I think the bigger problem isn’t that she’s a young talented woman and America isn’t ready for that, I think the DNC is too stupid to ever let it happen even if it means winning because she likely won’t play as much ball with them as they’d want. My money is still on the DNC pushing Buttigieg. I believe they will offer any major opponents the same kind of offer I believe he got when he was crushing Biden in the early states. Drop out, make way for the anointed one, and we’ll give you a cabinet position and a shot down the line (maybe). The DNC will absolutely go younger, but I do not believe they’ll ever go progressive, which is why they will never get my vote again until they do.
Aoc 2028 baby
don’t usually pay attention 3 years out. VP pick could be key.
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.
We’ve gotta do everything we can to prevent a Newsom or other craven neoliberal lunatic from getting the nomination, otherwise we are going to get a much much worse traitor lunatic next time around.
America will not vote a minority woman as President in this century. They would never even vote for a woman.
Right candidate, wrong country.
I think there’s something to that, but I think with a sufficient mass movement behind it, such a candidate could overcome the obvious treason.
both just did the exact same strategy that always costs the dems elections. Hilary won the popular vote, remember?
Popular vote isn’t enough in the United states. Also, Hilary is Bill’s wife. That’s part of why she got as many votes as she did. If I was American, I would vote for AOC but I know she’d never win. A woman of colour has no chance down there. I hate saying it, but it is what it is.
deleted by creator
Yes, and as many of us need to say it as possible or they will ratfuck their way to running an unelectable republican-lite in the general.
That’s not what they said at all.
That’s how parties that don’t actually serve the majority end up dying. It’s a flaw in democracy that it can be so easily corrupted by the wealthy classes.
It ends up all being a sham, then a shame, then a dictatorship.
No, of course I would vote against the Republican if the Democrat were Newsom, that’s just common sense. I’m saying that we need to do everything we can to prevent him from being the nominee now, while we can still affect things.
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 - created a hunger for radical change.
People end up just wanting radical change out of frustration, regardless of what direction that change takes (left or right). They just want a break in unrelenting Capitalism.
Which explains why for many, Bernie, AOC, and Trump, were all likable/popular choices at the same time.
Newsome as a moderating figure will prevent any strong shift away from the service of Capitalism as above all else, and hence is a huge danger to the politics of equilibrium. It’s ratchet theory, keeps things stuck.
… 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… and when perpetuated infinitum as it is, it becomes 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-Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for not just accepting their part in creating the quagmire, but wanting to continue it.
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, her birthday is in October while the election was in November.
She was born 10/13/89 so she was just old enough.
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!
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
I would get my US citizenship to vote for her.
The DNC will absolutely shit all over her efforts. They’d rather lose the elections than have a progressive 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.
Have you seen Democratic party approval ratings? They can shit on her all they want and it will only help her win.
It’s a shame but they probably will.
Democratic voters don’t want to waste their votes on another unelectable female presidential candidate.
I want to vote for AOC and I’ve been registered Democrat since 2016.
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.
Not with that attitude it isn’t. It also wasn’t ready for a black man to be president, a Catholic man, a disabled man, a gay man, etc.
Also, in 2016 the majority of Americans did vote for a female president. This indicates perhaps it wasn’t the right candidate rather than the wrong time.
Time after time we put our heads on the chopping block thinking this Tim it will be different. Do me a favor, save this and let me know how it goes if she somehow gets the nod from the DNC which she won’t. But if she does and once again we lose to a repub you let me know how that went. I’ve heard plenty of women say they don’t want a woman in office. I don’t agree. But this country is not yet enlightened enough to make that happen.
Do you even realize that Hillary and Harris have similarities that aren’t tits? What voters don’t want is another corporate sellout.
News flash - most voters aren’t us progressives.
What does being a progressive have to do with it? They aren’t liberals either. They are elitists and corporatists, and most voters aren’t that either.
Except when you actually talk about policy they are. Ask someone “would you rather have free healthcare or means-tested subsidies for employer-sponored insurance purchased through 1 of 50 state-run websites. The plans change every year.” “Should anyone be able to go to college without worrying about debt? Or should almost everyone take on random amounts of debt, and have no idea what that debt will be until they’ve already applied?”
I get where you are coming from, but I am not sure I agree. It would definitely be something to behold if it happened.
I do share some of your pessimism about this though. I to think that AOC may be shunned by the DNC neo liberals.
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.
At this rate, there might already be civil war or at least no regulär 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.
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??
The “never women” crowd would never vote for a progressive candidate to begin with, so I don’t think it really matters.
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.
Clinton and Harris lost because
they supported the status quo of people not being able to afford things!they like genocide!they’re WOMEN!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 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
This is the one tool a man has that a woman does not. So if men are somehow more in tune with leadership then it must be related to using their dick. Or something like that.
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
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.
AOC has a message that people want is a key thing. Harris kept it too safe to really sway anyone that wasn’t already sold, unfortunately. That’s not to say Harris didn’t have a published policy list, but it wasn’t what people were seeing or hearing. If Harris came out as a progressive, which I believe she was, then I think she would have swayed middle America.
The problem I think is that harris said she was going to continue Bidens economic policy when a lot of people really are feeling like the economic policy from both sides is benefiting only the wealthy. If any policy helps the little guy then it is such a minor help that it goes unrecognized.
Inequality skyrocketing, wages stagnating, and then you say you want to continue the policy? Not great campaign. Trump lost in 2020 and won in 2016 and 2024 because he was anti status quo. Most people don’t really care about “all the other” stuff and are too stupid to realize anything outside of “do I want change RIGHT NOW?” and then vote yes or no based on that
We also have to ask ourselves why no one liked them. Some of it can be attributed to sexism and or racism, yes. But I think we can attribute a lot of the unpopularity of those candidates to their lack of charisma, weak seeming positions and advocacy on progressive points of interest (such as Gaza, the Palestinians, border climate change, etc), and what seemed like stupid meddling and sabotage by the consultant class.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
I like when people claim racism was a major factor in Harris’s loss, given that Obama was elected in 2008 with a larger piece of the popular vote than any President since.
It was one of many factors. Obama winning didn’t prove that racism didn’t exist. He won despite the racism. Harris had racism, sexism, a lack of a primary process, the lack of experience as an executive, and so on against her.
In a lot of ways, Obama winning kind of broke the country.
He was a Democrat that people genuinely loved because of how charismatic he was (which was REAL nice after Dubyah…). Or, as a certain Former President put it, he was a Clean And Articulate Gentleman.
The problem being, his very existence set off all the chuds. It completely destroyed their minds that a black man could possibly be President. And it is a big chunk of what set for the “never again” mindset we are seeing.
Obama winning didn’t prove that racism didn’t exist.
But it did prove that racism does not have enough of an impact to move the needle in any substantial way—it failed so hard to move the needle that, again, literally no candidate since has even matched, let alone topped, his popular vote %.
But it did prove that racism does not have enough of an impact to move the needle in any substantial way
Are you sure? Maybe Obama would have swept all 50 states if it hadn’t been for the racism. Maybe the only reason it was at all close was the racism.
Given the close margins I would say it surely played at least a part for Harris losing. Obama won by large enough margins that even if all the racists stayed home that he still won in a landslide.
If even 2% of the population would never vote for a women or a person of color then it was enough to have mattered when others are sitting home for other reasons. It’s certainly not the main cause of Harris losing as you pointed out, but when the margins were that close every vote did matter.
Given that, while Trump got ~3 million more votes in 2024 vs. 2020, and Harris got nearly 7 million fewer votes in 2024 than Biden did in 2020, and that the US’s population increased about 8 million in that span of time, are you suggesting that there’s that much misogyny and racism among the Democrats?
The total population is not the total voting population. There was also a pandemic between 2020 and 2024 so I would expect the total amount of eligible voters would be different as a result of the pandemic.
I think that’s an uncharitable takeaway from what I’m talking about to say that the misogyny and racism were the core reasons that Harris got less votes. There were notable other factors that made it a close election, which I mentioned was the case. My point was more that because the margins were that close that those smaller details did matter more.
deleted by creator
If even 2% of the population would never vote for a women or a person of color then it was enough to have mattered
I suspect the majority of that 2% would also never vote for a Democrat.
I believe that you are mostly correct, although the actual motivations for these folks are complicated. Some may value a few extra bucks in government support, having social security, and having Medicare programs. So there are some economic reasons they may vote for Democrats on occasion, but their bigotry could get in the way of their best interest.
So, some of those people probably just stay home for election night. While a good chunk may be getting convinced to vote for Republicans if they feel their bigotry is being rewarded.
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?
Have you seen the man work a crowd?
His antics don’t work on you, or on me, or likely on most people you or I would be friends with. They clearly work on a huge swath of the population though, or we wouldn’t be where we are today.
Work a crowd, as in talking barely comprehensible gibberish and hurling insults at people? So charismatic…
2016 Trump ran on the idea of being the good businessman who was going to clean up the swamp and get this
company’scountry’s act together. Just like any other CEO selling to investors. I have friends who, halfway into his campaign, were like, “I kinda like this Trump guy, he tells it like it is,” and by the time of the election they had completely 180’d on him because of the details of what he was promising.One of these friends is super into cults and true crime, and he says that listening to Trump is eerie because he sounds exactly like Jim Jones. Then, and now. Back then he sounded like Jim Jones in his prime (and read Hitler’s speeches as bedtime stories according to an ex-wife, which would explain why all his campaign promises match up with Hitler’s). Today, he sounds like Jim Jones making his death speeches while you can hear them forcing the cultists to drink the Flavor-Aid and gasping, choking, and dying in the background of the recordings.
The people who liked Trump the first time and didn’t change their minds then were never going to change their minds the second time. They’ve already bought into the cult. And that’s what Trump is - a cult leader. He promises them a solution to their misery by giving them an obvious target to take their aggression out on, and people eat it up because they want a simple solution that absolves them of any blame.
ran on the idea of being a good businessman
How could anyone buy that, given his well known complete failure as a businessman? Only a stupid person would.
Anyway, it’s besides the point of our main discussion. I don’t know who Jim Jones is, and you’re right about Trump’s populism and MAGA being a cult, that still doesn’t make him charismatic though.
Jim Jones, of the Jonestown Massacre. The cult leader who we got the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” from (though they actually were too poor to get Kool-Aid and they laced Flavor-Aid, the off brand version, with cyanide instead). When he started out, he was actually a very influential Civil Rights activist who is responsible for the policies that would later become the foundation of the civil rights laws in his home city. But he later became a crazy cult leader and by the time of the cult’s mass suicide, he ranted like Trump does today.
As for how anybody could believe that Trump’s a good businessman, many people only know him as that guy from The Apprentice, not the businessman who has bankrupted multiple casinos, an airline company (and beauty pageant for young girls who he flew around the country with in his private plane - just him, the girls, and a man by the name of Epstein), and who couldn’t even sell steaks to Americans.
Don’t kid yourself. It takes a ton of charisma to lead a cult of personality.
trump back in 2016 was genuinely charismatic… to his base. He was able to quickly spin nonsense schoolyard bully insults against anyone who went up against him (“Little marco rubio” and so forth). Combine that with Hilary having almost two decades of smear campaign tactics against her at that point and not committing one way or another towards decorum or “you fuckers are weird” and… yeah.
trump in 2024 won because the left blames Biden for the economy and the chuds wanted their hitler back.
That’s not charisma… maybe little kids would find that impressive, although I doubt it.
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’m wondering if Gallup has tried asking if people would vote for a woman if she made it clear she intended to help the citizens of the country and not the oligarchs who own everything.
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.
This is the same take I have. Both Hillary and Kamala are slimy neolibs, exactly the kind of people that nobody trusts. Gavin Newsom is the same and would be a catastrophic nomination. AOC would have a real shot, especially if she sticks to her grass-roots techniques and reaches people face-to-face. No debates, no mass media, just homegrown down-to-earth human energy.
But what am I talking about, there won’t be any more elections. The fascists have taken over and dismantled everything from the federal to local levels. The cancer, having been fed instead of removed, is now terminal.
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.
She could easily beat schumer. I never met another nyer who likes that guy. Largely he wins now because nobody (or nobodies) primary him, and the alternative is a republican which just is not an option right now.
Schumer has seniority in the Senate, which is why many have not tried to primary him.
Seniority is a big deal in the Senate in terms of committee assignments. Just because AOC could replace Schumer’s seat, it does not mean that she will gain the current amount of power that he has for a long time. Now it may well be worth replacing his seat just so the current spokesperson for Dems in the Senate changes, but it’s not going to be AOC for a while.
An alternative is for her to grow to become the Speaker of the House, which she could do by continuing to stay in her current role over the next several decades.
Otherwise, she may look at a run for Governor, although then that is much less federally focused.
She could run for President or take on the role for VP. If she were to be VP, I think it would almost guarantee she would be able to win the Presidency at some point. Although, if she joined an administration that caused a lot of baggage, like Harris received from being VP to Biden, then it would make that route more difficult.
It’s a risk, though. She may decide the risk isn’t worth it.
Also, she this may all be an attempt by AOC to make Schumer rethink running in 2028. I don’t honestly know if he is planning on running anyway.
The far right of the country will never vote for a woman unless its a psychopathic maga woman. Then they just might…
The far right isn’t voting for any democrat though.
I honestly think if she ran for president it would be about raising her public profile. There’s many republicans and democrats whose names I know only because they ran for president.
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
Pritzker
Hey good news! *gestures to All This*
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).
Couldn’t disagree with you more.
AOC for the win
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.
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.
That is literally what Mamdani did. And it, in fact, flew.
Stuff like “from the river to the sea” is really hard to support in a good faith reading of the conflict in the region.
You seem to be well-meaning, but that’s Zionist propaganda. The full phrase is “Palestine will be free, trom the river to the sea,” and there is literally nothing objectionable about this. It’s not like Palestinians within Israel aren’t also living under apartheid, so the phrase is very appropriate. Also I see no evidence at all that rhetoric around Palestine has gotten less radical as time went on.
Which is why most politicians have stopped using phrases like that while arguing for Palestinian survival.
Except the most progressive of them—you knowz the crowd to which AOC supposedly belongs. There are people who will he tricked by this sort of Zionist propaganda, but usually those tend to not support progressive politics in general, so this is a problem that solves itself.
I hope Mamdani proves he can pull it off. We’ll see what happens in the general. And I really hope he can continue to push a hard line once he gets on a stage where bills are so intertwined that it is nigh impossible to NOT support evil in the form of pork and the like.
My suspicion is that we are going to see a lot of concessions at even the Mayoral level. Let alone if he moves on to Congress. My hope is that we have actually achieved progress (hey, look at that) and the baseline of education has advanced that we can continue to push the line farther and further and actually oppose anti-semitism while also vehemently opposing zionism.
You seem to be well-meaning, but that’s Zionist propaganda. The full phrase is “Palestine will be free, trom the river to the sea,” and there is literally nothing objectionable about this.
It is Zionist propaganda in that the Zionists actually said it too in the past as justification/motivation for stealing the land from Palestine et al to begin with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
There are definitely well meaning individuals who use that and I don’t think it inherently means someone is part of Hamas or the IDF. But it is a phrase that literally began as Zionist propaganda to justify their occupation of the region and it is one that, in most readings, fundamentally precludes a two state solution. It is saying that the entirety of the region must belong to one group/subset of groups.
Now, whether a two state solution has been possible for closer to 50 years than not is a much more depressing topic. But when your statement of peace is also largely synonymous with past and present efforts to ethnically cleanse a region… maybe pick some different words.
Which… brings us back to the balance of politics and ideology and not trusting the masses to sit and listen to your long winded explanation of why your slogan just sounds bad but is actually good when you use it.
You don’t have to explain it. Puritans will always find fault. It’s why they’ll also never hold power to do the things they want.
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.
I don’t mean voter fraud is the theory. Yes, obviously it definitely happened and will happen again. I mean the commonly-repeated theory that there “won’t be an election” next year. That is a great way to just capitulate the election in advance.
Honestly I might have replied to the wrong comment. I’m sorry.
I mean the commonly-repeated theory that there “won’t be an election” next year.
Oh, there WILL BE “elections”. They need the circus spectacle to justify their existence.
But with Trump’s cronies in control of ballot machines, where votes can be deleted or altered after the fact, future elections are likely to be entirely performative; a thin veneer of legitimacy papering over a massive edifice of fraud and rot.
Trump could legitimately get zero votes and the voting system will still show him with a landslide victory. That’s their objective, after all. It’s torn straight from the Chinese and North Korea and Nazi Germany playbooks.
Just stop with this. It’s a form of obeying in advance: buying into the despair of nothing being possible, and everything being broken.
Their plan is to make it seem like there’s no point in fighting so nobody does, but if we give up the fight three years out we’re just conceding that ground to them.
Yes, they’re going to cheat. So we have to make it impossible for them to manipulate. Yes, they might try to make it look like a landslide anyway. So we have to be ready to take every single possible thing all the way through the courts.
Yes, the Supreme Court is a captured entity as well. So we have to overwhelm and clog up the apparatus they’re using to make it do horrible things and force everyone from the poll worker all the way up to the SCOTUS justice to publicly go on record and say “voter fraud is ok.” Then, when fascism falls (and it always does, don’t kid yourself) we know who to throw in jail first.
Don’t give up in advance. They want you to love Big Orange Brother or fear Big Orange Brother with every fiber of your being; either way, you’ll never stand up to him.
We assume there’s an election until there isn’t. We assume it’s fair (or fair-ish) until we have proof it isn’t. Anything less is saying “eh, you can have this one.”
Do you have facts to support that voter fraud occurred? Good faith question on my part. From the security people I follow that lean towards it didn’t happen. If it and there are facts it would be good to know. People I primarily follow with background in security are Matt Blaze Brian Krebs Thanks
The links I have are on my computer and that’s at work, sorry. The one thing I can tell you for certain is that Musk’s media manipulation on Twitter constituted voter fraud. There are a ton of rumors about more direct manipulation, a lot of which I find unconvincing, but some of which I think merit further investigation.
