AOC Reportedly Gearing Up for Big 2028 Campaign
AOC Reportedly Gearing Up for Big 2028 Campaign
www.mediaite.com
AOC Reportedly Gearing Up for Big 2028 Campaign
236 comments
-
-
Schumer better just retire
-
Should have done it in the last election.
-
She was barely old enough to run then.
-
i dont think she was old enough
-
She was born 10/13/89 so she was just old enough.
-
She was, her birthday is in October while the election was in November.
-
-
-
I would get my US citizenship to vote for her.
-
I think this is the point she should start fearing for her life.
A car accident or random violence could always just, y'know, happen.
-
That's a very fair fear. 2 dead demos 1 almost kid napped that wacko that charged the white house and all the bombs that got sent to Obama.
-
Also Kirk Advenger whacko's. Her and Bernie along with progressive YouTubers are probably the top of their list.
-
It's rumored that the CIA hacked Michael Hasting's car and killed him before he could expose the CIA Director.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Controversy_over_alleged_foul_play
Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that what is known about the crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack." He was quoted as saying: "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers—including the United States—know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber attack on [Hastings'] car — and I'm not saying there was, I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."
-
I have never forgotten that case, and remote control of cars has been demonstrated IRL in the time since, so I'm definitely convinced of the possibility.
-
Oh wow - haven’t heard about this in a minute. I was in Los Angeles for an internship when this happened and I remember how weird the circumstances of his death were. Thanks for the reminder!
-
-
-
Only if she can win. Whoever it is, HAS to win.
-
Only
ifshe can win.FTFY. Centrists are unelectable. Don't fall for their "only the middle can win" scam. That scam lost us 2016, 2024, and it would have lost us 2020 if not for covid. Clintonism is a dead strategy designed for the world of 30 years ago. Yet centrist Dems continue the "only we can win" scam, demanding we ignore the evidence we have seen with our own eyes.
-
There are others who can win, but she has strong chances yes
-
-
-
I can't wait for the DNC to pull a 2016 and tank her campaign for someone more "moderate"
-
By god, it’s Hillary Clinton for a twelfth attempt at the Presidency! It’s HER TURN
-
Joe Biden returning with his hair dyed black like Creed in that one episode of The Office.
-
-
More manly candidate
-
Newsom, probably
-
-
At this rate, there might already be civil war or at least no regular elections anymore in the US.
-
We're already in it chief, just because there's no factions warring on the streets doesn't mean shit, there's stochastic terrorism happening on a regular basis, there's secret police disappearing people from their homes in the cover of darkness, and there's militias training for the next push forward. A fascist trained today, did you?
-
Ye the Democratic party is being paid to do nothing and let the technofasicsts take full control. If elections do happen they will be rigged.
-
-
AOC would receive my vote.
-
It doesn’t matter. IF there are any elections again, they’ll be rigged
-
Defeatism doesn't help anyone. It's worth trying, at least. It might not be reliable as the only action any more, but that doesn't disqualify it entirely.
-
-
-
The DNC will absolutely shit all over her efforts. They'd rather lose the elections than have a progressive win.
-
Have you seen Democratic party approval ratings? They can shit on her all they want and it will only help her win.
-
And yet they've lost in every way you can lose. If we don't have a good candidate like AOC, then the GOP will dominate.
-
It's a shame but they probably will.
-
Democratic voters don't want to waste their votes on another unelectable female presidential candidate.
-
This Democratic voter would love to vote for a young, promising, progressive candidate though
-
No, the people currently in the Democratic party don't want to rock the boat and maintain status quo. They have cushy jobs they don't want to lose to people that actually want to help fix things so they'll stand in the way in any way they can.
-
I'm not saying that Americans won't think "oh, a third? really?" but you have to remember that Kamala fucking sucked. She was a pacifier the Biden administration threw at us to shut us up about him stepping down, and she knew she was, and if she cared at all, she lacked the strength to step out of line or say anything about it. Nobody believed she would meaningfully change their lives—that's ultimately why she lost.
She lost to the fascist head of the new project 2025, and in her closing speech said something about the stars in the night sky and went on vacation. Pointing out that she's a woman before pointing out that she and the rest of her democrat cohorts do not have any beliefs is absurd.
-
I agree with your statement but I mean that I want AOC instead of another unelectable female candidate.
-
As much as I'd love her to be president ... I agree - this country is not ready for a female president.
-
-
-
Adorable that these people don’t think that this election won’t see even more voting fraud than the last one.
I mean, if the last one was stolen, why wouldn’t the next one be, as well? He’s going to have three more years to build systems that ensure a permanent Republican ascendency.
-
Cool theory. Not helpful.
We have to assume there'll be an election until there isn't.
-
Cool theory.
Not a theory. (2) (3) There are now lawsuits in motion due to this.
-
-
-
To all the "pragmatic" Americans will never vote for a woman crowd... There are already women in high positions of government all around the world, including Italy, not exactly a bastion of progressiveness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Current_heads_of_state_or_government
Hillary Clinton and Harris lost because they were terrible. Maybe the Dems should run a candidate who's not terrible??
-
Michelle Obama would crush Trump... But unsurprisingly the dems would rather lose.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
-
Michelle Obama only polls well because of name recognition, she's essentially a non-political figure.
What's her position on the genocide in Gaza? What's her take on universal healthcare? What's her plan for Ukraine? Would she fight for gun control? Etc etc...
Right now, people can imprint their personal beliefs onto Michelle. If she would run, she would have to clarify all of her political positions, and then her poll numbers would naturally drop.
-
-
The "never women" crowd would never vote for a progressive candidate to begin with, so I don't think it really matters.
-
Clinton and Harris lost because
they supported the status quo of people not being able to afford things!they like genocide!they're WOMEN! -
The "people will never vote for a woman" crowd is sort of right. A woman will never be elected with the current DNC, but only because they view a woman candidate as an excuse to be shittier. They think their base will hold their nose and vote for a worse candidate just because of what's in her pants.
AOC might get elected because she's interesting on her own merits and has enough name recognition to not be buried by the DNC. They'll do their best to prevent it though.
-
The “never a woman” crowd confuses me because I’ve never seen a president or my father take his dick out to fix anything.
-
I will direct you to Johnson.
-
Now I'm confused
-
-
-
Really hope she does run for POTUS. She'd make a great President.
-
Have u learned nothing from the last 10 years. America is simply too racist and sexist and stupid, so fucking stupid, to accomplish this. She will probably be a great Commander in the Rebel Alliance though. In the coming civil war.
-
Michelle Obama would have trounced Trump... but the dems would rather lose than abandon fascism.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
-
She'd look pretty hot in a revolutionary commando outfit...
:logs into deviantart:
-
Kamala lost because she was an awful candidate, not because she was a woman.
-
If the means of political power is cynicism then the ends will be fascism.
-
-
-
she’s gonna have to primary gavin probably
-
That's really sad and gross.
-
If Gavin is the Democratic nominee, the country is 100% over. Even if he wins, another spineless corporate neoliberal will not be up to the job ahead.
-
-
I like AOC a lot. She started as any other member of The Squad but has actually learned how politics work and is doing a, mostly, spectacular job of balancing ideology, the will of her constituents, and generation of political capital. In so many ways, she is what Sanders would have been if he got his head out of his ass twenty some odd years ago.
If she runs for POTUS in 2028, she is a god damned idiot. I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS. But she is also still quite young but has almost an entire Hilary Clinton worth of chud-hate and attacks. Whereas Senate makes perfect sense for her.
That said? I could see a world where AOC could... once again be the anti-Bernie. Run for POTUS in the primary. Energize basically the entire youth of the nation. Then lose and immediately endorse the winner while leveraging her influence to get important action items on the ticket. But... I want AOC as a leader and not just as the bait and switch.
-
I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS.
USA has no problem electing a woman (see below). But I am still skeptical the dems will EVER nominate a non-fascist for president.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
-
I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS.
I'm not sure that's a reasonable takeaway from the last two times a woman was a major party nominee.
Hillary Clinton was not especially charismatic, which is arguably what wins general elections in most cases. She was also unpopular with progressive Democrats, and widely seen as having secured the nomination unfairly when Sanders might have been both more popular with the party and a stronger general election candidate.
Kamala Harris was severely handicapped by the combination of being nominated without a primary process, starting her campaign very late, and positioning herself as a continuation of Biden at a time when Biden's popularity was very low.
If AOC were to win the nomination, she would be in a much stronger position for the general election than either Clinton or Harris.
-
Agreed. When people say they lost cuz America is too racist or sexist I think they miss out what bad candidates we had each time. Either bad in who they are, how they ran the campaign, or factors outside them that killed the campaign, or all 3
-
Biden himself ran for president and won on the third shot. But, since two woman ran for president and lost, thats a sign that no woman can get elected.
Its not that women can't win. Its that centrist dems than run on the status quo when the Democratic party is polling abysmally can't win.
-
Yeah, thank you. The problem with Hillary and Kamala is nobody liked them. Now sure you can argue " maybe people didn't like them because they're women and they have a bias against women". I never heard anybody online saying " wow! I would sure love to have Kamala as president but I just don't think other people will vote for her". I see lots of people saying that about AOC. At some point you have to look around and be like oh wait...lots of people are saying they'd vote for her.
-
Honestly, I think unfortunately gender/sex does play a factor, in addition to race. If this administration has taught us anything, is that there is that much hate within our country.
Also think of cultures where historically their culture doesnt value women. Even if there are people who immigrated here, some still may never vote for a woman. Some will decline because they are racist. While we are all Americans, we are deeply deeply divided ATM :(
This is without even factoring the candidates political platform in yet.
-
Yeah, I think there is a substantial portion of Americans who won't ever vote for a woman, but I think it was still just a small part of the larger issues in both their campaigns
-
If charisma wins elections how did Trump win?
Edit: forgot that he most likely didn't, at least the second time. Still, how did his potatoe charisma get him the first win?
-
Still a big risk to take. We need progressives to win at least the next two elections to have any shot at winding back the damage from two Trump administrations and a largely impotent Biden administration.
But I agree that if she wins the primary, that's the part that really matters and what Harris was missing.
-
Both Hillary and Kamala were unenthusiastic campaigners, depending on democrats to anoint to victory. AOC isn't very popular outside of the northeast, and she doesn't appear fiery enough to excite those who don't know her.
-
-
Worth noting as I almost missed it myself from not RTFA, but: AOC is "gearing up for a big campaign for a bigger office in 2028 -- they're just not sure which."
I align with your view that I really thought AOC would be better to primary against Schumer. Not only is it arguably more attainable, it addresses our problem with stagnant Congressional AIPAC-representing leadership.
That said, I part ways in the belief that a female president is not capable of being elected for a couple of reasons which I'll try to lay out point-by-point:
- There is no actual evidence that a gender-bias led to Kamala's loss that I have seen.
- The Venn Diagram join of sexist misogynistic bigots and Never-Dem deep-red maga is a circle; in other words, we were never going to get these people no matter if we put Trump fused with Reagan in and mirrored their platform word-for-word.
- Willingness to vote for a female President has been historically tracked:
Public willingness to vote for a woman
In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.
In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970's and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.
Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.
-
I think there were many contributing factors to Kamala's loss, but I I think this is pretty low if non-existent among them, and it risks gatekeeping qualified, charismatic candidates like AOC out of fear of past milquetoast candidates that were unpopular from the outset and deeply lacking in charisma.
-
I think part of the problem for the Hillary and Harris campaigns were that they were running for the status quo at a time when that wasn't working. Both Obama and Biden ran on change and, while it wasn't the amount of change people wanted, it was at least a recognition that things need to shift.
-
Replacing Schumer would be a big step forward,
-
Funny that you say she’d be an idiot for running in 2028, then present a great case for why she might run in 2028…
You’re right, though, that Senate would be the right move. But that has its own disadvantages. If Schumer doesn’t retire, it would be very tough to beat him.
Being a losing presidential candidate could raise your profile. I’m not sure the same applies to a senate candidate.
Also, I would say the hate for AOC is much different than the hate for Hillary. There were plenty of liberals that hated Hillary (🙋♂️). I don’t think this applies as much to AOC. The hate is coming exclusively from the right.
-
Couldn’t disagree with you more.
AOC for the win
-
AOC would make an amazing VP pick. Could bring a lot of energy to a campaign and get youth/working class support. Then transition that into a presidential campaign later on.
-
And who would you pick for president? Even VP AOC couldn’t make me pick Newsom
-
the vice presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss
John Nance garner, former vice president to FDR (before truman)
-
Ehhhhhh
People have a very weird idea of what the veep actually is. In theory, it is the person waiting in the wings, learning from the POTUS, picking up the slack, and preparing to take command if needed. In practice? It is someone The Party saddled the POTUS with and is an active threat to their legitimacy and legacy. For the past few decades, the frigging First Lady seems to have more accomplishments than most VPOTUSes.
And considering that Biden became increasingly infirm over his term and there are good odds trump straight up dies in office (woo!), a lot of eyes will be on the VP. Which has good odds of triggering the palin effect of "oh dear god... what if the old white guy dies and we are left with THAT?!?!?"
With a POTUS who genuinely likes AOC and believes in her politics? Yeah, it would be spectacular. In the world and DNC we live in... expect the same "What the hell did she even do?" smear campaign Kamala has been getting since late 2023 (I wonder why).
-
-
be the anti-Bernie. Run for POTUS in the primary. Energize basically the entire youth of the nation. Then lose and immediately endorse the winner while leveraging her influence to get important action items on the ticket
How the fuck would doing EXACTLY what Bernie did make her "the anti-bernie"?
-
I get what you're saying but consider that her participation in the primary will energize progressives. If she really has the courage, immediately after the 2026 election she should announce that she's forming a progressive party. Get people like Tim Waltz, Katie Porter, and others on board. But my guess they lack the numbers to really pull numbers away from the correct Democratic party.
That said, I could see a Waltz/AOC ticket being hugely popular.
-
I like AOC a lot.
You are on lemmy letting us know how much you like someone with million of followers refusing to even make an account on decentralized social media
-
skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman
narrator: And they never did...
-
She started as any other member of The Squad but has actually learned how politics work and is doing a, mostly, spectacular job of balancing ideology, the will of her constituents, and generation of political capital.
She only had to, you know, compromise on genocide and not ever get anything done. AOC is nice to have, but if she is what it looks like when a progressive "learns how politics works," then I'd rather progressives not learn how politics work.
If she runs for POTUS in 2028, she is a god damned idiot. I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS. But she is also still quite young but has almost an entire Hilary Clinton worth of chud-hate and attacks.
Harris had a ton of support early on so being a woman isn't a decisive factor, and AOC-hating chuds were never going to vote blue.
-
I am not going to pretend I agree with how AOC handled the Anti-semitism Panel or whatever it was.
But I will say this: NYC tends to be very Jewish and Jewish friendly. And people are stupid. Explaining "I am opposed to anti-semitism but I am not opposed to anti-zionism. Okay, let me explain to you what the difference is" isn't going to fly. Hell, just look around any message board (including these) and see what happens if you actually link someone to an article or page explaining why they misunderstood something.
And... a lot of the verbiage early on (mostly when Hamas still had any meaningful capabilities in the region) really WERE crossing the line. Stuff like "from the river to the sea" is really hard to support in a good faith reading of the conflict in the region. Which is why most politicians have stopped using phrases like that while arguing for Palestinian survival.
Which gets back to the realities of politics. In theory, an elected official is there not to push their own politics but to represent the will of the people who elected them. And if it is going to take a ten minute history lesson to explain why you snubbed a panel on Anti-Semitism to the people who voted for you...
Which is also why all of this is so insidious. Because the zionists know that they have these actually very reasonable stances to take and use them to cover for genocide.
But, as the DSA themselves admit in that press release, AOC has voted heavily in favor of Palestine in many resolutions.
-
-
-
I'd be happy to see her win. But, I don't think she would have a real shot in 2028.
Even just ignoring the fact that she's a woman, relatively young and has non-centrist positions. It's not common for people whose only political experience is in congress to win the presidency.
- Biden: Senator then VP
- Obama: Senator
- Dubya: Governor
- Clinton: Governor
- Bush: VP
- Reagan: Governor
- Carter: Governor
- Ford: VP
- Johnson: VP
- JFK: Senator
- Eisenhower: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; Military governor of American-occupied sector of Germany
- Truman: Senator then briefly VP
- FDR: Governor
- Hoover: Secretary of commerce, Director of the United States Food Administration
- Coolidge: Governor then VP
- Harding: LT Governor then Senator
- Wilson: Governor
- Taft: Governor of Cuba, Governor-General of the Philippines
- Roosevelt: Governor then VP
- McKinley: Governor
- Cleveland: Governor
- Harrison: Senator
- Cleveland: Governor
IMO, she really should first run for Governor of NY. Especially if Mamdami wins and she has a strong ally as mayor of NYC. Even a short term as Governor of NYC would give her experience as an executive, which she currently lacks.
-
Maybe I'm an old timer around these parts, but I remember these same exact arguments being used against Obama. "He's only been a senator for two years, and what was he before that, a """community organizer"""?"
In fact, I'm pretty sure she's got more political experience, on a national scale, than he did at the point where he as nominated.
-
This list is missing 45/47. If you add his qualifications to the list, then I guess reality show host, felon, rapist, etc are also presidential qualifications, but congressperson is still not one? I think it's safe to say all norms are out the window now and past performance is not anything to bet on going forward.
-
Hochul is towing the line well enough for now, and there's a progressive state politician who's potential run has kept her in check. I'd much rather see AOC primary Schumer.
-
If the goal is to have some good democratic legislators, then probably AOC taking out Schumer would be good. If the goal is to have AOC elected president, she could use some experience as a governor.
-
-
Biden was VP
-
Good point.
-
-
There are two ways this can go
- AOC is sabotaged in the primary like Bernie, she loses
- AOC somehow wins the primary, shes than sabotaged by her own party during the general election and loses.
-
The billionaires would probably run a liberal coded centrist in the general just to take votes form her.
-
There are many other parties they can join that won't boycott them, if they stay there it's because they are fine with it.
-
Its too bad nobody will be allowed to vote freely by 2028 and she will lose. Too little too late.
-
I mean 2028 is the first presidential election she's eligible to run for
-
Oh we'll be allowed to vote, but it will all be counted as a vote for the R candidates. Also AOC will probably be locked up and on death row when they claim she's the head of antifa.
-
If i can make them have to work even just a little bit harder to game the votes then it's worth it to me.
-
Maybe she will run in Canada?
-
-
Right now I'm more interested in 2026. We need to be out there volunteering and promoting the DNC to hold seats and remove the GOP.
-
Yeah next year has to happen bigly or there will definitely be no 2028
-
-
The only thing I know for sure is that if the DNC has their druthers, (and there's an election at all) they will run a straight, white man.
-
According to Axios’s Alex Thompson, Ocasio-Cortez and her political operation are laying the groundwork for a campaign to either succeed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or win the White House.
Two very different things. I know I’d vote for her if her name ever was on a ballot.
-
I think people underestimate how powerful it is to have a candidate that is even moderately attractive. Democrats are obsessed with running the oldest dinosaur they have because it’s “their turn”
-
Except when you realize that the last five Republican presidents have looked like: Annoying Orange with a cobweb toupee and a perfectly cylindrical body; the guy who bullied literally everyone in high school; an unholy combination of Jeff Daniels, age 70 on the right side and Jeff Daniels, age 40 on the left side; a washed up movie star with too many hours under the warming lamp; and the villain in a teen movie about having a bake sale to save the local dance hall.
-
Be honest with yourself. Of the candidates that have run in the last 20 years, who was the “most” attractive? Keeping in mind the majority of voters are boomers. With the exception of Kamala, the “attractive” candidate won. Hell go back even further, Al Gore won the popular vote, Clinton before that. You could argue that to win the presidency you just have to be the most attractive.
-
-
People are shallow, this is true
-
running the oldest dinosaur they have because it’s “their turn”
Nothing says "in touch with the needs of the American People" like making sure to enforce the written rules and unwritten customs of the line of noble succession everybody is waiting in. But they're lined up to take turns on a ride that burned down long ago.
-
-
The next three years will be interesting, to say the least.
-
im pretty sick of interesting.
-
How I long for a boring election year in America
-
-
Years? The next three months are gonna be batshit insane
-
we live in interesting times
-
-
-
I'll campaign for her as hard as I did for Bernie - and I was whole of body when I first campaigned for Bernie. I'll break what remains of this body if it means increasing her chances of victory incrementally.
But we'll have to survive 'til then. That's not guaranteed, unfortunately.
-
We need an army of progressive young people willing to be one term politicians in every state
-
Young people need to know and care about their neighbors and community first. Everyone is so disconnected now. Everyone is an island. Everyone is just watching Rome burn.
Joining a local group and meeting regularly to discuss these things is one of the most powerful things we could start with.
The wave of local candidates we need will come from these groups as leaders naturally emerge.
-
-
I want to be selfish, I want New York to keep her a while longer. Chuck needs to retire already and she needs to replace him for at least 2 terms. She'll still be plenty young enough to run for VP or President after that. Maybe by then people will vote for a woman President....
-
As if there will be an election in 2028
-
she's going to kiss the zionist ring. just watch
-
She's the next Bernie. Her purpose is to sheepdog leftists back into the Democratic party, which is far from democratic. The Dems are basically queer Nazis.
-
Oh Jesus. I mean, I’m with you that the Democratic Party is rotten. And I agree no politician will save us. But even a progressive dem is better than anything else we have on offer.
I get it, voting itself is tainted, politics are completely off the rails, dems are nothing but pink republicans…but Jesus. Let us at least get someone who doesn’t have their head so far up corpo’s ass that might be able to put a dent in the way the game is played. I bet you have something to say about mamdani too?
-
Jesus dude. You all are so damn negative. The jokes about the left are pretty much all dead on. The left hate each other for not being far enough left. I'm on here for progressive conversation but people like you make me not want it. Reading shit like this from other "leftists" is exhausting. You probably wouldn't support Karl Marx if he cut his right hand off because he still had a right foot.
Unification of the left is the only way to progress. Dividing the left is how the right consistently wins.
-
-
Maybe she should try doing a 2026 campaign.
-
For what exactly? Presidential election is in 2028
-
O yea? Who's going to guarantee it? Not the supreme court, not Congress and not the president for sure.
Is anyone really, seriously, still expecting fair elections will happen in 2028? They are already at the "the first amendment doesn't matter" stage. Do they look like they value democracy?
You need change now. I'm not saying it needs to be violent or undemocratic, but waiting around for 3 years is no plan to save your country
-
-
-
She is the only one I'll vote for. No compromise. AOC or no vote.
-
I love her, she's my Congressional Rep, but my vote is going to the candidate who very clearly articulates that the primary mission of their presidency will be to ruthlessly and mercilessly purge the MAGA Scourge from America, including imprisoning Trump, and ALL his henchmen, including his family.
Everybody in the Trump administration is a National Security Threat, and should treated as such. They should be rounded up and sent to Gitmo, to be extensively interrogated about their treason and corruption. None of them should ever breathe free air again. Several of them should not even breathe again.
My candidate is the one who will finally say that America can't move forward until the MAGA Party is declared a terrorist hate group, and prohibited from existing, and the Conservative Propaganda Machine is dismantled and their propagandists imprisoned for treason.
Only then can we move on to dealing with the Sociopathic Oligarchs.
-
For real, until we crack down on the corruption there simply can't be any real improvement.
-
Any candidate that says this outloud would very likely fall out of the nearest window.
The republicans know they are guitly, they know they should be in jail. They will do ANYTHING to stay in power and out of jail.
-
-
What a stupid take
-
-
She'd never win.
Not because she's a woman.
Not because she isn't white.
Not because she's more socialist than most.
She'll never win because every time she decides to not tank her entire political career and thus the entire movement behind her, the moronic delusions of leftists who think she can 1-woman revolution her ass to ending capitalism forever but chooses not to, overwhelms the public narrative.
Nobody hates the left winning more than the left, and you can see this every time AOC chooses to wisely and strategically navigate the political landscape instead of acting like a screaming banshee of a college trustfund psuedo-leftist trying to score some proletariat pussy.
-
If anything she won't win because she doesn't know how to act like the main character. She should be the spiritual leader of the Democratic party right now, and she easily could be by picking a fight with Schumer
When he passed the funding bill, he basically guaranteed the death of the party as it is. It's historically unpopular, everyone hates them and what they stand for - including their base
Solidarity means an end to your political career right now, people are very clear in what they want. If she had the sauce to be a leader, she wouldn't be waiting her turn... She'd already be leading
-
-
Bro still thinks there's going to be an election 💀
-
These defeatist shitposts are how consent is created
Who even needs the feds to have an election? The government didn't give you the right.
-
-
She had a propalestine blunder. Republicans will make sure to balloon that up if she were to get close to presidency. Dems need a candidate who is pro palestinian, and progressive with a tinge of socialism.
-
What was the blunder?
-
-
i would vote for her 100% but i dont think she would win. america has an institutionalized bias against women in higher office. the only way i see this changing is the president dying and a woman vp taking over.
-
No. She will not win. This has to stop. Democrats are just fucking off and giving MAGA the win, and likely inviting a Trump 3rd term.
It's not about her politics, it's about her gender. A big chunk of the voting population, probably close to 20%, will not vote for a woman president.
-
I don't think there's any data to prove that. There have only been two women ever nominated by a major party, and they both had substantial electoral problems absent their gender.
Remember, a "big chunk of the voting population" would never vote for a reality TV show host. Or for a Black man. Or for the son of a previous president. Or for a movie star. Or for a Catholic. Or for someone who had never served in the armed forces. Or for someone who wasn't supported by the Southern states. Or for someone who wasn't from one of the 13 original colonies. Or for someone from the Whig party. Or for someone who wasn't alive during the Revolution. ---in each case, until it happened.
47 (really 45, Cleveland and Trump being one person but having two administrations each) just isn't a big enough number to draw any statistical significance from. And we've elected women to every other elected office for decades. And other countries that are no more progressive than we are have elected women.
I'm not saying that women wouldn't have to excel to beat a merely-adequate man in a presidential race; but for a good candidate, their gender isn't as much of a drag on the vote as a ton of other factors.
-
-
Honestly, as much as i dont like the "Hillary and Kamala lost because theyre women!!" Narrative, i think enough people have convinced themselves that its true that the safer bet is just to run AOC as VP and have someone more appealing to your average old white guy democrat as the PoTUS. I think Waltz would be a pretty good pick in that regard, but hell i would take Newsom (or anyone really) at this point.
-
She's gearing up to be top sheepdog with Bernie handing over the reins to her.
236 comments
I just hope their primaries keep some unity and don’t make her or Newson losing votes depending on the pick. Dems are too split inside and I could see neo-liberals not voting for her or lefties not voting for Newson. If Dems can’t find unity they will not win.
I consider myself a neoliberal, and I am going to vote for AOC. I have grown quite fond of her over the years and she is quite the politician these days. She’s extremely sharp and polished. I think she’s ready.
Neo-Liberaliam / Economic Liberalism is part of what got Trump elected. The sense that Capitalism was beyond the reach of meaningful governance, and will always just aid the wealthy getting wealthier - creates a hunger for more radical change regardless of direction (left or right).
People end up just wanting radical change out of frustration, regardless of what direction that change takes. They just want a break in unrelenting Capitalism.
Which explains why for many, Bernie, AOC, and Trump, were all likable/popular at the same time.
Newsome as moderating force will prevent any strong shift back away from Trump's unregulated Capitalism, and is hence a huge danger to the politics of equilibrium. It's ratchet theory.
... Neo-Liberals should be embarrassed to admit who they are, because they caused this, by claiming that Capitalism and deregulation is a moderate position (steering the ship of state between the left and the right) - when infact that's an economic extremist viewpoint which excuses inept government and the corruptions of money... which when perpetuated infinitum as it is, is the cause of voter radicalism.
Neo-Liberal economic policies create the unshifting corruption and two tier "too big to fail, too rich to jail" system that people want to vote against.
In this sense Newsome is dead weight, representing Bidenism 2.0. Neo-Liberal should be ashamed of themselves for not just accepting their part in creating this quagmire, but continuing it.