11h ago

Why AOC should run for president in 2028

www.salon.com Why Trump is terrified of AOC

After Zohran Mamdani's win, Trump reveals how scared he is to face Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

111 comments

The democrat leadership did everything in their power to stop bernie in 2020 they will do the same against AOC

She would have been a great choice over Kamala and imo the dems would have won if it was AOC in 2024. Especially because she would have been a very young candidate over a very old one.
But given how the dems lost twice with a woman and only won once with a man, it would be an uphill battle. I feel like the dems need a strong term or two before they can do something unprecedented. Biden’s term wasn’t very strong.

All the fucking second-order sexists here saying we can't elect a woman because two of the worst female candidates ever lately lost.
These are the same people who said Obama couldn't win because he was black. Not that they were racist, no they love black people, but they just want to make absolutely extra sure we don't actually try to elect one. Because they imagine their neighbor/uncle/coworker would look at everything going on and think "none of that is important, no black presidents". They're not racist, they just advocate for racism. And with this most facile of analyses they'll believe themselves to be politically savvy realists rather than reactionary children.
This is the cowardice that dooms liberalism. At every opportunity they want to worry about what their opponents will like and time after time will try to blame strategy or immutable characteristics for the failures of their do-nothing policies. Politics is about change. When people's lives suck you don't try to tell them we'll keep doing the same things. And whether the person talking change is a charismatic black man or a clown show, or even... A FEEEMALE, they'll vote for them.

Run every time and educate every time till the win and then win again.

She should absolutely run. I don't know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.
Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.
- I don't know if she should win the nomination,
  Her winning the nomination would be Schumer and Pelosi's worst nightmare. They would 100 percent rather lose to Trump than let that happen.
  
  Maybe we'll luck out and those two will be dead by then.
  
  they'd actively campaign for mango mussolini's third term before they let AOC win the nomination. fucking ghouls.
- But, from the last election, we know some minorities will never vote for a woman. This is a big gamble.
  I voted for Harris. I thought she was going to win until I saw all those minorities vote against her just because of her gender.
  This world is not ready.
  
  We absolutely don't know anything of the sort. Centrist assholes just cling to that excuse to avoid acknowledging that focusing on appealing to conservatives and pledging to maintain the status quo is a failure.

Stop with the women.
Should it matter it’s a women? No. But the reality is it does to too many people and it’s another uphill battle.
- Dems will never win an election again if they prioritize trying to win the votes of ""centrists"" who are too sexist to vote for a woman.

I agree that she should run, but as an independent candidate because the DNC will never give her a honest shot in the primaries.
Americans however are unlikely to elect her especially due to electoral college as there are plenty racist and misogynistic voters in the swing states.
But if she’s able to raise money in the process to give her a real shot, US will finally have a viable third party candidate. If it looks like she’ll only split the Dem vote without winning, the raised money can be used to support progressive candidates in local elections.
Either way, I think US needs a progressive liberals party and soon because there’s a lot of House and Senate seat elections coming up and as we have seen from the GOP playbook, local elections are as relevant and influential as the national ones.
- as an informed she'll split the vote.
  it's there a way to force a form of ranked choice voting?
  she runs for independent, but the votes are for delegates that chose the president, so if she gets 10% of the votes, the delegated should vote for the other less fash candidat, while if she does get the majority she gets the presidency
  on top of that, she can make the delegate vote conditional for some policies. so even if she gets 5% of the votes she can dictate the delegates to vote for whichever candidate signs a legally binding contract to do some prewritten executive actions on day one, like abolish Ice. release all imprisonment migrants, grant re-entry visas to deported...
  so even if she only gets a few votes, she can have a lot of influence and power.
  I just started thinking about this today,and I fear there are more complications. but I'm principle, could this work?
  
  Delegates are not granted proportionally. If the Democratic nominee gets 30% of the vote in a state, AOC gets 30% of the vote, and the Republican gets 35% of the vote, all the electors are Republican.
  
  Yes, it could, which is why (IIRC) 16 US states now have laws that partially or fully ban ranked choice voting.
  
  At a minimum splitting the vote would mean that they are coming from the "didn't vote" pool (which has been the majority in pretty much every election for decades now). This is a strong signal that the DNC needs to move left or become irrelevant because a new party would simply split. For example of this working see the republican party becoming the maga party for that reason. Doing this will also add more weight to our protests.

you guys need ranked choice. I'd bet on most red voters not ranking multiple and just putting their evil fucker pick as #1. then you need more than one non evil candidate.
- Ranked choice only goes so far when the electorate is batshit insane and willfully ignorant.
- We tried. I watched rank choice requests fail time and time again, because people vote against it thanks to smear campaigns.
  My buddy is in a city with rank choice, and after the most recent election, there was a push to get rid of it again. You can tell by who.
  
  yeah my bad you need guillotines first
- Instead what we have are Republicans trying to outlaw ranked choice voting... They've already had right wing media brainwashing the people into believing it's a really bad thing...

I'd rather AOC knock Schumer out of the Senate in 2028. (Or a special election if he for whatever reason is unable to complete his term.) Congress needs as much replacement as the White House.
But it is really frustrating framing how the article is already conceding Trump will be the dominant candidate for a third term in 2028. That's a long way off.

I love AOC, but she will lose.
The American people have shown that they would rather have a convicted felon, rapist, fascist pedophile than a highly qualified woman.
It's stupid, but it's reality.
A woman candidate is a non starter.
- The fact that Harris got as close as she did with so little time proves that she didn't lose because she's a woman. She lost because her policies sucked. Run someone who is honest and trying to help the people and I'd bet they do well, man, woman, or otherwise (OK, maybe a trans candidate actually couldn't win for now).
  The people saying those two lost because they're women are ignorant. They lost because they were shitty candidates. More men have lost than women, and no one says it's because they were men. It's just an easy excuse to ignore that people don't like corporate ass kissers who fuck over the average person to help the rich.
- Walz/Cortez 2028 take my vote all day long.
- Losing the nomination would not be the end for AOC. But as a champion for the "Democratic Socialist" wind of the Democrats there's really not a better candidate to speak at the primaries and ensure that even in a primary loss the eventual winner adds parts their goals to the administrations goals.
  This is why the "Christian Conservatives" always run a few candidates in the Republican party, and why they've always got a spot in the Republican party platform.
- Unlike Kamala and Clinton she actually believes in something, and not just the Dems' very rich corporate donors.
  look at Zohran Mamdani in New York. He's a Muslim, foreign born, socialist. Plenty of things that by the same logic would make him loose. But he won the primary and odds are he'll Winn the mayor position.
  
  NYC does not extrapolate out to the US, or things would look very different these days.
  
  That's New York. You won't win swing states with those candidates. And I love Zohran. If he ran in California, I'd vote for him.
  
  His path to victory is very hard. Expect hundreds of millions to be spent on ads against him. My boss’ PAC has estimated Cuomo would have $100 million available if he chooses to run as an independent.
- To be fair, Clinton and Harris and the platform were not particularly exciting, and they played by the old rules.
  Misogyny may have been a contributing factor, but not being bold, exciting, or authentic sure as hell didn’t help.
  
  maybe let the people who actually vote for the party decide who they prefer as candidates, rather than having the gerontocracy alone dictate that choice
- In all likelihood, yes, she will lose.
  But she should still run for the same reasons Bernie ran. Change the discourse and prevent unfettered ratcheting of the Overton window; force Democrats to respond to her challenge.
  If she doesn't run, we all lose. Winning isn't quite everything.
  
  If the dems lose in 2028, assuming there is an election, the fascists will consolidate power and the U.S. will be a dictatorship for 40 years.
- Harris and Clinton both had major structural issues that went beyond their gender. I'm not ignoring the reality that women face a greater uphill battle--they need to be downright perfect in order to even get fair consideration--but I don't think that the fact that they are women was the only factor. I'm not even positive that it would be a deciding factor against someone who isn't Trump. His particular brand of politics really only works for him, somehow.
- This is the type of thinking that will keep the status quo the status quo.
  "Things can't change oh well!"
  
  Prepare yourself for the “Status Quo-mo”
- They've shown they don't want to vote for hope-extinguishing establishment dweebs.
  A woman candidate who's actually good would do great.
  
  I wish. I really, really do. It's nothing more than fantasy right now.
- A woman candidate is a non starter.
  This. This right here. This is what people are going to have to start accepting.
  We heard throughout the entire campaign "Biden too old!". And to be fair, he was. That debate performance proved it. But here's the thing. Once his replacement was announced, people suddenly stopped having a problem with age, because they ran right back to Bernie Sanders. Suddenly, age wasn't nearly as much of an issue any more. The voters ultimately stood up in one voice and said "We'd still vote for a really old man or at least let another old man with dementia return to power before we vote for a black woman". It's like the voters demanded someone younger, saw the DNC endorse Harris, and said "No, not like that!"
  The Gaza excuse doesn't make sense either, because Trump was actively campaigning on glassing the place and turning it into beachfront property. Never mind the fact that Harris was in a lose-lose position with regards to the war (Had she turned and supported Gaza, she'd have lost significantly more Jewish voters and the race would have been an even bigger Trump victory), but even if you believe she's "supporting a genocide", the fact of the matter is that Trump's position was not only to support it, but to speed it up. You can't claim that you didn't vote for Harris over Gaza while allowing someone who you damn well know is going to be even worse for Gaza to rise back to power. Again, this doesn't make the last bit of logical sense. Another excuse for people who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black woman and needed an excuse to either convince themselves or their social circle to justify it.
  What else was there? "Well, she wasn't clear on some of her economic policies". Literal quote from news reporters on the Harris/Trump debate where Trump's answer to an economic policy question was "They're eating the dogs! They're eating the cats! They're eating......the pets!".
  Or "They're all just handpicked by the corporate elite". Or "we're trying to send a message to the Democrat party to put forward better candidates". Or my personal favorite "She campaigned with Liz Cheney that one time......".
  Or whatever other excuse people keep coming up with. Not a single one of them has ever been able to answer the question of "Even if you believe that, how does allowing Trump return to power make it any better or advance your position?"
  The fact of the matter is that Democrats have their own share of low-key racists and bigots. They're just not as open about it as Republicans, and still prefer to hide behind whatever convenient excuse they can come up with. But they've twice over proven that, for all their bluster about age and progressive values, they'll gladly allow an old white man with dementia to return to power before they ever consider voting for a woman. I'll echo the exact same thing you said. I don't like it, and you don't have to agree with it. But reality is what reality is. If the Democrat party puts forward a woman or minority in 2028, especially after 4 years of Trump stoking racial tensions, they're going to lose. Full stop. This country is not willing to accept a woman President. Heck, I'm willing to bet that Obama was a fluke and the voters won't vote in a minority as President again, at least not in my lifetime.
- You could say also they’d rather select that than a qualified “person”. Should no opposition ever run again? Or is it clear that she was not chosen because of her gender? Maybe so, but that feels to me like it completely overlooks that there could be anything about her personality or positions responsible.
  I’m not comfortable saying AOC or any other woman is a non-starter because other women have failed. A lot of people have failed before and at some point perhaps one will be selected. I think she would be a good choice, and more appealing to many than Kamala, I suspect.
- Maybe people didn't vote for Clinton and Harris because both are complicit in war crimes?
  
  After doing weeks of phone banking and door knocking, my read is that it was the economy and being unwilling to break the mould. They were more of the same and they were uninspiring.
  It was so rare that I would run into people who wanted to talk about foreign policy.
  
  You're a fool if you think that's the reason why.
  The average American voter doesn't give a shit about brown people dying in the Middle East.
  It's only about your football team winning, oh and women are too "emotional".
  
  Nope. We only use identity politics to explain political failings here.
  /s

Our nation is too sexist and too racist for AOC to win. I'll still vote for her if she runs.
- "We've tried running two shitlib women with 'status-quo' platforms during a time when the public is crying out for economic change, and they both lost. That proves women can't win, because it couldn't possibly be about our abject refusal to rein in the billionaires!" --- shit liberals say
- Nothing to do with racism and sexism . Your electoral system simply suck. Hillary won the popular votes and harris lost by only 2.3m it;s nothing for a population of 340 millions
  
  So one just lost, and the other lost because of the vote distributions were not in her favor: sexist/racist state electoral votes were needed that she didn't get. I stand unrefuted.
- Pretty much.
  If it was just a feeling with Hilary, then it's absolutely true with Kamala.
  The excuses like "Kamala is pro-cop!" Or "Hilary is evil", while it can be true, is also what sexists latch on to avoid being called sexists.
  And for icing on the cake, a bunch of hispanic dudes voted for Trump and then are getting deported. Sexism runs so deep that it clouded their own survival.
  
  The excuses like "Kamala is pro-cop!" Or "Hilary is evil", while it can be true, is also what sexists latch on to avoid being called sexists.
  You remind me of people calling anybody criticizing Israel anti smite. While it true that sexists would use it most people really believe that they can't support them for their policies and priorities
  
  Yep — because she is a woman, people with create reasons why they can’t vote for her. Hilary and Kamala were both fine politicians. Most that did not vote for either of them are just afraid to confess they’re real beliefs, so they just pick a narrative and run with it because it makes them appear more sophisticated than a “I hate women” statement.

As a non-American, electing AOC as president would be the way to speed run the repair of America's reputation internationally.
- I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don't really care about fixing our international reputation atm. I'm worried about stopping the country from falling apart first. We can fix all the international stuff after.
  
  I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don't really care about fixing our international reputation atm. I'm worried about stopping the country from falling apart first. We can fix all the international stuff after.
  This will be a rather gentle rebuke:
  AOC being elected president would not only be the most direct way of making the day to day lives of all Americans better, it would be the quickest route to restoring America's status on the world stage. It would all happen simultaneously.

screeching that she’s “NOT qualified for office,” that she’s “stupid” and the “dumbest,” while defending his own intelligence by noting he “ACED” a cognitive test doctors use to determine if an elderly person’s dementia has gotten so bad they need to be put in full-time care
God, this guy loves bragging about "acing" his cognitive tests.
- Dr: "Ok, you passed: you have normal, average, cognitive function"
  Trump: "Just ACED my cognitive TEST. The DOCTOR SAYS I had the MOST BEAUTIFUL, most TREMENDOUS results in history, ever. He says 'I see people take this test all the time, and your results are the greatest'"
  
  My results were so good, I even listed some things they didn't tell me about
- So they only tested him to see if he doesn't need full time care? So they checked if he can wipe his own ass and dress himself? THATS the baseline to be the POTUS?! Holy shit, that's some baseline. At least give him a driving test. 🤮
  
  Look up the Mini Mental, and that is basically what he aced.
- We would've seen this coming had his zygote been able to brag about being the last one standing - aka the only "viable" candidate.

I love AOC but I don't think she'll win. She needs to focus on Schumer instead. Rn the DNC is in a death spiral and is in desperate need of new party leadership. She's the one for that. Newsom will likely be the 2028 candidate. Which yeah it's gonna suck to have to bite our tongue and back him but if it gets us out of a maga dictatorship then I'll gladly do it.

I think AOC would make for a much better Presidential Candidate in 2036 or 2042, after a term or two in Chuck's Senate seat. (Or maybe even as VP)
But, she is still a good candidate right now, and the next election will be crucial for the country. If 2028 AOC is the best option for Democrats, we should run with it. I would definitely sooner vote for her than the Next One Up for Democrats.
- Harris/Newsom 2028 because “it’s their turn”
- I agree. I want to see AOC have long-term influence over the Democratic party. We're going to need significant reconstruction over the next 4-8 years, and I personally think she would be a bit wasted in that role.
  That said, we don't really have an alternative well positioned to run in '28 except Bernie, and I wouldn't blame him for not running (or people being upset about another 80+ year old president).
- She would have been better than tan Hillary, she was exactly 35. An establishment centrist was proven a bad choice in 2016.

I feel like we try to shoehorn our political heroes into running for president. Why not senator? Why not speaker of the house, even? Speaker of the house is arguable more powerful than President in the democratic party - she has the power to shape the priorities and strategies of the entire party. Nancy Pelosi is probably more influential over the state of the Democratic party than Joe Biden or Barrack Obama were
- An even moderately progressive speaker would be monumental, but unfortunately we the people don't pick the speaker.

More like how there should be a coup now. lol.

Run? In 2028?
What election?
- Unless you're planning on taking up arms, we have to assume there will be one until there isn't.

She should definitely run, but Democrat will certainly find a way to fuck it up, just like they did with Bernie.
- Gerontocracy cannot be allowed to continue to dominate Democratic party primaries

I have nothing but absolute respect for AOC and I would love to see her as President and I would certainly vote for her. However, I can think of only one person that would attract more vitriol from the right, and the media at large, than HIllary Clinton and that is AOC. Aside from convincing the misogynistic masses to vote for a woman, she'd have to convince them to vote for one who will be endlessly labeled in the media as a Socialist and Communist. And the masses will eat that up with no more understanding of the terms than the talking heads that will spew them across the airwaves and internet. She would have an uphill battle of biblical proportions just to win the Democratic primary.
On the other hand, I would trust AOC to run a better campaign than Hillary did. If any woman could get elected president in this country, it would be AOC. She would not blow off the working class and lurch to the center to try and court disaffected republicans. I also think AOC would do a good job sticking to issues and throwing republican failures back in their faces.
Having said all that, I don't know if '28 will be her time to shine. Hell, it's hard to make any call with confidence since Trump has about three and a half years to continue his rampage across this nation and there's just no way to forecast what the situation will be like come primary season. At this point, I would be happier to see another candidate lead the ticket. One with similar positions to AOC but more palatable to those masses I mentioned above. The only one I really like right now is Illinois' J.B. Pritzker.
I know he's a billionaire but his actions in Illinois since he became governor show he is a good one. He has been pro-worker, pro-LGBTQ+, pro-choice, and has used his fortune to support progressive candidates. He is also pro-campaign finance reform because he doesn't think people like him should be buying elections. He has also donated millions of dollars to organizations across the nation to help the left thwart republican plans to enact draconian anti-choice laws. If you're not familiar with Pritzker, I suggest you look him up and see what he has accomplished since getting elected in Illinois.
If I could have any ticket in 2028, it would probably be a Pritzker/AOC ticket and I think they would wipe the floor with the right by focusing on issues that matter to people rather than kowtowing to mega-donors.
- Clinton / Harris did not lose because they were women. They lost because they either were a neoliberal shitbag (Clinton) or could not convince people that they were not a neoliberal shitbag (Harris).
  We elected a black man after years of people saying America was too racist to ever do that. There are a lot more women in America than there are black people, and it turns out that running as a progressive is pretty popular.
  We don't need to play this stupid guessing game about what genitals or skin colors will win elections. We already know the policy positions that win elections we just categorically refuse to run on them.
  
  That's a narrative pushed here a lot, but I haven't seen good evidence it is true.
  Wasn't Obama a neoliberal shitbag by your standards?
- Pritzker is good, as evidenced by the "Pritzker sucks" signs found across rural Illinois. My concern would be who would replace him as governor.
  
  It would be a hit for Illinois, that's true, but a win for the nation would be worth it to me.

No.
I like AOC and I think she has demonstrated that, of the entire "Squad", she actually knows how to be a politician and when to fight and when to bite her tongue.
She has zero chance of winning. First, this country has demonstrated that it will NEVER elect a woman. But second, she is still too young and the DNC will never give her that "Obama Moment" where she can win over the entire country in one speech. And third... republicans hate her so much that she would get shot at every single week AND would actually care about the people who took bullets for her.
Nah. I want AOC to stay in Congress. Not sure if she is more valuable as a Senator at this point, but she is increasingly showing she is well suited to being the politician who rallies and guides the other politicians. A Pelosi but not 90 years old and constantly pushing centrist viewpoints.

Depends if the corporate shilling is in order?

She wouldn't win. The U.S. has shown the world twice that it would rather elect a convicted felon dictator over a women. The U.S. is fucked.

I would love AOC as president. Unfortunately, she's a woman and she's a minority, and this country is just too racist and sexist - and stupid! - to elect her.
- All those things but mostly stupid

111 comments