting things that are wrong and won't work?
Well I guess we are about to find out if this was right and will work.
If you’re not hearing the strategies, then you have done too good of a job at filtering your news.
Wow.
What a strategy.
Open convention, lively debate, voters get to pick the candidate who is most the engaging, a la JFK.
Or option B, hear me out on this, Kamala Harris. I know right!? I mean she’s already in the White House, she already knows everything going on. She has the money in the fucking bank! Hell, she’s probably already running the show behind the scenes. Wouldn’t be the first time a woman is actually doing all of the work and man is taking all of the credit.
Too late for an open convention unfortunately. I have no problem supporting Harris, but she does have drawbacks as a candidate.
So getting that done is the next step, but it appears Harris as the candidate faces other resistance from within the party. So that would need to be overcome.
In addition, all that keeps the policies of the ticket intact, which makes changing tack midstream easier.
Thank you. We are on the same page. I just hate the "Oh no we ate totally doomed" rhetoric that is thrown around all the time.
Realistic plans are good.
Also, to be clear, when I ask for a strategy I'm often just downvoted with no replies and that's what I meant.
Of course I've seen Harris floated as a strategy and of course I'd be on board with that. Just the doomerism without a plan is really not helpful, and that ain't you.
(in non-specific ways)
(raises hand)
Who are we replacing him with?
If that doesn't have an answer then I have one very specific way in which dropping him might make things worse
If the answer is "let the DNC figure it out, they've never steered us wrong before with a candidate" then I will have at least one follow up question
The likely answer is Harris, but the actual answer is whoever he endorses. Everyone on both sides of the issue has agreed that forcing him off the ticket won't work, which is why it's been a pressure campaign.
In any case, the notion the donors are going to all line up and bring someone we've never heard of out of a back room to supplant the obvious choice of the vice president or even a popular governor isn't realistic.
I agree that in practice, it'll be Harris. I think then the sensible conversation is whether she'll have a better chance of winning than Biden will.
To me, the fact that she polls like 2 points ahead of him, while she is as she currently is an unknown quantity without all of the attacks against Biden that have been spun up (he invented inflation, he loves immigrants way too much, he killed Palestine, he betrayed Israel, etc etc pick your poison depending on the target audience involved), is a pretty good argument for rallying around Biden instead of switching to Harris and hoping she'll keep that 2 points. I think once the same machine that's been trying to burn Biden down gets spun up for real against her, she'll crumple up and get crushed worse than Biden currently is. Maybe I am wrong in that.
I can see an argument that Biden may continue to fuck up doing things like he did at the debate, and so we need to switch even if by the calculus right now it's a losing proposition, because of that risk. That doesn't seem crazy to me. But it's telling to me that people are saying "We need to switch to candidate X who can't be compared against Biden directly", instead of having the honest conversation about why it should be Harris.
I wish Jon Stewart would attend the convention as a candidate.
The only good argument I can think of for swapping candidates last minute is it will throw the Republican propaganda machine into disarray; they'll need a good month or so to figure out a narrative against whoever it is. But they're already gearing up anti-Kamala stuff.
Completely missed the point.
I'm sorry but she says enough here about the machinations of the donor-class that makes me think someone absolutely heinous is being lined up to take Biden's place
The notion that they're going to whisk some corporate plant out of a back room that nobody's ever heard of isn't realistic. The favorites for a replacement are all no less donor-friendly than Biden has been.
Source: "my ass"
Indeed, even my ass is capable of understanding the donors also don't want to lose.
I don't think that's true. They know they don't really have to compete in this election, and it shows. It's the same mindset that was behind HRC16 and the Hillary campaign promoting Trump.
The notion that they’re going to whisk some corporate plant out of a back room that nobody’s ever heard of isn’t realistic.
There are corporate plants we have heard of, and I wouldn't put it past the party to nominate Clinton again. Or Manchin.
The post you’re responding to says no one is making good suggestions, just saying “give up and come up with a new last minute plan”. Awful advice. Just awful.
No one cares if you critique anyone. It’s not anyone’s job to take bad plans seriously.
Did you read the post?
Did you read the post?
They definitely did not.
Did you read it?
What I will say is what upsets me is [Democrats] saying we will lose.
She stated over and over again in the stream that people voicing concerns about Biden's ability are weakening him, and followed her new recurring habit of failing to rebut any of those concerns.
You're acting like we're entering completely unknown waters if we switch candidates. The strategy is simply to get a new candidate, likely the other person already on the ticket, run a campaign and win. The fact that several alternatives are polling neck and neck with the two candidates without even campaigning is a testament to how weak both Biden and Trump are.
That’s just more words, not more substance. You’re doing here exactly what AOC is calling out: giving a vague description of the surface of what you think will happen in a best case scenario with no tactical or even strategic consideration for first mitigating the chaos the basic act will create.
The problem isn’t that you need to come up with the play by play, the problem is that no one has. It’s literally the worst kind of plan: no plan at all.
It’s about the dumbest possible move, really, and it’s telling that the only motivation behind it is that he’s old.
Throw out the incumbent advantage, throw out all current strategies months before the election, hand wave away the candidate slate as objectively better with minimal examination, expose us to huge legal vulnerability against the most litigious party I’ve ever seen, who currently seems to have captured the judicial branch, in the highest stakes election I’ve seen so far, and do it all without any inkling of a play by play to create unity and mitigate doubt or even a hint of an acknowledgment of the problems that the move would cause in the best case scenario?
Awful.