Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused establishment Democrats of treating her “like shit” as progressive activists urged her to run for president in 2028.
In a 100-minute long video posted on Instagram, the 37-year-old congresswoman from New York said that the party had a “remarkable opportunity” to pass left-wing policies after the midterm elections. She also accused the party’s leadership of starving funds from left-wing candidates during the campaign.
“There’s this huge conversation about candidates that were under invested in,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She cited Angie Nixon, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who came within 240,000 votes of flipping Florida from red to blue, but ultimately lost to the Republican candidate Ashley Moody.
“If Angie Nixon had just had a little bit of that support, that outcome could have changed. But that money has to come from somewhere and it comes from these people,” Ocasio-Cortez said in reference to the party’s Senate leadership.
Reflecting on the period after she was first elected to Congress in 2018 at the age of 29, Ocasio-Cortez accused senior Democrats of being “horrifically cruel” to her. “I mean I was treated like shit,” she said. “Everybody took a swing at me.”
The Bronx congresswoman is seen as the likeliest progressive candidate to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028.
I’m in Australia thinking that the only people the old Baby boomers and Gen X Democrats aren’t cruel to is Republicans and Israel.
But that pretty much links up with my workplace (minus the Israel).
Old people Haaate everyone under the age of 30… 40… 50 I realised today that I’m a year older than AOC… I don’t remember a time where my generation wasn’t hated by older generations…
Sorry let’s be fair my Nana loved me immensely and she thought we were all great but she was part of the great generation (the people who gave birth to baby boomers).
I’ve got more to say but what I have to say about AI, tech and old people could fill a book almost as long as the book I could write about cyclists and their hypocrisy (FYI I’m always careful of cyclists when I’m driving. Just wish they could be as careful of children playing in a park… But cyclists don’t care about people slower than them… I need to write a book)
Dead link. Meh.
For those of us paywalled out and looking for the video, I think I found it.
I am not on Instagram, but I found it via another article. Yesterday, November 9, AOC posted a live on her IG reels that explained the process of selecting a new Speaker of the House, and it is 100 minutes long, so I’m pretty sure this is it.
I use igram.mx to view and download Instagram reels, for those of us who do not use Meta products at all. Put her username “aoc” in the searchbox, it will take you to her profile, and right now it’s the one in the top center with her pointing to a white board with a dry erase marker. You might have to pass a quick bot check; I always do on that site.
Thank you! I thought all the frontends were dead.
I will vote for her in the primary and happily the general election if she wins the primary. I certainly hope she does.
I’d consider voting for her in the general even if she lost the primary.
If only we had ranked choice voting nationwide
It’s as obvious to them as it is to us. It would be naive to think they don’t know. At this point everyone against RCV is telling us who they really support by their actions.
AOC supports ranked choice voting and that’s why she’ll likely get my vote.
‘…Anyway, that’s why I’m excited to give Hakeem Jefferies my full and unconditioned support.’
(Did the article mention this? It’s paywalled for me.)
I can defend that. Jeffries is a nonentity; house democrats have been able to walk past him for 2 years. Schumer is far more of a problem, and has the contacts and connections to ratfuck anyone over anything. When Schumer wants to raise money and whip for Israel, he opens his Rolodex. When Jeffries wants to raise money and whip for Israel, he asks Schumer to open his Rolodex. Both need to go, but ousting Schumer as majority leader is step 1 towards that. You can disagree with the political calculus on that, but there is political calculus on that.
I’m not a parliamentary expert, but that doesn’t sound correct to me.
Doesn’t the speaker control who chairs each committee and what legislation makes it to the floor?
As speaker, Jeffries can – and will – put allies as chairs of committees to make sure that Medicare for All never gets out of committee. He could single-handedly prevent a vote to abolish ICE from taking place, even if a majority were in support. The speaker is third in line of succession to the presidency, and is arguably the most powerful position in the federal government after the President.
I don’t think your characterization matches reality at all.
Thats unfortunately not even a little surprising
Her honesty and directness are so refreshing. I wish I could be more like her, just a totally good pure person. It also seems like she genuinely tries hard, like her success is not without extreme effort.
No such a thing as a “totally good pure person”. You can praise people without lying to yourself, it’s possible I promise . She deserves more intellectually honest praise than “she’s perfect and without flaw”
‘Pure’ is nonexistent drivel. No human is ‘pure’ anything. Its dehumanizing. She’s human. She’s imperfect. She gets the job done and has a good heart. She’s not pure in anything.
I don’t know…it’s hard to think Stephen Miller isn’t pure hobbit Nosferatu.
It’s a choice, she chooses that path, every time. Repeatedly, regardless of what she faces, she tries to make the best choices in that situation. And the more you do that the better you get at it. It sounds simple, in writing it out, but it’s usually the hardest choice. It’s choosing to stick to your guns, regardless of social ostracism.
Repeatedly, regardless of what she faces, she tries to make the best choices in that situation
Including voting against the bill to discontinue funding for the Zionazi state’s Iron Dome?
(Edit: My mistake, she actually voted "Present’, and her excuse was basically “the bill didn’t do enough so I decided we should do nothing at all”. Very Democrat of her indeed.)
It was chess. She sent a long letter to her constituents explaining why she went from no to present.
There was a lot on the table they were fighting for in a republican led congress.
Dems pressured her hard to vote yes, and she needed them to synchronize to try to rescue “The Build Back Better package”
The bill was rushed in to create a political wedge
finally her vote was not actually affecing the outcome, so it was pure political capitalI don’t give a fuck about your “chess” during genocide. You vote to stop the mass ethnic cleansing of human beings or you don’t. And if you don’t, fuck you, in the least uncertain of terms.
How often have you been in a position where you had to chose between results and principles?
Politicians who stand unflinchingly on their convictions do not serve the people. You will never hear the voices of those who fell on their swords to avoid going against their morals, for they are dead and their swords are buried in what could have been our ally.
Well lookie here, another fine blocked user, good riddance
liberals when they encounter principles: BLOCKED
No concessions on Genocide support.
good for you, nothing to see here
People pointed out that any financial support frees up budgets for offensive weapons and she changed her stance. (Or maybe it was the backlash in general.) I don’t know what votes have come up since.
Her honesty, directness, and willingness to continue using our taxpayer dollars to continue funding ‘defensive’ weapons for an apartheid occupation determined by the UN to be guilty of genocide.
(Edit: My mistake, she actually voted "Present’, and her excuse was basically “the bill didn’t do enough so I decided we should do nothing at all”. Very Democrat of her indeed.)
A 100 minute video from AOC? I’d love to watch it, why would she only post it to Instagram? Are there any mirrors out there?
^ yes. Elected officials speaking about elected stuff should never post to closed platforms only.
Why in the hell twitter was ever used for emergency management / communication, particularly exclusively, was a mystery to me
“Exclusively” is def a problem, but it makes perfect sense to put important stuff where the people are.
She meets people where they are. People are, unfortunately, on instagram
She should post her stuff on lemmy. All 15 of us would be so happy and informed
Found a mirror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFqWmoyDN1s
I remember Pelosi especially was vicious. AOC didn’t get brave again for a year + after that shit. Great point about Angie, she would have won with minimal support. We need to form a 3rd party, enough is enough.
Nah, take over the Democratic party from the inside. Like the tea party did, which paved the way for maga inside the Republican party. Without first fixing our voting system, third parties do nothing but harm
I kind of agree with you in principle, but the tea party was an astroturf movement so a very different situation. A progressive takeover of the Democratic party could get much more ugly. That solid majority the Dems now enjoy, includes not just DINOs like Fetterman, but also centrist/establishment types like Schumer and Pelosi, of which there are probably still very many. These people publicly tolerate progressives because it is currently politically expedient to do so, but they are facing an existential threat to their kind of politics (the kind where you sell your soul to corporate donors and AIPAC). I wouldn’t be surprised if they break ranks and side with the GOP, rather than surrender control of their party to a progressive agenda.
I want it to happen, just don’t expect it will happen without a hard and dirty fight. The powers behind the political establishment do NOT want this.
The tea party did that with the blessing and funding of oligarchs. Leftists don’t have oligarch funding.
How about taking over the Democratic Party? That process is already underway, let’s keep it going
We need to form a 3rd party, enough is enough.
“How Republicans Never Lost an Election Again: The Realities of Vote-Splitting”
Might I suggest the Working Families Party instead of forming a new one? Just make sure to take into account the realities of FPtP voting, if your district hasn’t implemented a better system.
I remember her speaking about this quite candidly not too long ago (I want to say last year or two but time flies these days) about going into a side room off the House chamber and seeing herself giving an interview on a major outlet, and a fellow Democrat – knowing she was there – just shaking his head at the TV.
That cruelty exemplifies what is wrong with the party, and precisely why the likes of Schumer and Jeffries must go.
She needs to overhaul the party. I kind of lean toward her primarying Schumer, but I am amicable to a 2028 run. Whichever she decides, I’m with her.
If she doesn’t, the best compromise I can see that can viably win is probably Ossoff, which given what he said here I think is generally the right message to carry forward.
Edit: I do think it’s worth pointing out that she of course wouldn’t even be viable under the Republican ticket. That like Sanders, she chooses to caucus with Democrats for good reason. Perfect? No. Better? Undeniably so. On every single issue, frankly.
That said, the 2028 Democratic Primaries are officially on, and it’s time to make Democrats a little more perfect.
Their unabashed support for Israel, including AOC’s decision to vote against discontinuing Iron Dome funding (in other words, if you remove the double-negative, voting to continue funding it), seems like a bit more apt exemplification of “what is wrong with the party” than someone shaking their head at a TV.
She’s part of the problem. Ilhan Omar is a much stronger example.
(Edit: My mistake, she actually voted "Present’, and her excuse was basically “the bill didn’t do enough so I decided we should do nothing at all”. Very Democrat of her indeed.)
I have no problem with AOC’s ethical stance — mirroring that of El-Sayed’s recent words himself noting protecting all children, including Israeli children. The needle can be threaded, and I condemn just as much those child deaths on O7 as I do the greater atrocity by Israel that came after, proportionally. Only the humane would.
Additionally AOC would later state that Israel can fund its own defensive systems and refused to further provide such aid. Presumably this is in part due to the risk of Israel misappropriating these resources as well.
Overall AOC rarely misses the mark, and I’m no single-issue voter. Climate Change, Women’s Rights, LGBTQ+ rights, Healthcare, Support for Ukraine against the Ruzzian genocide, Campaign Finance / Election Reform, protection for immigrants, etc. — there is a lot to consider, and even within the framework of Palestinian human rights, we wouldn’t have a problem standing up to Israel if every person in Congress was like her.
We need to remind ourselves too that Democrats are better for civilians than Republicans in every way and end more wars than they start, at least in the past 30 or so years. For example, Trump with Musk’s help gutted USAID, which has now led to over 600,000 civilians deaths in just a year’s time, and continuously rising. That dwarfs the deaths in Gaza and Ukraine, combined. Naturally one atrocity does not detract from another, but it’s important to put into context the Greater Evil in what is often an inevitably binary-choice outcome for elections. In other words, never let perfect be the enemy of better.
I have no problem with AOC’s ethical stance — mirroring that of El-Sayed’s recent words himself noting protecting all children, including Israeli children.
Problem: The less resources Israel has to spend on its own defense the more it can spend on offense. Maybe Israel wouldn’t keep oppressing Palestinians if it didn’t have the wealthiest countries in the world protecting it from the resulting blowback. It’s not pretty but the math is clear: Any funding or support at all for the IDF enables it to kill more Palestinians.
First, given the technological and military gap, Israeli children are under no threat at all compared to Palestinian children. And second, calling for the dismantling of Israel and the creation of a multi-ethnic democratic Palestine would do more to protect all children than giving Israel the means to continue their genocide. Israel, as a settler colonial project, invites violent resistance against itself. Israeli would be more safe if the Israeli state didn’t exist.
mirroring that of El-Sayed’s recent words himself noting protecting all children, including Israeli children
The existence of israel guarantees the continued death of Palestinian children. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.
The rest of your points are fair but I don’t trust her. I don’t trust any Democrat (or other politician) unconditionally, but Ilhan Omar is by far in the lead for me. I hope I’m wrong about AOC but that vote tells me she’s more of a political opportunist than a truly principled person - and changing when the winds blow differently could support that conclusion just as much as it could support the conclusion that she saw the error of her ways.
For example, Trump with Musk’s help gutted USAID, which has now led to over 600,000 civilians deaths in just a year’s time, and continuously rising. That dwarfs the deaths in Gaza and Ukraine, combined. Naturally one atrocity does not detract from another, but it’s important to put into context the Greater Evil in what is often an inevitably binary-choice outcome for elections.
Right, but the weak leadership of the Democrats (and their corruption in rigging the primaries against their populist uprising in the form of Bernie Sanders) enabled Trump’s rise. So it’s binary in the narrative, but under an oligarchy, it’s really just one choice (so no choice) with different theatrical performances attached.
I think my opinion of Israel and its future existence as a state is independent of Hamas murdering children — regardless of nationality. I’m fairly sure El-Sayed would say something similar.
I do greatly appreciate Ilhan Omar as well, don’t get me wrong! She’s just not in a position to challenge Schumer.
Right, but the weak leadership of the Democrats (and their corruption in rigging the primaries against their populist uprising in the form of Bernie Sanders) enabled Trump’s rise. So it’s binary in the narrative, but under an oligarchy, it’s really just one choice (so no choice) with different theatrical performances attached.
But that’s not the opinion of the very guy for whom they allegedly rigged against, is it?
By all means, I think we have our work cut out for us to clean Democrats up, but the likes of Bernie’s acolyte, AOC, is by no means the problem. Very low if not next to last on the totem pole.
Also I don’t find it performative when we know if Harris won, 600,000 people would be alive who now are not. When we’d still be in the JCPOA and not have bombed an Iranian school and more. When we’d still be in the WHO. When we’d still be in the Paris Climate Agreement.
I’m not sure what you mean by the first line. My meaning is you don’t get to frame enabling Israel’s continued existence via funding for the Iron Dome as being about some sort of net-effect of protecting children when Israel’s mere existence guarantees the opposite, as demonstrated again and again throughout history.
Indeed, Bernie’s movement outgrew him, starting from the day he caved and endorsed Biden. And look what that got us: I was duped into voting for genocide, in the name of “lesser evil” politics. That paradigm is how we ended up in a world where the “lesser evil” is “maybe they’d do a little less genocide than the other guy.”
Harris promised the “most lethal fighting force in the history of the world” or whatever the quote was, and promised “no deviation” from Biden’s openly-genocidal policies. You can dream of a kinder genocidaire, I’ll dream of the end of genocide and empire.
Well I think the cart is being put before the horse; for we must deal with the present reality instead of far-fetched idealism: Israel exists, and that fact isn’t changing anytime soon. If we want to talk about net data: then providing defensive missiles so errant rockets don’t strike civilians isn’t necessarily a bad thing because ultimately a net-reduction of child deaths occur. The absence of funding for the Iron Dome further yields no evidence as to the damage wrought by Israel (e.g., Iranian and Hamas missiles have in no way shape or form deterred Israel from carrying out its offensive strikes of genocide).
It just leads to a net-increase in civilian deaths, overall.
When each child’s life is sacred, I can see why one would advocate to mitigate all. Either way, I suppose this is water under the bridge considering AOC’s position has since shifted anyway and she’s still better than any Republican – which is why every single true dissenter to the war caucuses with Democrats, at least while in elected office. A few Republicans protest, but mostly from the sidelines and having since been primaried out.
Not sure what you mean with respect to Sanders; for independent of the movement outgrowing Bernie, you do see why Bernie continues to caucus and endorse Democratic candidates under the same principle of “lesser evil” politics? Why the man himself does try to play the game of sitting out of elections or partaking accelerationism? Why Ilhan Omar does the same. Even Ilhan Omar endorsed Harris, rightfully so. So how can they be both sides of the same coin when one side is simply better than the other on practically every issue, including Gaza, USAID, and Ukrainian support?
Some of your quotes from Harris are anachronistic. She went further, called for Palestinian self-determination, ceasefire, and two-state solution. In order to deal with the greater evil of Trump, she had to toe the line on battleground swing states with considerable populations of Jewish supporters who at the time were still somewhat sympathetic to Israel (we all saw what happened to Cori Bush). She got scared, tried to play safe by listening to advisors. In spite of this she was still better (again, see Sanders and Omar’s endorsement).
Disagree with the starting premise. Rhodesia existed. Then it didn’t. Israel must meet the same end.
The old guard has helped republicans turn this country into a facist shit hole.
Yes. They’re all ratchet democrats who are in it only for the corporate dollars.
Honestly you are being too generous. They want the oligarchy to rule this country, they just disagree with Republicans on how to accomplish that.
They think they should throw some crumbs to working people and pay lip service to democracy so the people don’t oppose the. Too much.
It’s “fascist”, and Republicans did that just fine on their own.
Yeah and 75 house Democrats thanked them for it.
Well that is very very fucked up.
Such is the state of a two party state. No room for distinction. You can be black or you can be white. Ain’t that some shit.
Thanks for the spelling correction sweet summer child.
The reddification is complete.
You remind me of Reddit.
She 100% has my vote.
I love her, but Congress needs to change its makeup first to be all progressive and pass progressive legislations that will turn successful before she has any chance of presidency.
As of right now if she would run I expect she would lose. I think people want to give progressives a chance but likely would still be hesitant until progressives prove themselves.
They have.
I’ve literally heard these sentiments my entire life, and progressives keep proving it wrong every time.
The latest was my dad saying, “well of course a progressive could win in New York, but not anywhere else in the country.”
I think the nation has shown multiple times in the past decade that what we really don’t want is another fucking status quo democrat. The country is desperate for change, and if the democrats and people with your sentiment would take their foot off progressives’ necks and stand behind us instead, progressives could actually make this country great (for the first time, btw).
This is exactly why Hillary lost, FWIW. People were tired of establishment dems being in control. They wanted a shakeup. And in response to that, Dems ran the very personification of the establishment. Hillary was the face of everything that people hated about democrats.
As far as the establishment saw it, she had done her time as a good little soldier, paid her dues promptly, sang the party’s songs, danced the party’s dances, and was “owed” the chance at a presidency because of that. Not because she was the best candidate for the people, but because she was the one who best embodied the establishment that Dems wanted to uphold.
Instead, people voted for the candidate who promised exactly what people wanted: A shakeup. Trump wasn’t a good candidate during his first campaign, but he did promise an end to the old status quo. And to a lot of voters, that was the only thing that mattered.
Hillary won the popular vote.
The electoral college screwed you over
Because she campaigned heavily in blue states and neglected the states she actually needed to win. While I’m not a fan of the electoral college, in this case Hillary was intentionally playing the wrong game.
A bit more context on Clinton: The DNC was pretty much broke and their finances were a mess. Clinton came in and cleaned house and raised a bunch of money and basically saved the DNC from total insolvency. In return for saving their asses, her campaign was given a lot of control over the DNC. She had control of finances and hiring and firing.
How did the DNC get in such bad financial shape in the 1st place? Was it just incompetance or was there also fraud? If you’re a high level DNC leader, do you owe Clinton for saving your job or do you owe her for preventing a scandal that could land you in jail?
All this to say, from the outside it looks like “she put in her time, it’s her turn” but from the inside it’s more “we’ve totally fucked up and if we don’t let her take the wheel we will be jobless, disgraced and possibly sued or jailed”
That Clinton fundraising didn’t save the DNC, it destroyed its soul.
Do you think those millions of dollars of corporate cash came without strings? Of course not. After accepting this money, the DNC was all-in on support for the military industrial complex, wall street, health insurers, etc.
This had horrible effects on DNC policy in the following years- supporting the forever wars, abandoning the public option, bailing out wall street while abandoning working people… So many horrible things were set in motion by this Clinton corruption.
Before the Clinton sellout we had one corporate party and one moderate party. After the sellout we only have 2 corporate parties to choose from.
Do you think those millions of dollars of corporate cash came without strings?
No. I do not. And I never said otherwise.
I was not in any way saying that this was a good thing.
Before the Clinton sellout we had one corporate party and one moderate party. After the sellout we only have 2 corporate parties to choose from.
Are you talking about Bill? Cuz the DNC has been all about the donors for a long time. Hillary definitely made it worse (as did citizens united) but they’ve been pretty mid (at best) almost my whole life.
Citizens united was the death of this country
deleted by creator
Bruh, Texas just turned blue. Anything is possible rn.
If you look at the answers to surveys people were providing during voting it looks like top issues were affordability and corruption/concerns about democracy.
Progressives are given a chance and need to deliver on it otherwise they will be treated like trump (remember he promised a lot of that too)
The 2028 might not get the same boost, although I hope it will.
Mamdani has delivered undeniable results, El-Sayed pulled off the impossible and his ideas make sense, not in a Trump way, in a common sense way. Many of these candidates were outspent 20 to one or more and they won, previously thought so unlikely as to be impossible. Bernie and AOC’s rallies were packed in every city, compared to Trump having to pay what little people he had at his rallies. The country is ready and any more arguments to the contrary are not in good faith imo.
1/3rd of Democratic voters this election self-identified as democratic socialists. The days when progressive politics were a minor phenomenon are over. Besides, any successful movement needs to keep making swipes at power even if it doesn’t succeed; these moves are part of what legitimizes it and increases its influence.
Hey, you should probably pick your head up and look at recent election news you’ve apparently missed completely.
Of course. Establishment Democrats are anti-labor, and AOC is pro-labor.
And she’s not a Zionist.
AOC as presidential candidate would prove some interesting things about the voting populus, but it would also bring some interesting things to light about the current state of the power the wealthy hold.
The old DNC could try hard to oppose her. But there isn’t a single Democrat with name recognition on her level.
They can’t argue against her policy stance in a way that people would support a competitor.
They could argue against her age and experience, but I think the voting populace doesn’t give a fuck about that anymore. They could result to other personal attacks like her being Puerto Rican, or a woman.
The GOP would result to scare tactics that, apparently, have finally lost their edge.
What I’m curious about isn’t the stuff we see in the news. Trump and the oligarchs would stop at nothing to prevent her victory. The ultra rich never had nearly as much wealth and power as they do now, and a lot of people conveniently died as they became too popular.
Dems exist to stop leftists. They do it over and over.
That’s a confusing take.
That worked in 2016. That didn’t work in this election. The current DNC chair started his career as an intern working for Paul Wellstone.
Are you suggesting we just do… nothing?
We need to harass our reps until they lose the will to live. Be loud, be annoying and most of all be persistent. Tell them what you want clearly, for example, i don’t want schumer and jeffires in leadership positions, so I’m focusing on that. Also give them an alternate path to vote for, like instead of voting for schumer, please vote for Chris Van Hollen. Then do it again the next day. Phone calls preferably.
Just shouting out Joe Neguse as an alternative to Jeffries. He stopped taking aipac money, he’s generally progressive, already in leadership in the house, and he is black, so it keeps the implicit promise to the congressional black caucus to elect a black speaker.
It’s not about race, it’s about Jeffries.
I’ll look into him, he sounds promising
Why do you think it didn’t work? A few leftists managed to sneak through, but they succeeded in blocking many more in the primaries.
I’d personally rather see her jump to the Senate for a term, or NY Governor, before trying for the presidency. I’d say the same for any House rep. Governors and Senators have the clearest parallels to the office, as executive and foreign-policy roles themselves.
I think AOC is a high-variance candidate - much the same way Trump was in 2016 - and she will either get much more or much less support than expected in the general election.
I think her biggest electoral baggage will be her statements over the years on the ‘Woke 1.0’ items that the electorate soured on. She has moderated her past statements here more recently, which leaves a lot of doubt as to her actual beliefs and policy goals. She’ll be attacked for that from the left and the right, and it will take oxygen away from a progressive economic agenda that would likely be broadly popular if explained well.
Whoever the dem candidate ends up being, I doubt they can rely on the same level of support as the party received in the midterms. 2 years is an eternity in politics and 2028 will likely be defined by some new crisis that isn’t even on our radar right now. If she runs, I’ll likely vote for her (at least, based on who else seems to be running as of now).
We simply don’t have time, we’re in need of that once in a generation leader right now and she’s the best we’ve got.
There are plenty candidates who could jump in and do a great job. The campaign hasn’t even started yet. I genuinely don’t think jumping from the House to President is a good move, someone needs to hold a higher office first to demonstrate their ability to manage a much larger organization than a House office.
The only person ever elected directly from the House was James Garfield in 1880. Most presidents were previously senators or governors. The only person ever elected without holding any prior office was Donald Trump in 2016.
Jon Ossoff
Jon Ossof isn’t a progressive; he’s a spicy centrist. He voted for the Laken Riley Act and his record on Israel while not wholly bad is way too mixed.
I have little idea who this is mostly, but I know he came sort of out of nowhere and has been pushed relentlessly in the media, and that make me suspicious. Why him? Why now? Does he have more corporate-friendly moderate-conservative Democratic views that people with money prefer as the alternative? I genuinely don’t know. I really wonder if conservative money interests are scared of AOC and so they are pushing a more moderate Democrat. I don’t know his policies at all though, so maybe I am wrong?
Definitely check him out, he got elected the same time as Warnock. Look at his record, watch some of his speeches. He’s great.
I don’t know as much about him but everything I have seen/heard is promising.
Yeah I like AOC and would vote for her, but I don’t think 2028 is her year. She has a lot of qualities that each individually could lose support: she’s a woman, non-white, vocally progressive, relatively young, only a Rep, and has a long history of demonization by the right.
None of those traits is particularly damning alone (to the general population, I don’t have a problem with any of it personally), but taken together that’s a lot of hill to climb.
I’d like to see her go for a couple terms in the Senate, which would take care of the “relatively young” and “only a Rep”. Plus, hopefully the landscape shifts more progressive which would make her less of an outlier.
I think 47 year old Senator Cortez is a much better bet than 39 year old Representative Cortez, and I’d rather not spoil the former by pushing the latter.
She has a lot of qualities that each individually could lose support: she’s a woman, non-white, vocally progressive, relatively young, only a Rep, and has a long history of demonization by the right.
There’s simply no evidence that the plausibly Democratic electorate has a problem with any of these. Capturing swing voters is nice but it’s not how elections are won.
The primary two I’m focused on are her age and highest office. She is a 37 year old House Representative.
As others have pointed out, only one other President (Garfield) was just a House Representative, and even he was elected to the Senate. And the youngest president ever elected was JFK at 43.
I’m not betting on the youngest, first female, first House Rep. becoming President. I’ll bet on the first female president when she’s not the youngest and has been Senator or Governor.
Maybe the political landscape will radically change over the next year, I’m not opposed to the idea and that would be awesome honestly. But that’s a lot of firsts to tackle, especially when fascism is so pungent in the air.
Put out a 45+ white male progressive for a term or two, lay some groundwork, and then hit’em with Senator Cortez’s campaign.
I feel like she could win anyway. She’s just a natural star politician. It’s a mix of things: the model looks, the clear explanation of policy, the fact that she is relatable in a way so many are not. I think she’d easily win. I think she’d even do okay with the racists… she’s just that likable. Why not have 2028 be her year? If not 2028, when? There’s always a reason among corporate elite conservative Democrats to avoid someone too helpful to the poor and middle class, isn’t there?
I don’t disagree with her positives, I just think she’s on the young side to win in 2028.
I think she’d even do okay with the racists… she’s just that likable.
I think you underestimate how much the right wing media has demonized her. I like her, you like her, but a lot of people think she’s a dumb waitress.
Why not have 2028 be her year? If not 2028, when?
2036, after a stint in the Senate. She’ll be older, she’ll have experience in the Upper House, it’s just a much better position for a win.
There’s always a reason among corporate elite conservative Democrats to avoid someone too helpful to the poor and middle class, isn’t there?
This isn’t about corporate Democrats, this is about progressives acting strategically. I think it would be much better to run an established progressive Senator or Governor in 2028.
I think you underestimate how much the right wing media has demonized her. I like her, you like her, but a lot of people think she’s a dumb waitress.
Give her the podium to debate a Republican on national TV. No one will think that anymore. It’s easily dealt with, even an advantage. They don’t know her yet, so Republicans think many USA Americans hate her. But she is great, middle America just doesn’t know yet.
I disagree. Yes, I like her, but you’re extremely optimistic about how middle America will react. I fear that your perception is biased by surrounding yourself with progressives, not that I blame you. I implore you to spend more time talking to “average” Americans. A very large number don’t respect her, and think she’s not even qualified for the House. Never mind her credentials, they think she’s a dumb commie waitress.
Many people are going to think that no matter what. I wish it were otherwise, but people talk to me about their political views. She is a very controversial figure. This isn’t speculation, this is talking to actual people about what they believe.
I want her to run, and I want her to win. And the last thing I want is for her to jump the gun on an early run and ruin her future chances. I would’ve liked to see Walz run, but the Harris campaign is an albatross around his neck. I do not want her to suffer the same fate, I want her to actually win when she runs.
Again, she would be 39 in '28. That’s four years younger than JFK, the youngest person ever elected President. That’s going to be too young for a lot of people.
I’d personally rather see her jump to the Senate for a term, or NY Governor, before trying for the presidency. I’d say the same for any House rep. Governors and Senators have the clearest parallels to the office, as executive and foreign-policy roles themselves
only one sitting house rep has been elected president. ONE. garfield, in 1880. a 9-term rep, and at that time he was already chosen by his state legislature to be a senator… so like a ‘senator elect’ today… which he declined when he won his presidential campaign.
We already tried this with Bernie Sanders, the people’s vote don’t matter because the corporations are in danger
Previous losses should not stop us from trying again. The public is shifting. The scenarios are changing in each election cycle.
The public shifted because gas hit $6/gal. I don’t disagree that class consciousness is growing, but I don’t think it’s as prevalent in the real world as it is online. And more importantly, I don’t think the party apparatus of the DNC is remotely ready to hand over power to the progressive wing. They will use their oligarchs’ money to promote right wingers like Newsom.
They didn’t lose the midterms only on gas prices.
The graph of rise in gas prices maps almost perfectly with lost support for the Republicans.
Those two graphs map like 1:1
I agree with you. Things don’t always have nuance and sometimes correlation does equal causation. There was lots of stuff going on, but that was the main thing.
And that is one sad motherfucking state of affairs.
I actually tried to find the stat for you, because I saw it on a dependable news channel and it shocked me because it was like 1:1.
Let me see if I can get Jamie to pull that up for me, hey Jamie!
It’s not the only thing that voters were mad about, but it didn’t help Republicans, that’s for sure.
For sure.
Agreed, there were many things that influenced people in a variety of ways, but cost of living is the one big thing that impacts everybody.
All valid points. Although I think conservatives are the ones who are only upset by the gas prices. I suspect the rest of the normally disengaged public may have become engaged in the midterms for the litany of other good reasons as well.
Conservatives obviously can’t change, but my hope is that the normal people will continue to become more and more upset during the remaining time Trump has in office.
By November 2028, if we stay on this course, we might be primed for another dramatic shift left which could affect some components of DNC leadership.
Ejecting conservatives from DNC leadership is the real test, in my opinion.
I like your hope and I want to agree with it, but I also am wary of assuming that normal people are even as aware of news and politics as much as we would hope, let alone care enough about it to do something. I know I live in a bubble of people who care, and Lemmy obviously is its own very specific bubble. I don’t want to take for granted that the majority of people align with my worldview.
Your fears are valid. My fear has subsided slightly because of the midterms. My hope comes from focusing on the next two years only right now.
Beyond that, I worry for the long-term that we may be unable to make extreme reforms: removing money from politics, ending gerrymandering, reforming SCOTUS, dissolving billionaire control of media, etc.
It all seems overwhelming and unlikely. But an overwhelming progressive push for long enough is exactly what it would take to accomplish it.
I don’t get the hate for Newsom. From what I’ve seen he’s doing a good job.
He is a snake that adopts progressive policies when it suits him, then drops them when the political winds shift if when they threaten capital. He opposed the cali wealth tax. Hes thrown trans kids under the bus retorically.
Newsom has done good things. He was the mayor of San fransisco in like 2002 that issued marriage licenses to gay couples before it was popular or even legal. But he is not our friend and he doesn’t seem to have principled beliefs, just political instincts.
Who is “us”? Friend of whom? We’re not a monolith.
And I hear what you’re saying, but it’s all hearsay to me. I’ve watched his politicking and he’s fighting the good fight, I think. And I’m afraid people are so hypersensitive now that they will interpret anything he does as anti-“them” and just refuse to vote, giving the republicans a very easy fight because nobody is voting.
That’s the plight of a two party state. But if you have something you think particularly he did wrong or was unforgivable, give me the source and I will read up on it and see what it’s about, because I have so far, and I can see what is maneuver and what is a semblance of idealism.
Fighting against a billionaire’s tax, hating on trans people, and sleeping with your best friend’s wife? Count me out! If he’s the candidate, I wouldn’t vote for him.
Listen, I only know what I know from what I see from abroad. Could you provide some links or verification for what you say? Because I read a lot of US news, but it’s a bit much to keep track of, so, for me, from what I’ve read in actual articles, I’ve been on his side for a lot of the more controversial topics, because he’s had some 50/50 decisions, like that one thing with trans…
So the bill was like, you allow gender affirming care AND allow other states to extradite citizens from California from seeking GAC in Ca if they come there specifically for that reason.
Which is extremely fucked up. It’s pork barrelling, as far as I see it, and I think Newsom catches a lot of flak from the queer crowd even though his decisions protect them from nazi state interference…
I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
What? Really? That allowed other states to extradite those in the state specifically for GAC?
He’s a standard corporate Dem that looks out for oligarchs before working people. He recently opposed the ballot measure that would have put a one-time wealth tax on billionaires.
He threw trans people under the bus.
And everyone not in the 0.1%
Not to minimize what he did to us, but to show he’s not only problematic for trans people.
I mean that’s the same single issue shit that the Republicans do with the 2A. What’s the difference? “He’s not 100% perfect, therefore I will refuse to vote for him and let Republicans take a seat that will for sure be worse for my cause”
It’s Palestine all over again
True, true. It was just the first issue that came to mind.
How? How did he do that exactly?
He is fighting against the billionaire tax.
How is he doing that? You got a bill or something he voted against? Because I hear a lot of criticism but not a lot of sources.
Please don’t “google it bro” me, please. I want to know exactly what you guys have a problem with and I have for some time and I never hear anything concrete.
Please mind, I’m not from the USA, I try to keep up as best I can, but from my point of view he has some pretty sensible politics.
Here is the first google result of Gavin Newsom billionaire tax.
deleted by creator
These midterms just proved that numbers are more important than money. It’s not just “possible” to outvote corporate candidates, it should be considered an obligation.
So we should just do nothing
Dude if she becomes president the end times are near.
Aren’t you weirdos into that?
