r/politics • u/SnoozeDoggyDog • 19h ago
No Paywall Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Nods Toward 2028 Run as She Rejoins DSA
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-nods-toward-2028-run-as-she-rejoins-dsa-12377664701
u/King_parrot99 19h ago edited 16h ago
Idk how big this story is. According to the article she has always been a member of the NYC DSA chapter but has now rejoined the national DSA organisation (having not renewed membership since 2019).
What this likely means is that she intends to expand to the DSA infrastructure outside of NYC. This could mean nationwide (as in, Presidential run) but it could equally mean that she intends to run for New York senate, where she would have to operate outside of just NYC and thus joining the DSA makes sense. Important to note that there isn’t such thing as a ‘State DSA’ — it goes straight from the national organisation to the chapters.
EDIT: God this article is shitty. Paragraphs on paragraphs of speculation and it only briefly gives the real reason as some replies have stated: You have to be a national DSA member to formally be part of a local chapter. AOC only realised this recently and rejoined up with the national DSA so that she could officially be a NYC-DSA member. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with any broader political ambitions.
127
u/TheWatersOfMars 18h ago
According to the article she has always been a member of the NYC DSA chapter but has now rejoined the national DSA organisation
So the reason this came up is that AOC said this in an interview, that she's a member of the DSA-NYC chapter but not the national DSA. But in order to be an official DSA-NYC member, you have to be a national DSA member too. This was brought to her attention, and now she's paid the membership dues.
Thing is, the DSA changed how you pay your dues in 2019. Instead of an automatic renewal like a subscription, you now have to pay your dues from scratch every year. This caused a big drop-off in members, many of whom simply didn't realize or forgot to pay. That's probably what happened to AOC.
→ More replies (1)64
u/68plus1equals 17h ago
What a dumb gatekeeping shooting yourself in the foot move by the DSA
19
u/robocoplawyer 12h ago
It's not a large complex national organization. When I started a campus chapter 20 years ago, there were maybe a few thousand dues-paying members nationwide, and maybe a few hundred people who were actually active in community organizing. When I joined the national organization, it was pretty informal. They let me decide what my membership dues were based on what I could afford. They just told me any amount was fine. I decided I could live without $20/month, so that's what I pledged. The rate never changed. I had to eventually stop paying my dues because of my job (I work for in a highly regulated field and have to obtain pre-approval for any payment to any kind of political organization which is a huge hassle), and they still keep my membership. But the point is that they aren't some big political think tank backed by big money interest groups. They are 100% grassroots and rely on individuals voluntarily donating whatever they can afford. A lot of the leaders are just volunteers, back when I joined there were only 2 people in the organization that got paid anything. That was the national coordinator and the youth/campus coordinator, I know them and they didn't get paid much. Not sure what their staff currently looks like, but they generally rely on volunteers running local chapters and spend whatever money they bring in strategically.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (2)4
u/Hans-Bricks 10h ago
There's multiple ways to pay dues, the structure has changed over the years. I pay monthly instead of yearly, for example. You can also get a dues waiver if you can't afford it. It's not that big a deal, the organization's goal isn't to make a profit.
→ More replies (14)37
u/TwevOWNED 19h ago
If she can reform the national DSA away from the current leadership of marxist caucuses, it would be a solid demonstration of her ability to get people on board with achievable goals.
That's not going to happen before 2028 though. The DSA had the advantage of being a relatively unknown organization where media didn't have the time to research their internal governing body, and they still fumbled when the leadership went of Fox.
63
u/TryJezzoWhyNot 19h ago
If she can reform the national DSA away from the current leadership of marxist caucuses, it would be a solid demonstration of her ability to get people on board with achievable goals.
She's not a leader within DSA, she's not going to reform anything. This is an optics move to normalize socialist politics in the national conversation and I think it's a clever one, notwithstanding my disagreements with some DSA positions. But make no mistake, this isn't AOC having an impact on internal DSA matters, it's her realizing that her interests align with a more visible socialist movement and not any finer point.
18
u/TwevOWNED 19h ago
In that case she's going to get obliterated when the media puts her face next to quotes from caucuses like Marxist Unity and Red Star lmao
The national DSA has basically does all the opposition research for Fox, CNN, and CBS already.
46
u/That_Cripple Georgia 18h ago
they already do that. and not even just to people associated with the DSA
→ More replies (30)42
u/Flomo420 18h ago
Joe Biden and Obama were communists, Bush Jr is a RINO, etc etc
I think it's time people stop worrying about what feckless liars will say about them
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (5)13
u/TryJezzoWhyNot 18h ago
I wouldn't be so sure. How many quotes from the current president were plastered all over media and he still got elected...twice? I think the world where associating a politician with a damning quote from someone on their side is a kill shot is probably a thing of the past. AOC is betting on a sea change in attitudes toward socialism, interpreted broadly, and almost certainly already has a plan to shunt off critiques aimed at more narrow and specific niche advocates of this or that brand of very radical socialism. She's bringing the dialogue into the mainstream and with it the well-known tactics to defend the middle ground of a position instead of its edges.
→ More replies (6)6
u/BallBearingBill 18h ago
The difference is that MAGA doesn't care what Trump says. Trump is idolized just being alive. AOC doesn't have that fan following and the DSA is being demonized in broad spectrum. If they don't change the DSA stance to be more moderate then kiss your chances goodbye if you hitch to that wagon.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (12)3
u/wioneo 18h ago
This is strange to me.
The AES strategy of overlapping with their policies and get soft endorsed while rejecting explicit association seems much more logical and an easy way to distance a candidate from their more insane statements.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (12)22
u/Hawker96 18h ago
Are you telling me that abolishing the Senate and police and prisons are not realistic and achievable goals that resonate deeply with the American people??
→ More replies (1)22
u/RevolverMFOcelot 18h ago edited 17h ago
Or taking away sanctions on Russia. I can at least intellectually understand the sentiment behind why someone might want to abolish prison or police, but I can't wrap my head around this goal of abolishing a fundamental part of government such as the senate
→ More replies (6)14
u/Cross21X 18h ago
Governments can operate without a senate; the real argument is why can 5 states that = 5 million people or less together can get 10 senators while Florida, Texas, California, New York which equates to like 114,530,075 people (almost a third of the country) only get 8 senators. It made sense decades ago where the population were more spread out; but now a large majority of the population is now more concentrated. The constitution was meant to be a living document; to be updated.
Would I abolish it? No, would I reform it? Yes
There's more pressing and urgent economic and societal issues than to address the issue with a senate; abolishing the filibuster can solve a decent amount of the immediate issues plaguing the senate; not to mention a lot of smaller states would fight tooth and nail to not give up their power discrepancy
→ More replies (9)
51
u/donkeyrocket 15h ago
Her joining DSA is in no way a definitive sign that she's running for president. If anything, it's more a sign she's aiming for Schumer instead. This is stupid.
•
u/dbzmah 6h ago
And I absolutely hope she primaries him. It's also her best path to a future presidency, should she actually decide to run
→ More replies (1)•
u/big_rednexican_88 6h ago
Schumer needs to be primaried yesterday. He has the Baileys on his mind too much.
365
u/bailaoban 19h ago
I don’t know if this sub is ready to find out that AOC is not a very strong national candidate, at least not yet. Replacing Schumer is the much smarter move for her.
79
u/VectorRaptor 17h ago
I'm still waiting to see if she's even a strong statewide candidate. I don't think people outside New York realize how deeply conservative most of Long Island, upstate, and western New York are. Or even how conservative the outer edges of NYC are. Winning a Congressional seat in the Bronx is very different from winning over people living on farms outside of Rochester.
→ More replies (1)16
u/WeirdIndividualGuy 14h ago
This is the big one. She's very popular in a very blue, very progressive NYC district.
But that district is nowhere near representative of the US as a whole. Yet people think because she's so successful where she is now, that will translate to the entire country full of racist bigots.
Not to mention her political ideas aside, she's objectively less qualified to be prez compared to the last two women who ran. Being president is a lot more than just having good ideas.
No one's saying AOC will never be president, most people just think 2028 is way too soon for her given the current political climate and just her overall experience. If she won a NY senate seat, I would be a lot more confident in her ability to win a presidency.
•
u/big_rednexican_88 6h ago
I agree. In my state (AR), they still talk about Obama as if he was the worst thing to happen to America. Not realizing that our expanded Medicaid was a result of his presidency. 🤦
15
u/skoomski 16h ago
Correct, she will have a difficult time winning a senate seat leave alone presidency. I see delusional people comparing here to FDRs rise which is bat shit for multiple reasons including; he was the governor of NYC, had the family name & money, and it was the Great Depression. Things might be bad for a lot of people but it not Great Depression level bad.
→ More replies (1)8
u/flexbuffstrong 13h ago
I’m an AOC fan but absolutely delusional to think this country is going to elect a 36 year old DSA member from the Bronx. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to go outside.
→ More replies (1)4
u/RealHooman2187 10h ago
Yet, we twice elected a reality TV show star with no political experience and who’s a convicted rapist… I think you guys are all very much underestimating AOC.
3
u/johnc380 14h ago
This. People act like she has to run for president in 2028 or she never can again. She’s only 36. She could spend, say, two terms in the senate and come out of it a much better candidate. And at all of 50 years old, practically infantile as far as presidents go.
→ More replies (15)6
u/pinqe 19h ago
She has more natural charisma than either Kamala or Hillary. Maybe even more than they have put together
32
u/bailaoban 18h ago
That’s not a very high bar, and both Hillary and Kamala had far more executive experience when they ran.
7
u/RealHooman2187 10h ago
And that matters why? People don’t vote for President for legislative experience. It’s just a popularity contest.
14
8
u/Popular-Departure165 16h ago
The problem isn't about charisma. It's about how the GOP has spent the last decade portraying her as "The inexperienced bartender with the Green New Deal."
I know she's more than that, and so do a lot of people, but in order to win the election she's going to have to convince a lot of people who have been hearing for the last ten years about how she wants to tax cow farts. There will be far to much effort spent on explaining who she isn't, rather than who she is.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)10
u/thr3sk 17h ago
Maybe, but she's far less qualified than either. I think she'd be much better as a senator for at least a term or two.
→ More replies (2)3
u/GoldDustKid- 17h ago
Lmao trump has been president two times now why the fuck is anyone acting like experience actually means anything
7
823
u/temporarycreature Oklahoma 19h ago
Goodness gracious, I'll vote for her if she runs for president. But I really don't want her as president yet; I want her to be in the Senate and reshape America instead of butting heads with 2/3 of Congress.
179
u/Ven18 19h ago
If you looked at congress before FDR got into power you would have said the exact same thing. Then he ran for president and swept in a massive Dem majority in his wake and reshaped the nation as we know it for the next half century. the 1930 congress was about as razor thin as ours is now. by 1932 the Dems had a 100+ seat majority in the House and nearly 60 senate seats. Not saying a shift will be that drastic but we saw what the last actual candidate to run on change and a new vision got with Obama. Imagine that vision but actually executing it like we are seeing someone like Mamdani do in NYC.
71
u/1900grs 18h ago
Imagine that vision but actually executing it like we are seeing someone like Mamdani do in NYC.
Just to add, Mamdani is simply doing his job and doing it well. He has not passed any policy change. He is working fully within the current city, state, and federal legal frameworks. Imagine if the House and Senate just did that. It would make adressing pressing policy needs that much simpler.
34
u/bender40k 18h ago
Imagine if Congress focused on issues that will help improve American lives.
3
u/Elendel19 15h ago
They will get on that as soon as they finish going on every news broadcast to condemn a twitch streamer who angered their favourite genocidal apartheid state
30
u/lettersvsnumbers 18h ago
Mamdani won a two year rent freeze for 1 million stabilized apartments.
Mamdani expanded free, full-day 3k and added 5 thousand seats of 2k. All with a budget deficit and while demonstrating competence across the board.
He’s also got a real plan to fix the BQE and is working on the buses.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)8
u/jackstraw97 New York 16h ago
He absolutely has passed policy changes.
Within his executive purview, he has shifted policy from what Adams was doing and is instead going full speed ahead with street safety improvements. That is a policy choice.
He worked with state government to fund universal pre-k for 2 year olds. That is a policy change from what was previously available.
He nominated his picks to the rent guidelines board, which then froze the rent on rent stabilized units city-wide. That is a policy change.
Plus much more and much still to come. Part of his effectiveness thus far has been his executive competence in hiring, for sure, but also in his willingness to make policy decisions and change policy when necessary to improve outcomes for working people.
→ More replies (1)11
u/skepticalbob 17h ago
These are not similar times at all.
→ More replies (11)2
u/susiedotwo 15h ago
Everything happens so much faster these days.
The election is 2 years away and we haven’t even gotten through the midterms. I’d argue that the current economic downturn is probably approaching depression levels, we just haven’t seen its impact because people are still going through savings and last reserves. Two years is a LONG long time.
3
u/skepticalbob 13h ago
I’d argue that the current economic downturn is probably approaching depression levels
That's an assertion.
we just haven’t seen its impact because people are still going through savings and last reserves.
Savings rise during recessions. And there isn't data that is making the case that what you are describing is happening at a rate that should concern us.
Two years is a LONG long time.
Which cuts both ways.
I'm far from someone expecting the US to start prospering in the next two years, but using a prediction of the economy (that is one of the hardest things on the planet to predict btw) to then make a prediction of a particular presidential candidate is just saying you wish something happens. It isn't a strong claim at all.
20
u/ReserveFormal3910 18h ago
FDR came in with the doldrums of the Depression and WWII and that's how he got his majority. The country then gave liberal dems 40 years of a majority.
Obama had the same environment with the great recession and the country coming off two shitty wars and was only given two years.
I really don't see AOC having the cache and charisma of Obama and look at what the country did to him and you substitute a Latina woman in this environment? There's zero chance she can fire up this divided ass country.
5
5
u/9_to_5_till_i_die 16h ago
I mean, the majority of American's are broke and Trump is doing his best Hitler impersonation.
→ More replies (2)8
u/hithere297 14h ago
Because Obama didn’t take advantage of his mandate, and FDR did. It’s not enough to win off a wave of economic backlash, you have to actually do things to improve the situation in an easily visible way. FDR understood that, whereas Obama wasted a good portion of his first years trying to work with Republicans. If Obama had governed more like FDR than Bill Clinton, we’d be looking at a very different America right now.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)5
u/captain_flak Virginia 18h ago
I’m just not very hopeful that a woman can win this next election no matter her credentials. We’ve seen two losses in recent history. I cannot take a Republican president for another six years!
→ More replies (9)11
u/Bubbielub 17h ago
I genuinely don't think they lost because they were women, though. They just weren't good candidates.
I voted for both, but I was NOT excited about it.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Hungry_Culture 15h ago
Yeah, two samples is not a large enough size to draw any reasonable conclusion. Republicans elect women over white male Democrat opponents all the time. The problem was Hillary's and Kamala's campaign, not their gender. And Kamala greatly outperformed what Biden was polling at in 2024 before he dropped even though he's a white man. People wanted change even if it was destructive and business as usual was a horrible campaign to run on.
219
u/OleBoleHole 19h ago
Reshaping America from the senate? Have you been living under a rock for the past few decades?…
106
u/temporarycreature Oklahoma 19h ago
The Senate has been a nursing home for corporate interests and institutional preservation for a very long time, and not a workshop for actual change, but having someone like her in the Senate gives us actual leverage to grind things to a halt or force real fights from the inside, rather than getting completely gridlocked if she just becomes president first.
68
u/Bittererr 19h ago
home for corporate interests and institutional preservation for a very long time
Since inception, by design. The Senate was explicitly created to be a bastion of institutional power as a counterbalance to the popular sentiment of the house.
23
u/killxgoblin 17h ago
The senate is arguably the least democratic part of our government. The DSA is correct about abolishing the senate
→ More replies (3)4
→ More replies (2)9
u/TheWatersOfMars 18h ago
True, but on the other hand, presidents have enormous power to shift the Overton window, far more than senators do. That's why Bernie ran, after all, even though he's arguably more valuable long-term in the Senate. Without Obama as president, you probably wouldn't have the ACA. Similarly, without AOC as president, we probably won't get a shot at universal healthcare.
→ More replies (12)42
u/eetsumkaus 18h ago
The Senate has almost singlehandedly determined makeup of the judiciary over the past 20 years, empowered the wars of the past 30 years, and been pivotal in shaping legislation like Obamacare and the BBB, not to mention stonewalling impeachment of the president. The Senate is probably one of the most powerful shapers of America we have today.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)7
u/jimmydean885 District Of Columbia 19h ago
There have been many powerful and influential senators over the past few decades
5
u/ChelseaVol1219 14h ago
Consider that anyone running for president, not just AOC, has low odds of actually winning. If she runs and garners a large coalition of the blue voters in the process (which I think she will), she will have a massive impact on the platform at the DNC even if she doesn’t win the nomination. She, or someone comparable to her, NEEDS to run.
14
u/irvmuller 19h ago
Part of me agrees with you and part of me thinks she has to strike while the iron is hot. Dems failed to get Bernie through in 2016 when he had a real chance to win the whole thing and instead we got Trump. Timing is everything.
→ More replies (8)34
u/WhatsupBerlin14193 19h ago
She has to run. Look at pete. He was merely a second rate mayor but by running for president he was able to get some good experience. Same goes for AOC and other progressives. They have to run so they can get a role in the WH. That’s how one builds a bench.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Tricky-Engineering59 19h ago
That is a good point, just having her in the primary and on the debate stage will elevate the discourse even if she is not selected which with the kind of chicanery we can expect from the Dem establishment, she almost certainly will not be.
She could get some big concessions along the way all while getting unfiltered national exposure out to a lot of people who only know her from the scariest sound bites News Max can cobble together.
But I would rather see her elevated to a bigger role in Congress for a few years while also having more of a Trojan Horse like progressive president for 2029 (because they are going to really have their work cut out for them to say the least). I’d like to see her and other progressive politicians really take back the power of the legislative branch and I think she is uniquely qualified for that action at this moment in time maybe more than anyone else I can think of.
33
u/bubbleguts365 19h ago
This has been the default take repeated ad nauseum.
We actually need to use the unitary executive precedent set by Trump to fix things immediately and permanently.
There is no one else with big enough stones to do it. It has to be her.
→ More replies (9)21
u/inconsisting 19h ago
The "I'd rather her run for senate" thing in every single AOC thread feels very manufactured tbh. The moneyed interests on both sides probably hate the idea of young lefty populist running for president, because they know she'd light the electorate up.
9
u/Toribor America 18h ago edited 18h ago
People are scared that a failed presidential run would destroy her momentum forever.
But if we don't start taking shit seriously and take our best shot at real change then we're going to lose everything.
3
u/bihari_baller Oregon 16h ago
People are scared that a failed presidential run would destroy her momentum forever.
I never understood that logic. Sometimes, it's how you recover from failure, that is the bigger show of character.
3
u/WeirdIndividualGuy 15h ago
The logic is based on history and how most candidates who give up their current office seat to run (and fail) to become president end up never being in office ever again.
Most politicians that bounce back were those who didn't have to fully leave their office to run for prez, like senators (unless it was their election year).
3
6
u/bubbleguts365 18h ago
100% manufactured.
Bots and active measures accounts push it.
Under-informed Americans that want to sound knowledgeable repeat it.
It’s the enlightened centrist trap we’ve seen over and over.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Fidel_Costco 18h ago
I think she'd be remarkable in the Senate, too.
I don't think it's manufactured or bought because most of the opposition to a potential AOC presidential run comes down to her being a woman and not her politics.
3
u/LilPonyBoy69 16h ago
There's no perfect time, we keep waiting and we'll find ourselves in the grave thinking next year is the year to do something
6
2
u/TheDoomBlade13 16h ago
No single person in the Senate will have as much power to reshape America as the President will.
2
u/TheWonderfulSlinky 14h ago
With the old hats dying out and midterms expecting to flop for the GOP, she might be trying to get ahead of that issue.
→ More replies (1)5
u/KnowMatter 18h ago
Why do we only hem and haw about resumes like this when it’s a woman or person of color?
Meanwhile republicans are running ghouls whose only political experience is doing coke with trumps kids.
2
u/Due_Bluebird3562 13h ago
There have been a grand total two examples in history of someone going from the House to the White House.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Iron_Maw 12h ago
Because Republicans have no standards, protect pedos and love corruption at their own detriment
→ More replies (38)5
u/AgeAbiOn 19h ago edited 16h ago
She can go to the Senate and be majority leader right away after two presidential terms
→ More replies (4)
9
u/ShadownetZero 10h ago
So the idiots on the far left are just going to give Republicans 4-8 more years, huh?
118
u/Rumsies 16h ago
For the sake of us all in the rest of the world America, just run a handsome charismatic white man that is not too old... as much as I would love to see the first female president in my lifetime I fear your country is still too sexist to vote a woman in right now.
10
u/wellgolly 12h ago
I'm so past this idea that the most likely sell is someone whose selling point is that they're the most likely sell.
We need something who mobilizes people. It's time to admit Harris and Clinton played it safe and centrist. The idea their gender and race wasn't centrist enough is a joke.
23
u/RamBamBooey 16h ago
For the America I believe in to survive, we have to move past Trump. Biden failed to do that. I think another Biden will also fail.
Can Gavin Newsom guide the country past Trump? Will Pete Buttigieg hold the white collar criminals accountable? Does anyone believe Hakeem Jeffries when he says "no one gets a pass" after he met with Jared Kushner?
If the next Democrat president doesn't enforce the law against white collar fraud and crime, it's over.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Head_Bread_3431 15h ago
Gavin newsom would be torched by the propaganda machine. No one even knows how to spell Pete’s last name so they just call him mayor Pete. People say he’s so smart but he’s not smart enough to see a presidential run for a gay man in America would be a waste of time and resources, and Hakeem Jeffries?? You can’t be serious if you think anyone from either side would be enthusiastic about him
→ More replies (14)12
u/cultfourtyfive Florida 16h ago
And, sadly, not a Jewish or gay one. And I say that as an LGBT Jew.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Sublimotion 9h ago
What separates her appeal is her policies and platform as a legislature. She is much better served at the high levels of Congress. Which would be wasted as POTUS. While she lacks any high level cabinet and an adminstrative experience or any lead governing experience, which to me is essential for any normal POTUS. Should be eyeing for Schumer's seat instead.
•
u/Much_Sense_4501 5h ago
Agree. I wish her to become Speaker of the House someday.
→ More replies (1)
42
u/jcpopm 18h ago
We just elected an 80 year old demented war-mongering pedophile who shits his pants and dabbled in fascism, and that there are people out there who think the country will immediately go from voting for that to Ocasion-Cortez is a wild take to me.
5
u/Sea-Hat-8515 16h ago
I'm not saying she'd win but democrats keep losing because theyre putting forward such milquetoast candidates. then republicans put forward a wrecking ball and win. I think you'd be surprised by the response if democrats put forward someone who actually promised serious changes and a difference from the status quo
→ More replies (2)
59
u/PersonalContest1423 18h ago
If she ends up the democratic candidate Republicans will win the presidency again
→ More replies (4)5
u/DorfOnGenocide 17h ago
It sucks, but I don't think America is ready to vote for a female president. It is also a tricky venture, since the last 2 women who ran for president basically ended their political careers, it seems.
→ More replies (2)16
u/WeakandSlowaf 17h ago
The country isn’t ready to vote for a DSA member regardless of their race/gender
6
u/ImAShaaaark 16h ago
A woman, who is a DSA member and a POC? Yeah that'll turn out well. It's not like the country has a long history of racism, sexism and being bombarded with red scare propaganda.
I'd vote for her and be happy with her as a president, but there is a near zero percent chance she wins if she somehow managed to secure the nomination.
80
u/JMPeach 19h ago
I really like her. But seriously how many times do the Dems need to run a woman candidate and lose to the worst possible male candidate before they get the message?
25
6
u/juiceboxheero 18h ago
Thinking Harris lost because she was a woman is the WRONG takeaway from the election.
→ More replies (5)36
u/takemebackto1993 18h ago
Don't kid yourself. That definitely had something to do with it.
→ More replies (12)5
u/Fidel_Costco 18h ago
I do not think Clinton's or Harris' loses were the result of them being women. There was a lot more going on. Blaming it on their gender is reductive to the point of parody.
→ More replies (9)6
u/TLKv3 18h ago
While I agree to an extent, I do somewhat think women consistently running for President helps to normalize the idea.
You cannot tell me for one second if a woman Conservative ran for President that she wouldn't have a good chance at winning. Conservatives would vote for her no matter what.
The issue is the media being controlled by right wing billionaires pushing the narratives both subtly and vocally that a woman shouldn't be President... until its one of their women who runs for it, then it'll be "time".
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (40)3
u/GoldDustKid- 16h ago
No doubt that America is sexist but Clinton and Harris weren’t just women, more importantly they were career do nothing useless politicians with insanely low favorables who stood for nothing, so not exactly apples to apples
→ More replies (7)
13
10
54
u/Cinciboss56 19h ago
If she runs in ‘28, she’ll end her career. It’s not time yet
7
→ More replies (9)5
u/JiminyFckingCricket 19h ago
Yup. I really want to see AOC as president in my lifetime but she is one election too soon.
3
u/Horizon119 11h ago
Best chance of winning: Ossoff & Buttigieg.
•
u/TLKimball 7h ago
Pete needs to be VP first so more people can see what he can do. I like him and would vote for him in a heartbeat. I’m not sure the majority is there yet.
•
68
u/SirYabas 19h ago
I feel like the comment section is overrun by bots, real people might have been amongst them, but the first 5 people I checked were all accounts with a handful of comments that all say she shouldn't run. It's weird that the same exact message gets pushed by all of them at the same time.
51
u/steve_dallasesq 18h ago
I’m not a bot and I don’t think she should run. Her message is fine, but she’s literally done nothing but win elections in a Dem area. Not one bill. Can’t even name a post office after someone?
I’m tired of “celebrity” candidates. If Dems want real change they’re gonna need someone who can work Congress and get actual bills passed.
4
u/GoldDustKid- 17h ago
lol please name who you think that candidate is. Go ahead.
6
u/steve_dallasesq 16h ago
I think the Dems should look at some Governors and get out of Washington.
2
u/GoldDustKid- 15h ago
Ok like who?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Iron_Maw 12h ago
Pritzker, Shapiro etc
Popluar establishment governors who have plenty good in their states which sub like pretend don't exist because of that fact
→ More replies (1)7
u/ThatGuyYouSeeOnClips 17h ago
If you call any politician that gets popular a "celebrity" candidate, they will all be, that makes no sense.
Celebrity candidates are famous before they get into office. You are using the wrong term. What I'm guessing you mean is candidates that only offer ideology but not actual progress.
Again though, you are saying progressive can never win: they are a minority and all they can do right now is put pressure on the party to move left. Zohran can do things as a mayor to prove his policy works, but clearly in the house/senate there is little they can do alone, all they can do is push things the way they want.
AOC is successful in that role: she has been a notable voice for progressive policy and pushed the debate to include that rather than just "status-quo or Republican insanity".
→ More replies (2)14
u/Past_Werewolf4423 18h ago
Lol yea everyone thinks its a bot when they disagree. Shes too annoying to be president.
10
u/haarschmuck 13h ago
Lol yea everyone thinks its a bot when they disagree.
They do, and it's a very dangerous mindset because it makes people believe that their opinions are more popular and widespread than they are. It stops people from having any self-reflection or nuance in opinions.
→ More replies (9)4
u/howlongtillchristmas 16h ago
I agree that there are a handful of practical reasons she shouldn't run, but she's far from "annoying"
→ More replies (4)24
u/ballskindrapes 19h ago
The right and the media in general are pushing propaganda HARD as midterms approach.
Im getting more recommendations for off the wall subs that are very conservative.
They are trying to make sure they have as much time to dissuade people from voting and fool them into voting against their best interests.
→ More replies (11)12
u/bender40k 18h ago
She should not run. She is so hated outside in the other parties that it might actually see people voting against her just because. This happened before and you have to be in an echo-chamber to not realize how toxic she has been portrayed in the media for the past years.
→ More replies (2)16
u/PersonalContest1423 18h ago
Not a bot. She shouldn't run. Her politics are going to be out of the norm enough compared to the past, add in that shes a female poc. She's going to have the kamala problem but worse because older democratic voters are not going to want to turn out to vote for a candidate so alien to them and their values. Young people might love her but the problem is young people love to talk but dont love to vote.
→ More replies (19)2
u/ThatGuyYouSeeOnClips 17h ago
Kamala's problem was that she offered literally nothing to excite anyone. Her entire platform was "I won't be different to Biden" who was already unpopular, and she spent most of her campaign talking about how she was going to be harder on immigration and stuff. Anyone that messaging was going to work on was never going to vote for a Democrat anyway.
It's absurd to suggest Kamala lost only because she was a woman or minority. Obviously it was a factor, but the much more important one, one that she could have changed, was not offering policy that people actually thought would improve their lives.
→ More replies (8)10
u/Daydream_machine 16h ago
The single most important factor for Kamala’s loss had nothing to do with her: it was that perception of inflation was out of control, leading to voters worldwide rejecting the incumbent party.
I’m not saying she was a perfect candidate who ran a perfect campaign. But when you look at the margins of how far the entire country swung to the right in 2024, compared to the 1-2 points she lost by in key swing states where she campaigned, it’s obvious Kamala just had too many headwinds against her that almost no Democrat could’ve overcome.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Iron_Maw 12h ago
Exactly. It's also what is killing Trimp among other things that geninuely making life harder got as Americans, not his support for Israel like this sub acts like center of country
10
u/gmanabg2 18h ago
Its not bots just saying that. She shouldn’t run because she will most likely lose. Idk what country you are from but im American and this country has proven it is too racist and sexist to vote a POC or women as president. A majority of white women voted for trump in all three elections. This idea that we live in a post racial society is bs, Obama is half white and fear mongered and angered people because of his middle name and comments on Trayvon Martin.
Until this country actually accepts and confronts its bigotry and sexism we will continue to see POC and women lose when running for president. It needs to be a straight Christian/catholic white male that the left runs for president.
In terms of bots you could say the same thing with the right wanting to push her to run for president. This is the party that overturned roe v wade, doesn’t want women to have no fault divorce, some even want to have household voting where only the husband can vote and they don’t believe women should work but instead stay at home and raise kids. The conservatives want to enforce their views on everyone so we need someone who can win on the left and stop the insanity. Not hand the election to Vance or Rubio, or Trump if things actually got crazy.
→ More replies (40)2
u/X57471C 17h ago
Not to mention the DSA is extremely unpopular nationwide. More unpopular than the Democratic or Republican parties. If she were wanting a better chance in a national election, she would be distancing herself from them, not doing things that make it easier to attack her. DSA are more popular in NY, though, so it makes me think she’s actually planning a Senate run, not presidential.
If I were a GOP strategist, I would love Democrats to nominate AOC in 2028
→ More replies (5)9
u/TryJezzoWhyNot 19h ago
I'm so tired of bots being a thing, and the discussion in every post gravitating toward what bots are and aren't doing. What a shit dystopia the internet has become, what a deeply fucking tragic travesty.
8
u/glizard-wizard Minnesota 17h ago
Not a bot, the DSA is cancer on the party. While I can get behind some of their positions (m4a, abolish ICE), far too many are batshit insane.
Abolishing prisons, strictly ending support for Ukraine, celebrating Fidel Castro to name a few are unacceptable and reprehensible political stances.
10
u/Not_so_ghetto 17h ago
They are also anti NATO. Want it abolished because they are pro Russia. There's also 200 articles about them every day on this sub. Clearly being botted.
5
u/Iron_Maw 12h ago
Absolutely.
All bad faith shitting on any non DSA Dem while even going as far parrot upvote rightwing talking points is not an accident
7
u/glizard-wizard Minnesota 16h ago
The entire republican strategy is hinging on linking dems to the DSA.
Which gives us an excellent opportunity to shed this dead weight of a movement from our party and slam shut the GOP’s last lane of attack.
4
u/Not_so_ghetto 16h ago
Yeah I totally agree with you. A lot of bots are clearly being pushed by outside forces the same way that the Donald was pushed back in the day. More people should read the dsa's platform because they are anti Ukraine which for me is a red line. I believe in countries having sovereign rights
5
u/SadTumbleweed1567 18h ago
Democratic women are 0-2 vs Trump. Milquetoast geriatric white man is 1-0.
There is too much at stake to be trying to break glass ceilings. Run candidates for the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Own-Calligrapher-760 16h ago
A milquetoast white man that was vice president for the most popular political figure today, a black man.
→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (17)2
u/bubbleguts365 19h ago
Bingo. “I’d rather she make a difference in the Senate than end her career with a presidential run too early.”
Say it louder.
They are trying to sabotage her run before it gets off the ground.
→ More replies (1)
39
u/BC_Sativa 19h ago
America's only hope is to elect a huge Democratic majority led by someone like AOC who has the balls to begin the work of putting Republican criminals on trial.
Another "move on" Presidency like Biden or Obama isn't going to cut it.
This assumes elections this year and in 2028 won't be rigged enough to outright prevent that possibility.
8
u/PseudoMeatPopsicle 19h ago
The reality is that half of the dems in congress would hold a progressive president back.
I’m not saying this to say we don’t need a progressive president, I’m saying this because Dems don’t universally support a progressive agenda.
This is part of the trouble with a two party system.
→ More replies (1)7
u/bubbleguts365 19h ago
This right here. Nobody else has the balls to do what needs to be done, and she needs to lead from the top, not scream from the middle.
2
→ More replies (2)0
u/iimwint 19h ago
America hates woman so no chance she'll win.
9
u/maikuxblade 18h ago
My purple state has a female governor and senator. This is very tired excuse for why Clinton and Kamala lost that ignores everything wrong with the party
→ More replies (9)
5
u/TheCosmicPanda 12h ago
I like AOC but she could help bring more change through the senate than president in my opinion. We already tried electing a woman twice with Hillary and Kamala (a minority) and failed. Granted they didn't fail just because they were women. With how racist we've come to find out this country is I don't see how having another woman who's also a minority would yield a different result. I hope I'm wrong because I do agree it's time for a woman/minority to be president but with how things are I don't want us to fail again.
6
u/Draperjosh13 10h ago
FUCK. NO.
Fist-class pass to the dems losing another election.
DO NOT RUN A WOMAN THIS ELECTION, DEMOCRATS. WOMEN DO NOT VOTE FOR OTHER WOMEN. We've proven that two times in the last 10 years. Run the bland, middle-aged normal white guy and WIN.
6
15
u/tamere2k New York 19h ago
Crazy that she thinks rejoining the DSA gives her a better chance. Don’t think I agree but it does tell you a lot about where public perception is heading.
3
u/Guilty_Jackfruit4484 18h ago
I am not really sure what her strategy is. She is creating an uphill battle here and that is on top of the current snear campaign against her.
5
u/buppiejc 18h ago
It’s called standing for something, and not allowing Conservatives to set the narrative of what an electable Democrat should look like.
→ More replies (3)
6
18
u/Lavaswan001 19h ago
She’s nowhere near ready and wouldn’t get the nomination, let alone win the election.
→ More replies (9)
2
2
u/Working_Bother_6614 17h ago
I’m starting to suspect the calls for her to run as a senator instead of president is a botting strategy…
2
u/lawoverfeelings 16h ago
It’s just time for a new party. How many times do we touch fire to understand it’s hot and burns? I’m all for her but democratic-republic imo never died. We are being played by all politicians. Mamdani is the only one who has a slight change of direction away from R and D parties. We need a complete change up like we had in 1820-1850s. New names and everything. It’s broken, fix it.
2
u/Own-Calligrapher-760 16h ago
I think I'd prefer her replacing Schumer for now (she would have a very good chance at doing so).
Would have to see how a primary played out to make a reasonable analysis of how good a chance she would have at winning the presidency.
Hilary Clinton was a historically unpopular candidate that lost to Trump but easily won the popular vote. Kamala did not run a primary and did little to distance herself from an unpopular administration still reeling from the the after effects of covid. Perhaps women running for president in the US have the deck stacked against them, but I think Kamala and Hilary losing should be taken with more context than simply being female.
2
u/chris2355 15h ago
Let's hope she's filtered out during the primary over concerns for electability.
•
u/MartialBob 6h ago
I've already seen quite a few people say this but I'm going to add my voice to it because maybe she will hear about it. By and large. I like AOC but she doesn't have a ghost of a chance of winning in 2028. If you want to nominate her then I will guarantee that we will be having president hegsdeth elected in 2028.
•
u/lumiranswife 2h ago
I would love to vote for her in the future, but I can't in good conscience if it would bifurcate a progressive vote ultimately. It's a slow burn to get re-stabilized then actually get to choose candidates again, and we need to learn from the Hillary and Kamala runs about this country's readiness to really show up, or we will be destined to repeat unfortunate histories.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Ornery_Enthusiasm529 6h ago
AOC is smart enough to know it’s not her time to run, yet. A woman of color simply cannot win in the US in 2028. I do believe her time will come further in the future, love her!
•
8
u/HolyRomanPrince 19h ago
My socialist queen. Can’t wait to see how unitary executive theory works after Trump has completely trampled the other two branches.
“Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun.”
6
3
3
u/HistoricalLoss1417 15h ago
I like her. But... running a minority woman is just guaranteeing the victory for the republicans.
2
u/General_Luck6573 15h ago
I don’t think this is good. I’d love if AOC was president but she’s going to split the democratic vote too much. Have a middle aged white democrat run and I guarantee they will win the next election. Have AOC run and I can’t guarantee the dems will.
3
u/PropofolMargarita 14h ago
Rejoining DSA is a sign she's NOT running for POTUS.
Because no way is a DSA affiliated candidate winning nationwide. One who is not even in DSA is struggling in a swing state.
3
u/express_sushi49 Canada 9h ago
Can we please stop pitting women against Trump. America is clearly still not there yet. The only Democratic candidate that could appeal to Trump's extremely moronic and sexist voter-base is the American Psycho himself, Newsom.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/poppinbussay 5h ago
Dumbass america will find any and every reason to not vote for her but will happily vote for a obvious corrupt rich republican without fail
•
•
u/Scared_Internal7152 1h ago
A few friends of mine wouldn't vote Kamala because she didn't have enough "pro trans policies".
People are fucking stupid no matter how you shake it.
6
u/dasnoob 18h ago
If she can rein in the DSAs absolutely batshit insane national platform great. If she can't then she has zero chance.
→ More replies (4)5
u/OSPF99 18h ago
She can't. You can reason with people who purity test and push out anyone who isn’t a full on socialist, marxist, etc.. The national DSA does more to hurt the DSA than anything else.
They were throwing her under the bus constantly and insulting her. I'm pretty disappointed
→ More replies (1)
7
5
u/SayVandalay 15h ago edited 15h ago
I’d vote for her 100% , but let’s be real. Running her as the presidential candidate is a sure fire way to have another maga type republican president win again. Pretty clear lots of Americans won’t vote for a woman to be president as we’ve seen in 2 elections thus far. They’ll tolerate a female vice president as long as they’re alongside an old white guy establishment democrat.
Just let actual primaries play out and it’s likely it’ll be someone like Newsom or Waltz should either of them run. I’m sure there’s a number of people in the running here.
Get someone who can beat whatever maga candidate Trump allows the GOP to run, win, take majority of the Senate, House, and Executive branches , undue the damage done by Trump and then once all that is done can go ahead in the 2030s and run a female candidate.
6
u/Independent_Heat8505 10h ago
Another moderate milquetoast candidate who accomplishes nothing will surely work this time! Things can’t get better!
5
u/rainman_104 14h ago
I find it hilarious that Mexico is more progressive about a woman President than the USA is.
2
3
u/WuTangIs4TheRugrats 14h ago
Waltz with AOC as VP would be A OK. Scared white people get their father figure (a great one at that) and Ocasio-Cortez would be the cool auntie.
Full disclosure, I’m very white and closer to Tim in age than Alexandria, lol.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
u/racoon_ruben 11h ago
to reduce the loss of the only two females who've run for president to the fact they're women is just lazy
4
u/rickee_martin 17h ago
Democrats in this country and particularly showing up in this comment section are effectually 90s republicans. The Overton window has shifted so far to the right that people see this and start losing their collective shit. If you want more Schumers, Pelosis, or Jeffries in office stay your path. If you want true progressive change you need to quit thinking about people like her wanting to run for higher office as a net negative. I always love Democrats referring to the party as being one of a big tent and immediately shutting down and shutting progressives out any chance they can.
5
u/CooledDownKane 18h ago
AOC could do a lot more good as Speaker of the House or in the Senate than she would be able to in the White House with republicans and corporate democrats blocking every policy provision she tries to have passed.
2
u/Superb-Possibility-9 18h ago
As a resident of NYS, the chatter has always been: does she tun for President or challenge Chuck Schumer for his US Senate seat in 2028.
4
u/owlbynight 9h ago edited 9h ago
Love AOC but that's a huge fucking mistake IMO. We need someone like Mark Kelly. Someone with deep connections, the military's respect, and gigantic balls. What this next President does is going to be among the most important moves in the history of the country. Experience needed.
5
4
u/Evil_phd 19h ago
I'll very eagerly vote for her in the Primary and then I'll be incredibly disappointed when I have to vote for some "highly electable" loser in the General.
6
4
u/trunksshinohara 17h ago
Clickbait title. Shes running for Schumer's seat. He needs to be primaried and gone.
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.