= new reply since forum marked as read
Pete Buttigieg could have run in 2016, as he was born on January 19, 1982, so he turned 35yo on January 18, 2017 (see below as to why the 18th), 2 days before January 20, 2017.
To get REALLY into the weeds, he technically could have been born on January 21, 1982 and still have been eligible, as legally you turn the age on the day BEFORE your birthday, as you have been alive for the the full 365 days (366 if a leap year) of the year. In that case (born on January 21, 1982) he turned 35 on either the stroke of midnight or 12 01 am on January 20th, 2017 (see below for the time explanation).
That of course would be challenged in court, but it is the way age is legally treated in the US.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4783/us-law-what-exact-time-is-a-person-considered-legally-18
I also think, to close it out with the ultimate nit-pickings, that someone would challenge a person that was born AFTER noon (as noon EST on Jnaiary 20th, of the year after an election, is when the swearing in takes place) on either the 20th (that would instantly be tossed I think due the day before rule) or 21st of January (tossed again as legally you turn the age the day before at 12 00 am or 12 01 am (depending on what your are dealing with, as many agencies and firms use 12 01 am as the start of the new day, which makes no sense to me as at the stroke of midnight the entire 24 hours has been completed for the previous day)
Pete Buttigieg could have run in 2016, as he was born on January 19, 1982, so he turned 35yo on January 18, 2017 (see below as to why the 18th), 2 days before January 20, 2017.
To get REALLY into the weeds, he technically could have been born on January 21, 1982 and still have been eligible, as legally you turn the age on the day BEFORE your birthday, as you have been alive for the the full 365 days (366 if a leap year) of the year. In that case (born on January 21, 1982) he turned 35 on either the stroke of midnight or 12 01 am on January 20th, 2017 (see below for the time explanation).
That of course would be challenged in court, but it is the way age is legally treated in the US.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4783/us-law-what-exact-time-is-a-person-considered-legally-18
I also think, to close it out with the ultimate nit-pickings, that someone would challenge a person that was born AFTER noon (as noon EST on Jnaiary 20th, of the year after an election, is when the swearing in takes place) on either the 20th (that would instantly be tossed I think due the day before rule) or 21st of January (tossed again as legally you turn the age the day before at 12 00 am or 12 01 am (depending on what your are dealing with, as many agencies and firms use 12 01 am as the start of the new day, which makes no sense to me as at the stroke of midnight the entire 24 hours has been completed for the previous day)
and people think the center and right of center would ever give her a vote?
Focus!
Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!
Are you kidding me? Conservatives *HATE* her. They would easily destroy her in any real election. Wishful thinking though. 
I think I will stand by my point and cite you POTUS Harry Truman.
I can't believe some don't realize that the younger generations INCLUDING GenX which I'm a part of, are now the path forward. Every year over 10 million new voters come of age. Think about that. All those young people are going to bring about the progressive change we so badly need. And it's going to be beautiful!
Focus!
Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024! 
And, That's a Big NO to your OP.
Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024! Done.. They're on the Front Lines Working Every Day to Save our Democracy.
I'll GO with Dems Who are Working to Save Our Democracy..
This is a Democratic Site that has been Working For Progress since 2001.
Aloha & Mahalo to you!
Focus!
Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!
I tried to answer them yet again here, with a somewhat detailed and documented post here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216998661#post208
I say yet again as this is not the first time I have arrived at loggerheads with that poster on this subject. As you know, this issue of democratic socialist versus social democratic labelling has been a pet peeve of mine since I joined this board 4 plus years ago.
This subject is often combined with people falsely calling Sweden and our Nordic neighbours 'socialist countries', which is simply ill-informed at best, as we have extremely vibrant (and highly regulated, which I argue is one of the reasons for that vibrancy as it reduces capital wastage inefficiencies, excessive rentier profit-taking, regulatory capture, and the corrosive corruption that plagues US-style crony capitalism) capitalist sectors that synergistically work hand in hand with our expansive social welfare states and mass union movements to produce very high standards of living and very low wealth inequality rates.
check the major boxes (such as the government ownership of the means of production) for the very widely accepted (at academic level and for many informal purposes) definition of socialism.
They ARE, on the other hand, very much social democrats.
https://bigthink.com/the-present/what-is-socialism-bernie-sanders/
BERNIE SANDERS EXPLAINS WHAT SOCIALISM IS
snip
He goes a bit into the particulars of policy and explained that his conception of socialism would require — this is what it would look like — universal health care, total employment, free college education, more public spending, a living wage, environmental regulations, and a robust democratic culture to come into existence. He flatly denied any interest in nationalization, telling the audience:
“So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this: I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.“
The contents of this speech were very similar to other statements he has made about socialism across his entire political career. The entire speech could have been summed up neatly in a quote he gave to the Associated Press back in 1990:
“To me, socialism doesn’t mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living.”
WAIT A MOMENT, PRAISE FOR THE NEW DEAL? NO INTEREST IN NATIONALIZATION? THAT DEFINITION SOUNDS A LOT LIKE CAPITALISM!
You might have noticed that this program focuses on making capitalism work better and not replacing it with an entirely new system based on social ownership. This has made his definition of socialism a matter of contention. While “socialism” is a system based around replacing private ownership of the means of production with social ownership, which generally means having the workers own and operate them instead — either through cooperatives or the state — Bernie hasn’t shown much of an interest in using the government to promote this change.
snip
Bernie Sanders isn’t a democratic socialist. He is a social democrat
https://qz.com/1805692/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-he-is-a-social-democrat/
Bernie Sanders is no socialist: Socialism is his brand, but he's a Democrat in every way but name
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/16/bernie_sanders_is_no_socialist_socialism_is_his_brand_but_hes_a_democrat_in_every_way_but_name/
Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist
Scandinavia is, by one measure, a freer market than the United States.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/
snip
Sanders is not a typical socialist. Sure, he believes in a highly regulated and heavily taxed private enterprise, but he does not seem to want the state to own banks and make cars. Considering the negative connotations of “socialism” in America, it is a bit of a puzzle why Sanders insists on using that word. It would be much less contentious and more correct if he gave his worldview its proper name: not “democratic socialism,” which implies socialism brought about through a vote, but social democracy.
In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.
Capitalism means different things to different people. To many people on the left, unfettered capitalism implies individual greed, vast income inequality, and lack of government protections for the poor. Capitalism is often confused with “crony” capitalism—an odious nexus of corporate and political power that crushes the worker and cheats the consumer. Close linkages between big business and the government have existed before (e.g., fascist Italy, national-socialist Germany, Peronist Argentina, etc.). However, most academics do not refer to such systems as exhibiting “crony capitalism,” but “corporatism.”
In any case, few would argue that the power of big business in the United States today is comparable to the power of big businesses in, say, fascist Italy, though it might be argued that “crony capitalism,” if left unchecked, could one day lead to “corporatism.”
snip
side in this colloquy. You simply ignore actual definitions and also the actual claims made by Sanders et al, for what they themselves define democratic socialism is. Their OWN definitions are not that of democratic socialism, it is social democracy. That is a factual statement, not an opinion.
You repeatedly erect a false construct that I am saying (and relying upon) Sanders, et al. are somehow ignorant of basic definitions. They are not ignorant of the definitions, they simply think (and here one of the things you accused me of upthread comes into play for them, that being hubris on their part) that they can snap their fingers and redefine 200 plus years old, vastly, broadly (at both formal and informal levels) accepted definitions. That is hubristic, and in reactionary America, also foolish, as it opens our Party and our policies up to all sorts of RW false attacks, as I already discussed above.
I find their false self-labelling (and have found it so the entire 4 plus years I gave been on this board, as documented by dozens, perhaps over 100 posts on the subject that I have made) to be one of, if not the most, damaging stances of Sanders and AOC, etc etc.
As one of the articles I posted above said in very simple language:
Done here, let the readers of our back and forth decide who is right and who is wrong. we are now (once again) going around and around in circles.
you said
then in the next sentence
That makes no sense, of course they think it is redeemable, they literally try to mitigate the bad aspects, to improve it and make it work for their societies' benefit as a whole.
Also, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence, as shown.
Btw, another large problem I have with AOC is her association with the DSA, who are a very problematic hodgepodge group that has some really problematic sub groups (all the way to Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyites, albeit a lot of them do not use DSA as their main outlet). I wish she would cut her ties with them, same for any other Dem who has ties.
Anyhoo, here is what the hardcore socialists/communists think of that DSA interview with AOC you posted the link to. They are not amused.
(again this is ONLY for informational purposes, I detest the ICFI, just as I detest the DSA)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounces socialists and praises Biden administration, Democratic Party
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/26/aoc-m26.html
On March 19, the Democratic Socialists of America’s magazine Democratic Left published an interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in which the Democratic congresswoman and DSA member combines the most lavish praise for the Democratic Party with vicious denunciations of socialism.
The DSA has treated the interview as an important political event. This is the first time their official magazine has interviewed the New York congresswoman, and the interview was carefully prepared before publication. Though Democratic Left editorial board member Don McIntosh conducted the interview on January 26, it was only posted online seven weeks later. The choice of interviewer is also significant: McIntosh is a high-level operative in the AFL-CIO with close ties to the Democratic Party. He is listed as an author on the AFL-CIO’s press office website and is a long-time promoter of Democratic politicians and candidates at the NW Labor Press, which he edits.
In the interview, Ocasio-Cortez presents the Democratic Party as having been completely transformed into a working class party. She says the Biden administration and incumbent Democrats are “totally reinvent[ing] themselves in a far more progressive direction.” Pressure from the left has forced “almost a radical change” among entrenched Democratic leaders. What is needed, she says, is a turn deeper into Democratic Party electoral politics. The only barrier to the Democratic Party establishment achieving perfection is left-wing opposition. This politician who made a career criticizing the “Democratic establishment” and posturing as an outsider has now transformed herself into the establishment’s fiercest defender and a most bitter opponent of outside critics. McIntosh asks, “Some on the Left have looked at Biden’s record and his difference with the Bernie wing of the party, and they conclude that no progress is going to come out of the Biden administration. What’s your view?” She replies:
Such “bad faith actors,” Ocasio-Cortez says, only betray their disdain for the poor and oppressed by criticizing the president. Ocasio-Cortez adds a noxious dose of identity politics to the old Democratic trick of presenting left-wing opponents as aiding the right:
snip
my additional thoughts on the overall subject:
I know many, many actual socialists and even some communists (mostly Trotskyites, I know no Stalinists or Maoists here, only in London) here in Sweden, including members of Vänsterpartiet (The Left Party) who work in (although not as MPs) our Riksdag (our parliament) or other governmental entities. They laugh when people try and call Bernie, AOC, etc, socialists. If they were here (Bernie etc) and espoused the same positions and programmes as they do now, they would be bog standard Social Democrats Party members, not even remotely on the left side of my Party.
The US political spectrum is very much artificially spun to the right on an overall ideological measurement spectrum. Many of the current US Democratic members of Congress would likely be Social Democrats, but a fair amount would likely be solidly centre to mildly centre right (in the Swedish sense) here (perhaps in the centre right Liberal Party, or the centre right Centre party (very likely) or in the centre right Moderates aka the old Conservative Party, see below for an explanation). A person like Cuellar or Manchin would be solidly in the right half of the centre right to right Moderates (Nya Moderaterna ie The New Moderates, ie the new name for the old Swedish Conservative Party, the other large Swedish political party, along with the Social Democrats, and similar to the UK Tories but with far less pretty hard RW assholes, only a handful sunk to that level).
There are no MAGAT-style Moderates aka Conservatives, those would be in the hard RW, nationalist Sweden Democrats ie Sverigedemokraterna and perhaps in Kristdemokraterna , ie the Christian Democrats, who are unfortunately going fairly hard to the right, but also sinking in numbers. The Moderates are also, on balance, not in favour of ending major parts of our Folkhemmet, ie The Peoples' Home, ie our Swedish expansive welfare state. They just want to make it smaller and to privatise parts (which I fight tooth and nail here).
Finally, your average Swede here (across the political spectrum here, more or less), on balance, gets fairly irritated when Sweden is called a socialist nation by some on the US left (they expect that nonsense from the American RW, but are not happy to be falsely labelled by some of the American left, especially Sanders).
and Social Security, Medicare, and other programs which are social programs that Democrats do support but most Republicans want to destroy. 
beyond her current abilities, it destroys her future. Let her be a House member for a while and then contemplate what comes next.
However as far as we know, Biden will run again, and he gets first dibs.
That's all I'm going to say at this point. However I did read this essay with interest.
Because it sure reads like one.
I’m sure to a lot of people who have never deigned to leave their bubbles in those places it makes perfect sense. 
But yes, I thought the same thing when I read the thread title. Utterly ludicrous and feels like satire.
Biden's approval rating is already low. The cons would absolutely destroy her. Trust me - I've seen conservative circles on Twitter - they think of her as an absolute joke (but then again they have Lauren Boebert). Which would then give them an opportunity to go full fascist whether we want it or not. 
