She called for Eric Adams to stand down — but she doesn’t want his job. Meanwhile, seasoned New York politicians fear a primary challenge from her. That’s exactly why she isn’t launching one
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.
Yes, because people don’t want to do that unless there’s a corrupt reason for it, like with Taft and Jackson. It would be way too much to ask of a non corrupt person.
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.
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.
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.
Fair point.
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.
I don’t know about Quincy adams, but the other two do not represent what I want more of in American politics
The point is that retiring from open politics is a choice, not a requirement.
Exactly. I mean just look at how a former President conducted the dismissal of bipartisan border legislation!
My point is that it’s too much to ask of her to be president for eight years and then continue nobly serving her country.
The people who still want to be in politics after that aren’t doing it for good reasons.
I was with you on the first sentence.
…but you think Andrew Jackson and Taft were doing what was best for the country?
What? Your comment was about it being a lot to ask of AOC.
Yes, because people don’t want to do that unless there’s a corrupt reason for it, like with Taft and Jackson. It would be way too much to ask of a non corrupt person.
I know, but it’s precedent. And I’m sure the secret service wouldn’t love her continuing to be active in politics.
I don’t think the secret service gets an opinion on what former presidents do for work
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.