AOC Seen as ‘Face’ of Democratic Party — and It’s Not Even Close: New Poll
https://www.mediaite.com/news/aoc-seen-as-face-of-democratic-party-and-its-not-even-close-new-poll/Open linkView original on lemmy.world1385
Comments384https://www.mediaite.com/news/aoc-seen-as-face-of-democratic-party-and-its-not-even-close-new-poll/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
Weird. The party that claims to be "for the people" keeps putting centrists in charge. We're ready for someone who is actually for the people!
Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge
They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.
With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It's the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it's hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn't mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.
Kamala was never progressive.
Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.
plus his voting record pre-presidency was very conservative. they fabricated his progressive persona
Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn't really care then it wouldn't have taken much to change them.
Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren't so MAGA. She's on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.
I'm not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo'd her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris
bribesdonations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.Forgot hard on incarcerated trans women...
In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.
I'd say she's a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.
Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.
The dinosaurs know they're marching right, that's where all the money is (for them).
I'm a European born American. Obama would be right wing politician in my country of birth.
See David Hogg
See Bernie Sanders.
they'd rather lose to Trump for a third term than do that.
They’re definitely for the billionaire people.
DNC: I am here for the working people-- from billionaires, all the way to millionaires.
From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN
Aren't there primaries for the Dems?
Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to 'establishment' candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.
The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.
You're blaming the DNC for something that is controlled by each individual state.
Not really. I'm saying that the system discourages change. If there's blame for the DNC, it's that their message has constantly been something along the lines of "be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change" which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been "More guns! More babies! No brown people!" which tends to attract passionate radicals.
The DNC in a nutshell. Absolute garbage.
Okay, but the states decide if there are open primaries or not. The State is to blame for that, but it can be changed if made a state ballot measure.
That's not really up for debate. It's literally state law and dependent on the state. The DNC and GOP don't decide that.
Is that not the second sentence in my original comment?
Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.
Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we're the same, but proving we have "democracy" by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.
Sadly I don't think it's possible to have a party "for the people" with only two parties. There's too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.
"Championing the status quo" is not how I would describe what Republicans are doing right now.
Yes it is. If the part "for the people" turns out to be captured you drop it and get in an actual party for the people. Rinse and repeat as needed. There is a problem with political parties growing too old and becoming too institutionalized. But keeping them in power instead of giving them the boot is a choice made by the voters.
Controlled opposition
Buzzword catchphrase
It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider "people."
Conservatives, they are putting conservatives in charge. Don't be fooled by how republicans label themselves. They haven't been conservative since before the turn of the century.
It's DNC leadership that has taken up that mantle.
I'm confused. Are you arguing that AOC is or isn't for the people?
She absolutely is. Her nomination is the DNC's nightmare.
The partyThe people that vote in the primaries for the party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge.Most people don't vote in the Democratic primaries. Did you?
She's not the face of the Democratic Party
She's the face of a completely new and different party that has nothing to do with old Democrats.
To me, I've been viewing the US as being governed under a one party state for a while ... the Republicans and the Democrats form two halves of the same organization.
The US doesn't need a third party
They need to form a new second opposition party because the old one morphed into the monstrous thing we have today.
The US needs a third, a fourth, a fifth and several more parties as viable alternatives.
They to drop any weird FPTP systems, this will allow new parties to come into play.
This would also end the ridiculous gerrymandering shit
Omg, I love you. I've been screaming this since CGPGrey's videos about voting and alternatives to what we have. Getting that is gonna require all existing party members to be cool with a complete loss of power and an increase in the amount of work the have to do to keep their power or get elected.
It'll take the states. However, there are already states trying to ban alternative voting methods.
Haha, thank you for your kind words!
As a Swede, the US election system has always seemed so backwards, even the fact that you have to register to vote is completely foreign to me.
And there's no chance it can get one while $ is in American politics.
Yeah, no.
If no party can get to 270 electoral votes, the president is picked by the House of Representatives.
That means congress would need be flippped into third party majority first.
Splitting the left off only benefits the far right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is stuck in an echo chamber.
This is why stoy said the First Past the Post system needs to be dropped.
Which would require a constitutional amendment, meaning it’s a pipe dream.
Could you explain how Alaska or Maine managed to have a Ranked-Choice Voting system?
The Democratic Party is just a vessel. It used to be the right wing (relative). Now it's the left wing (relative). Bernie and AOC don't really fit in with the Dems, but they can. Same with Manchin.
There was a time where I thought a Musk type could rally many behind a weird Libertarian version of the DNC or RNC and shift the landscape. But he just went hard fascist as soon as he publicly aligned with the right.
Any time someone can't tell the difference between centrists and fascists, I just have to assume that their stance is more about arguing than it is about a sincerely held ideology.
Fuck that.
Centrists/Republcian Lites don't deserve to the party.
They are free to fight republicans over control of that shitshow.
Or put another way, it's time for the non-fascist party to realign ideologically as part of the Seventh Party Era
Pretty much, yeah.
Taking over the Democratic Party vs starting a new party is kinda like addressing climate change on Earth vs terraforming Mars.
The former sounds painful and bureaucratic while the latter sounds exciting and innovative.
But if you can’t fix the party or planet you’ve got, which has like 80% of the hard work done already, what hope do you have of doing a new thing from scratch?
One of the criticisms against the Democratic Party is that they aren't particularly democratic. Party insiders and the wealthy hold far more power and practically pick the nominees.
Rather than compare them to the planet from which we were birthed, I would compare them to a shitty boyfriend we're afraid to dump.
Next to Bernie she's the best the Dems have to offer. And for any possible run for President, she beats Bernie on age.
If they run Harris again, or Newsom or some other conservative Democrat in 2028, the party is fucked.
Newsom is trying his level best to have a right-of-center glow up right now. I'm almost certain that the DNC plans to tilt the scales for him. They likely will resist running a woman again for a long time because they've stupidly come to the conclusion that it was the genitalia of the candidates and not the quality of the candidate, campaign, and platform that caused them to lose what should have been two of the most winnable elections ever.
Progressive woman of color
Or
Conservative white guy with (D) next to his name.
Pretty sure we can guess who will win the primary if they can help it. DNC leadership is not interested in what it's membership wants.
Absolutely. I can't see AOC being given a chance in 2028 unfortunately, unless things change a bit. Not excited for Newsom as a candidate :/
Her as president and Bernie as vp. If they kill her then they put someone even more opposed to their views in power.
As much as I absolutely adore Bernie, the guy needs a rest. He'd be starting as VP for a potential 8 year period of two terms at 86.....That means he'd be 94 by the time he left office. The man is an absolute beast, but father time catches up with us all and I don't want to see his final days in politics to be a sad decline after everything he's given. He deserves to serve as a badass senator, like he always has, until a progressive gets elected as president and then retire.
AOC and Pete Buttigeig as VP, on the other hand......or Tim Waltz again......or Elizabeth Warren for a double team, all woman ticket? Hell yeah.
yeah, one of the reasons the dems are a dead/dying brand currently is because they keep putting in who they feel has earned it the most, not who the population actually likes. That also leads to entire party embarrassment when they fight for that person and they turn out to be an abysmal milquetoast failure like Biden.
AOC - Crockett?
The Gore Strategy
You guys need more than just two relevant parties. AOC being this popular should prompt her to start her own movement, supported by Bernie, raher than clinging to the "Democrats".
They need election reform for that to happen.
And the only way election reform happens is if we get the corporate Dems who like things the way they are (AKA roughly all of them) out of power. It's damn near hopeless.
Ideally, we get an democrat Bernie or AOC presidency, who then runs for a second term as an independent. Incumbents tend to have name recognition, which would make it easier to give the DNC the Old Yeller treatment. The Geronocrats have a callow ambition, even if progressives manage to Tea Party things. After all, the DNC's bluebloods will want to retake the throne. It would be best if the throne that they treasure was lost outright.
I'll trust her judgment on that one.
Seeing how it's going in USA rn I don't trust any judgment coming from the country whatsoever
thanks, that's helpful
Agree but have the senior members support and coach AOC, have a united front. We're supposed to support and learn from our elders but they have an obligation to move aside and allow the younger leaders to rise.
Support, yes. Not too sure about coaching, though, I think she's doing great without needing to consult old white people
lol the dweebs that can't win a slam dunk election because they are too busy running corporate friendly husks
Of course they will. Harris or Buttigeig
I promise you the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to keep her away from leadership roles because she actually wants to change things.
That’s the one thing the Democratic Party is consistent on: rejecting progressives, even if it means letting the conservatives win.
always so strange to see the words 'guarantee' or 'promise' when someone is giving a predictive opinion for an outcome they have no contol over.
We should be so lucky to have a party she represents in this country. The only reason she has that seat is by defying the DNC as a spoiler. They only elevate politicians to the Federal level on the basis of how good they've proven they are at collecting that sweet, sweet corpo bribe money.
The DNC and democratic leadership would rather dissappear her Than Trump by a mile.
The pendulum is the point. Both parties are well bribed to maintain the capitalist's murderous control. Good cop and bad cop are both just fine with mass homelessness and entire murder for profit confidence scheme market sectors. One laughs at you when the capitalists cause you harm, the other just shrugs and says "golly gee market forces nothing we can do! But I affirm your right to die horribly as who you are here in this cardboard box under a freeway! Pronouns are free so whatever I still get bribed 😁" (edit to be clear, respecting others identity is the right thing to do and basic decency, but there's a hierarchy of needs, self-actualization only matters if you have your basic needs met. You cannot live in an affirmation ribbon, you cannot eat a preferred pronoun, priorities.)
If the Democrats were led by someone talking about redistribution, that bribe gravy train would stop. If by some miracle AOC manages to steal the party out from under them as Trump did the RNC, the DNC would be fighting her every move and comment the way we wish they were countering Trump right now. In fact, here's how Democrat leadership spent the months leading to Trump's inauguration:
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/12/aoc-pelosi-oversight-committee-connolly-raskin
Defending the country from one of the only slightly left Reps in the entire federal government.
Democrats like Schumer and Pelosi are far closer to Trump than AOC.
https://apnews.com/article/business-nancy-pelosi-congress-8685e82eb6d6e5b42413417f3d5d6775
That's funny, because the dnc does not share any of her ideology, and it's not even close
Because the DNC leadership doesn't represent anyone except for the donors who own them.
The voters keep voting for the same corporate fellatio enthusiasts, so I guess they are representing their voters. The core Dem voters are as bad as, and walk hand-in-hand with, the DNC.
Yeah she needs to spilt and be the face of an actual workers party, not the mask for the failed democrats.
AOC and Bernie should break off, start a new party and call it the Social Democrats ... if for no other reason than that is what they espouse -- a socially-conscious mandate that the government is to be there for the people, not the other way around.
Much as Bernie will definitely continue to be the face of the movement, I have doubts he has many years left for politics. We're in need of new faces for that same initiative.
If they do that the corporate Dems would buy up all of DC's champagne. There is nothing they want more than to evict the left wing elements of the party and force them into electoral irrelevance, why would AOC et al do that for them?
Make it clear to the Democratic Party establishment that progressive candidates will be on the ballot in every congressional district in Nov 2026, and they will be a spoiler candidate if they have to be. Either way, we are done with their shit. There will never be a better time.
I'd rather phrase it as "and they better not run a neolib spoiler candidate". It's not the progressives with popular support who are spoilers, but the neoliberals who are only propped up by corpo lobbies.
The way to prevent a new party from being a spoiler, is having the neoliberal DNC not running a candidate.
Since they clearly aren't interested in winning or stopping Trump, nothing would change.
Look into star voting when you have a chance. The democrats can be whatever they want if the voters get the freedom to transfer their vote how they wish.
Oh I love star voting, I try to use it when I can in groups/communites. I used it when a decently large discord server had its only active admin just leave randomly, and there was a handful of people interested in running. STAR enabled a good result for the top two to become co-admin. Worked well until a schism happened and 90% of the active users left, myself included.
Write your senators about this folks, if you really care about Bernie and AOC, write your Senator and let them know you support Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Urge them to stand with them, or to at least listen to what these two folks have to say.
It probably wont do anything, but if we keep writing them (I write weekly) dropping their names, maybe they will take the fuckin hint
Never heard of Co/efficient, but “Democrat Party” is a bit of a red flag. From mediabiasfactcheck:
MBFC gives The Guardian and Breitbart equivalent ratings for factuality, which is patently ridiculous
It's not a reliable gauge of anything, and it's harmful to trust its rankings
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Wikipedia. Which says MBFC is unreliable and has a pro Israel bias.
42
9point6.
All of those sites are right-wing propaganda operations. Every single one of them.
Factual news is almost always going to be liberal biased. Sites like these encourage journalists to bias their news stories to the right for no good reason.
I'm surprised so many people are falling for this.
Isn't 538 mostly just an aggregator of other polls?
This "red flag" is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.
I don't have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that's all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.
The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.
I get it man. I'm over 50 too and my team is the White Sox. I support the White Sox no matter that. Whats important in sports is that you support the team of your home town. Sure they were the worst team in 2024 and not entertaining to watch. Doesnt matter.
Anyone who writes scathing articles of the sox pathetic performance in the newspaper is wrong and disloyal, and is missing the whole point of sports. Its not about celebrating human athleticism and competition in striving to to be the best a human can be, its about adherence and loyalty to the corporation who owns your local team.
Adherence to your political party is similar. Government is not about advancing or serving society, its about eating rotten scraps off the floor and being grateful for having that much.
I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.
The older generations get pissy about being called the "Democrat party" rather than "Democratic party," which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it's really a stupid thing to get worked up over.
The fact that you didn't even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.
ok but I'm in my mid 50s.
Water isn’t wet. What touches water is wet.
Water touches other water therefore water is wet. If you isolated a single molecule of H2O, that water would not be wet. However, it is nearly impossible to do this, hence it would be the exception and not the norm.
This argument isn't profound, it's just short sighted.
Wetness is a perception not an objective state. What "wet" even is, is up for debate.
Sploosh
What a great spin. Wetness as a state of mind. How revolutionary
And water doesn't touch water?
Water is wet, and pendants are annoying rather than clever.
If you have an amount of water that can be divided, it touches other water. Therefore water is wet unless it is a single molecule
Things with hydrogen in it are wet.
Blimps?
They make me wet, which is kinda the same
Disagree. The Democrats dont know who they are anymore. Pelosi and the old Democrats have got to go.
AOC should just make a new party.
Are they... Still considering Harris for 2028??? What? Please god. Make it stop. Please.
It's.
Her.
Turn.
"It's my turn." was everything wrong with Hillary's campaign in a nut shell.
How the fuck are you able to make yourself look like an unhinged ego-maniac who just wants to be President for the sake of being President, when you're running against Trump? That shouldn't be possible.
This isn't a problem of Trumpism, it's a naturally occurring brainworm in Americans broadly speaking. Trump's a nasty dim-witted freak, so watching him climb to the top of the pile we've been raised to believe was a meritocracy causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. But everyone running for President (except maybe Mike Gravel) ends up looking like this. The thing that separates the Obamas and Trumps from the Hillarys and McCains is whether cheering for the unhinged ego-maniac feels fun or not.
Oof
She's just the most recent candidate. The most recent candidates, and most recent Presidents and Vice Presidents are almost always in these sorts of lists, especially in the weeks and months following an election, before the next campaign starts.
Joe Biden was a favorite in these sorts of polls in 2015/16, despite saying he wouldn't run, because he was just VP.
I pray to the gods you are correct. Save this comment for 2028
HRC
Take your up vote and go think about what you did.
Praise the lawd!
Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.
Why did they list the percentage for all of these people, but not for Bernie's second place position?
That is a rhetorical question.
I was going to calculate his percentage but 26 + 26 + 22 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 2 is 98%. Did they lump Bernie in with 'other'?
Looks like Newsom will be the candidate for 2028 then...
As is tradition.
The straightest consistently whitest guy up there is Bernie, just saying. I bet he's never had a tan in his whole life.
The survey they cite has Bernie at 12%, so I'm not sure what method they did to allow for more than 100% - maybe you could choose more than one answer?
Oh, the link underlining was subtle enough that I didn't see it.
Yeah, they must have allowed for more than one for the numbers to add up.
For the same reason they DIDN'T EVEN MENTION he was a candidate half the time the media mentioned the primaries were happening despite him being in 1st or second at those times.
The rich would never allow a President Sanders. They have too much to lose.
I’ve been saying for about 5 years, maybe better, that she is the person I am most excited to vote for as president of the United States one day.
I don’t even have another name in mind.
I will be as happy to vote for her as I was for Sanders in the primaries, twice. I legit can’t wait.
How about Jasmine Crockett? I hope between the two of them, they start inspiring and generating tons more to go into politics.
Hope Crockett gets to be gov of texas... She reminds me of Ann Richards in all the best ways. She'd make a great president too.
Jasmine Crockett seems to be "AOC but sarcastic".
DNC: "Ewwww a progressive? We wouldn't be as rich with a progressive in charge!"
She's one of only half a handful of Dems that sound ready to lead people into battle. The difference between how she uses knowledge and intelligence to speak to people is in stark comparison to Trump sounding exactly like he has dementia. She listens and responds. Trump just keeps interrupting any question he doesn't like. Fuck you Maga. Fuck you entirely. You god damn idiots.
I still have to lol about how the stupid qons tried to use her dancing in university as some kind of BAD thing.
Back when Denver Post still had a comment section and they'd allow gifs, and if the topic was AOC, I'd post her dancing. A few of the local wingnuts would try to get me banned/my posts removed over it, esp. if one of the qanon mods was on-duty...
She's the best. Why the buzzkills in the unhinged right tried to paint a beautiful intelligent rep like AOC dancing during college as a bad thing is anyone's guess, but that sure as fuck blew up in their faces....
So let me get this straight: somehow just dancing is somehow worse than drinking beers in fraternities and raping?
She committed the sin of being a woman
She's a woman with a will of her own, that's enough for anyone on the Right to hate her.
What I really can't stand though is when they try to pretend she's dumb. I mean when we on the Left call Trump a moron, we can actually point to things he did and said. When they try to paint AOC as an airhead, they mostly just repurpose old blonde jokes to be about AOC, there's never anything she actually did or said that they bring up.
Ever notice that?
God I'm glad I don't use facebook anymore
She's a woman and a POC to boot, so....it's rather self-evident that anything she does is going to be worse.
I think even for the most idiotic of maga, they realized that trying to trash her for dancing was not really getting much traction. Especially among cishet men with eyes? Just sayin'. XD
I think the same thing for trashing her for things like being working class - they were trying that on for a while and that seems to backfire, too. Same goes for some big mic drop attempt they try when they call her "Sandy" in some kind of qnut point about how she had a nickname during high school and/or university? ZOMG! /clutches pearls You are saying she went by the name of Sandy, danced, and worked as a bartender? QED, then, I guess. 🤣
Apparently 🤷♀️
I don't get it neither, let's turn it the other way: why would anyone want to vote for someone/something that doesn't show basic human emotions and doesn't have fun?
well Trump shows the basic emotion of love but for money only
I disagree. He doesn't love money. He covets the respect and power that he believes money brings with it and if forever angry that even with the presidency he can't get the true respect he believes he is entitled to.
Yea that too but I feel like if someone told him "you would be the most respected person in the world and very powerful if you agree to live an economically average life (think Merkel but more modest even)", I don't think he would agree. Maybe because he thinks if he has money he can anyway buy the others but still money is not just a tool for him he is hooked on the luxuries it brings too.
I was going to point out how most of them embrace donnie, who never seems to legitimately laugh at something normal. He does that weird grimace and thumbs-up for photo ops. He does that weird grimace after telling "jokes" that are all about punching down on someone or some group.
Well, TBF, I guess he does do that weird double-dick jerkoff dance that he does to his favorite gay anthem. Maybe he's really trying to tell the world something there? All that talk about being hawt for his own daughter was some kind of weird compensation?
I still laugh to myself when I think of them legitimately hoping they had the bombshell of the century when the "mic drop" of her dancing from college days was released.
I think most people just saw that and thought it was completely normal and it just highlighted how fucking weird and awful people like Tucker were. I think many normies saw it and thought that the qnuts were just sending this to everyone and effectively saying - "holy shit, do you see how HAWT this woman is?" - because whatever message they were attempting by sending this to everyone and trying to make it go viral for some other reason was probably lost on all but the most uptight puritans in the xtian Taliban.
I think normal Americans probably thought something along the lines of - wow, she's incredibly articulate, delivers a message really well, is obviously well-versed in issues that matter to her constituency, AND is also incredibly attractive, knows how to dance and obviously was having fun making this video? What's the problem these weirdo qnuts have with that?
BTW, we need to go back to a concerted campaign of calling conservatives and Republicans WEIRD. Because they fucking are.
AOC dancing and having fun is somehow anti-American and full blown socialism, according to Republicans.
Because she's leading moral and dignified Christian men into sin!
It's not my fault / I'm not to blame / It is the gypsy girl / The witch who sent this flame / It's not my fault / If in God's plan / He made the devil so much / Stronger than a man
LOL, Chuck Schumer didn't even place. That gives me a little hope.
If Chuck Schumer placed I would know that the end is nigh.
Agreed, but let's take a moment to recognize that he is the highest ranked Democrat in the country, and the fact that no one sees him as the face of the party should be humiliating for him.
I fucking hope so.
Other than just generally being far to the right of the people he's supposed to faithfully represent, he's so far in the pocket of fossil fuel interests that he needs a custom snorkel to breathe and he literally claimed that his "job is to keep the left Pro Israel" 🤮🤬
Schumer said his job is keeping the democrats in lockstep support of the state of Israel.
You might have to send a stern letter then!
I keep forgetting he's a Democrat
I would prefer a new party, but I'm glad that she and Bernie are still out there.
Zero chance the DNC will run her. They'll give us another white bread, right of center, compromise candidate. The Overton window has shifted so far right we need to build a new wall to house it.
Personally, I think it is too late to save the DNC. Best to start over in a better place.
This is something I see come up a lot, but I think people are severely underestimating the amount of infrastructure that would be lost by "starting over." Fundraising, state committees, local committees, volunteers, etc. "Starting over" effectively means surrendering nearly every election on any scale larger than a municipality to MAGA Republicans for years while those networks are rebuilt and the country cannot survive that. We need more political parties, but unless and until a viable 3rd party emerges, we're stuck with what we've got and refusing to support the only non MAGA options at the ballot box will actively make the country worse.
If you don't like it, help build that 3rd party and recruit candidates and donors to your cause (or try to shift the DNC and the Overton window back to the left). Until that's done there unfortunately isn't a better alternative.
...think of all the cost already sunk into this failure!
What if those things are not actually essential in modern day politics?
What if they're more important than ever before in American history?
Then the same type of politicians will rise through the existing system.
I think most people wouldn't want to. Unfortunately, I suspect that the Trump Regime only offers two choices: submit to an existence of GOP rule for the rest of our lives, or force the GOP out of existence.
As a very lazy person, I would prefer to coast throughout my life and not worry about much. Unfortunately, that gets harder with each year that passes: the economy is getting worse, RFK wants to send me to an wellness farm, innocents are being trafficked to death camps in El Salvador, and rules that erode liberty for the everyday person are being imposed upon us.
If people like myself don't get into a "start over" mindset, we might end up paying the price for the rest of our lives.
If Dems just move a little bit further to the right...
Oh I fully expect Democrats to endorse Trump for a third term if the alternative is a real progressive.
The Overton Window isn't real. Political parties can create their own political realities by leading the electorate, rather than cowardly tailing the electorate like they're advertisers trying to sell a product.
Define real? There is certainly something in US politics that acts exactly like Overton Window.
It gets the causal relationship between political leaders and the masses backwards.
The Overton Window presupposes that politicians are limited by the electorate in what they can discuss and pursue; there's a range of acceptable politics which is created by public opinion.
The reality is that public opinion is created by political leaders and politics is the tool they can use to change the range of acceptable opinion.
By getting the causal relationship backwards there is a tendency to tail the masses rather than lead them. Instead of using politics to create new political realities, politicians behave as if they are trapped within the existing political reality by politics. They seem to think politics is something that happens to you, rather than a tool you use to do things.
There's a range of acceptable opinion, sure, but it doesn't limit politics. Instead, politics creates the range of acceptable opinion.
That's an entirely novel way for me to think about that, and I like it, and now I need to let that percolate. Thank you.
Manufacturing consent? What ever happened to representative democracy?
"I don't know anything about Project 2025.”
Political leaders don't just represent the electorate, they lead it. Political reality has always been shaped by parties and leaders, even if sometimes those leaders aren't electoral and so we pretend they aren't political leaders.
For example, MLK Jr was a political leader even if he wasn't elected. He created political realities through organizing and activism and propaganda and sloganeering and speeches. He didn't just wait around for the Overton Window to move, he moved it.
Is that manufacturing consent?
Either we use politics to shape political reality or we allow the right wing to do it for us. Fascists will manufacture consent for our extermination if we let them.
sounds extremely unlikely tho.
My concern is that now that Trump is in office and project 2025 is in full swing, that we will never see another fair election again.
The crimson lining is that we might get to build a new United States, free of the GOP and DNC. The problem is the nature of that crimson.
Is it really easier to imagine the end of the United States of America compared to voting outside the two party system?
It certainly feels that way. I simply have no faith in the DNC, let alone the likes of the GOP. I am of the opinion that our political system simply lacks the flexibility needed to reflect the interests of ordinary people. Just look at how medical benefits, SNAP, NOAA, our sciences, federal workers, due process, and so much more are being deconstructed. All for the sake of a small group of people to see their numbers go up.
It would be good to be wrong about this feeling. Unfortunately, hope is rarely a good companion of prudence.
That's his obvious intention, yes.
There's still some things that can go wrong for the fascists, but we're certainly on a trajectory towards eternal leader supreme chancellor Trump.
When he dies they're just gonna make him into an LLM. He already ignores all previous instructions so he's laid the groundwork
If you aren't a die hard democrat or republican, you have never in your lifetime had a fair election because of the artificial limitations imposed by First-past-the-post voting
and she is old enough for presidential nomination now. do it, aoc.
The US is simply too misogynistic to elect a woman as president, especially a woman of color.
The unfortunate reality is that our best bet for the White House is a progressive white man with AOC as VP.
I believe that even AOC knows this.
You will get Kamala or Gavin and you will like your Trump 3rd term. - Dems
🎵it's sad, but true🎵
I don't think that's true tbh. The Dems have never managed to nominate a popular woman as their presidential candidate before. Clinton was almost universally disliked by the public (for lots of good reasons other than her gender), and ex-prosecutor Harris's campaign was hamstrung by Biden, as well as being seen as an other pro-corporate Democrat stooge. AOC might actually have a fighting chance compared to her predecessors. But she'll never be able to be the Democratic candidate until the old guard of leadership is replaced, let's face facts.
You think we're still doing elections? I cherish your optimism
Hey now there will for sure be "elections", they'll just be 100% kayfabe instead of just 50-75% kayfabe
when will the heels get magic chokeslammed through a steel table 😔
When we get the real-life political equivalent of Stone Cold... Ironically the most popular wrestler per event in history who's whole gimmick was fighting the authority of the wrestling promoter who didn't believe he was an acceptable face of the company and constantly wanted to push their own handpicked corporate champions. It's actually a lot more spot on than I meant it to be...
You can’t say that because there is no reliable data to go off of. Kamala and Clinton were terrible candidates.
The best part about it, is that the old-as-fuck Democrats hate it, which makes me love it all the more.
Hopefully we get to tell them to get in line or they're a Trump lover at some point.
After all the right-wing Neoliberals I've voted for over the years out of harm reduction to attempt to stop literal murderous fascists, it would be nice to see them eat some of that shit and vote for someone with ideals they loathe, win or lose.
"And it's not even close"
She's in a statistical tie with "nobody".
I dont think the electoral system allows for this "nobody" person to win. Maybe someone can change their legal name to "nobody".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClplCxUVfFw
She's already 35. Run her.
She should distance herself from that sinking ship. It's like continuing CPR on a victim who is already dead. Yeah you're trying but ultimately it's no use. Both main parties have been so tarnished that even being associated with the name is a smudge on the record.
I agree with you, but I also feel that AOC is what the Democratic party is supposed to be. She is not the status quo.
I'm confident AOC could raise an impressive amount of campaigning money as a single senator. But, impressive enough to account for an entire party, taking seats in thousands of positions across hundreds of local districts? Much as I'd like it, I don't see how it can happen.
I'd also like it if campaign money wasn't necessary, but 99% of America doesn't actively follow politics; it's needed to bring it to their doorstep. We've been covering the gap in things like Elon Musk's campaign funds via a lot of volunteer work, but that can only go so far.
So just bury the head in the sand and let the world (or at least US) collapse (i.e. uncontrolled climate change, entire degradation of the social system to capitalism)?
All of those are already happening with or without her in charge. One party actively wants all fo that, the other party doesn't fight it.
As I read, here on Lemmy I think, Republicans are the school shooter, Democrats are the Uvalde Police.
Defund the police
Yeah one person can do only limited (at least constructive) change. And that likely takes time, but also consider generational shift. I think it's very likely the dems will slowly (depending on AOCs popularity, faster) shift more progressive. Let's hope the democratic system isn't entirely degraded till then, and Trump get's less popular as well.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
She's one of like 3 US politicians that I don't just kind of low-key actively hate.
Please don’t fuck this up DNC! Embrace the change!
Harris was supposed to be the one who'd get the Progressives excited and she got fewer votes than Biden did in 2020.
WEIRD! I KNOW Progressives and they LOVE Bombing Children and KEEPING the Status Quo! It's so WEIRD they WOULDNT Vote for Harris!
Well, they must love bombing children since they worked so hard to keep Trump in.
are you talking about progressives or centrists, dagwood?
When your choice is keeping the status quo, or everything getting a lot worse, that doesn't seem to be a difficult choice.
Maybe the DNC should stop trying to run on the status quo instead of blaming the voters.
Americans want change, that's how trump got elected, even the right wing doesn't like the status quo. They don't agree on the direction, but the status quo was not the move to make there, not when that includes US funded murder of children
The DNC can do far better, yes. But the voters can also do better. Thinking critically is an important part of participating in democracy.
As I said before the election, there was no option that did not include US funded murder of children. If Trump had been an outspoken opponent of the war in Gaza, (and we had any reason to believe him) then I could see the argument. But that was not the case, was it?
I appreciate the pragmatism, and for what it's worth, I agree with your logic but voters aren’t pragmatists. They engage emotionally, which is why reactionary movements thrive.
Republicans offered an identity rooted in tribalism, fueled by fear, anger, and even hatred. Yet even a hateful tribe is still a tribe. In an era of loneliness and division, the group that accepts you flaws and all holds a powerful advantage. The side effect? Politics becomes emotional, not intellectual.
And let’s be honest: It’s hard to blame voters for disengaging. First-past-the-post, 'lesser of two evils' voting is demotivational at its core.
When every election feels like damage control, idealism withers.
Agreed on all points. But rational thinking is necessary for a functioning democracy.
As you observe, that's one reason we don't have one.
Well whoever thought of that was clearly a moron
Backing a genocide and pretending like people weren't having financial issues just because the stock market was up didn't help much.
She didn't have any progressive stances, why were they supposed to be excited about her?
Why was she supposed to be? And why did she spend so much time on stage with conservative republicans trying to prove how middle of the road she was?
Why would she have gotten progressives excited?
The question I ask is why people needed to be excited at all?
Trump was openly talking about aiding the Israelis plus stopping aid to Ukraine.
Apparently, people thought if they didn't vote for Harris Trump wouldn't win either.
She abandoned all her progressives positions early. I'm no political consultant, but I think thats usually not the best method to win over progressives. I dont think she planned on progressive support-- I think someone told her she could win some republicans and never have to talk to a progressives ever again.
She's one of the few democrats that I would vote for president.
Her rally with Bernie was pretty electrifying. I can see how her polices might be polarizing to some, but damn she can get the working class support. Just gott keep the momentum up and get people to actually vote.
Polarizing like a magnet. We'd have a force for good instead of a lesser evil. That's a lot better at getting people to the polls.
"Democrat voters want leftist leadership"
I hope she will be successful in actually overtaking the party to some degree, as most high-ranking party members would certainly see that differently
It’s a lot less baffling if you consider the possibility that they never believed any of the shit they said about Trump being a threat to democracy, or if they did that part doesn’t bother them. It was Theater Time during the election and now it’s Cooperation Time, and actually you’re the extreme one for not just seamlessly switching modes!
For everyone except the ones in charge 🤷
That’s one of the easier fixes IIRC.
While DNC chairs have consolidated a great deal of power, have many ways to self-deal and dig-in using the bylaws (such as determining caucus partitions/schedules and being superdelegates for life) their position is subject to internal approval of DNC membership itself. That is, you can just fire them. You don’t have to wait for them to resign to call for their replacement.
Regardless the committee is more like an HOA than a government body. They make suggestions and endorsements, host the convention, support candidacies strategically and financially, and threaten to take that away if you break rank. But they have no authority to say who runs, or even who runs as a Democrat.
But most importantly, AOC has always been a grass roots candidate. It would be great to have DNC support, their backing and resources, but she’s never needed it before. I can’t imagine she wants it now.
In fact, I think it’s far more likely that the DNC will one day ask her to endorse them.
I like Miss Crockett. She's impressed me over the last couple of years.
Aoc 2028
She'll clobber Donald Trump, Jr.
Bold of you to assume it will be a fair election.
True. There's no hope for the America. America has never been more in peril in its 249 years than it is now.
So "AOC not even close" with 26% but Kamala Harris + Pete Buttigieg + Hakeem Jeffries + Cory Booker + Gavin Newsom = 22%. And that 26% has almost guaranteed the 8% of Crockett and the 12% of Sanders. So 26 + 12 + 8 = 46% but "not even close".
I don't know half the people you mentioned
well at least you own up to your ignorance, more than we can say for most.
Oh, the qurstion was rhetorical -- the function was a relevancy check. The Hill may think all of those names are important but only half are making it out of the political wonkosphere.
(wonk is an mid 20th century word for nerd)
Was it fairly clear I was just being funny? I hoped so, I try not to tell jokes that actually need to be /s tagged.
They get a lot of AIPAC money for ads in their district. Outside of it they have no name.
The headline means "AOC is seen as the leader of the Dems and nobody is even close to her".
The DNC chair is not usually an elected congressperson, and AOC is absolutely not looking for that job. They're just talking about the person people think about as the leader.
There is no more Democratic Party.
All the rest have their noses in donors assess rn. We can't even see their faces!
Well afaik she’s the only one doing a nationwide campaign at the moment
Dude before trump was there a "face of x party"? That sounds like populist crap.
It kinda is. Dems are short on leaders though. The enemy of good is perfect
Trump is the Republican party now, once he's gone they are over
* Unless "They" can groom a suitable successor in time. I hear Baron is lurking in the shadows with an interest in politics.
I'm terrified that DeSantis could be next.
I feel like he peaked too early and shot himself in the foot. The true successor is a (relatively) unknown.
But I'm no Nostradamus and it wouldn't even be the first time I was wrong today.
I saw a weird propaganda YouTube short the other day about him. It was a half AI short video just talking about how good of a person he is LMAO
We could do so much worse!
I have said this elsewhere, but i will not again vote for the Democratic Party until they actually put up progressive candidates. Not pinky swear to pass progressive policy. That means the candidates has to have a provable history of struggling against the Democratic Party to pass progressive policy. There are only two i know of and that’s Bernie Sanders (who is too old for the presidency), and AOC. Else it’s third party until the democrats learn better.
Only downside of her as president would be not beeing named Lisa ...
A note on this survey is that it was taken of all likely voters, so it's possible it could be influenced by conservatives being, let's say, not very normal about her. Regardless, people on both sides often see the Democratic party much further left than it really is.
Primaries should do it, then you just have to make sure the superdelegates don't ruin the result...
So the Dems are running the campaign for JD Vance now? Wow, easiest election ever
I can understand why she is.
No shit. The rest of them have their head's in the ground.
What's Elizabeth Warren been up to lately? That's who I'd vote for of I were American.
She's been busy shouting about all the wrong parts of crypto to regulate and then not doing anything about any of it.
Who's the heel and when are they going to have a no-holds-barred cage match on PPV?
If she jettisons neoliberalism and takes a stand against genocide and imperialism she could begin to make a difference.
I feel like this is actually what republicans want. Feels like they want another minority woman to run right into them again. She’s wonderful but it feels like political sabotage.
Not entirely sure thats a flex
I hope she actually changes things and doesn't go down the path the likes of genocide joe and grifting to say things will change when they won't
Did he say that? I remember him saying the opposite: "Nothing would fundamentally change"
Sorry to say but it would be a bow wrapped gift to the GOP. It's very easy to brand her a socialist and on top of that she's a woman.
It's time for Democrats to own socialism. It's milquetoast appeals to centrism that make the party boring and come across as dishonest.
That doesn't mean being unreasonably uncompromising or unpragmatic when it comes to getting things done across the isle in government, but at least be true to your ideals and aspirations.
Bernie would have easily beaten Trump if voters had the option. AOC will likewise wipe the floor. A real alternative not more of the same.
Actually what would happen is dem support would crash even more because the GOP playbook works. AOC will be branded a socialist, a communist, ready to sell out, to take people's property etc. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, the electorate will believe it. If the dems want to win they need to lose the haughtiness and a projecting an air of superiority that they know what's right for people and appeal to blue collar workers again. i.e. messaging needs to change. That might make people more receptive to left wing / progressive views. They also need to read the GOP playbook and create some divisive issues for the right to deal with. But expecting people to accept/embrace/own socialism is a joke. It won't happen. Think smart.
People don't know what socialism is...Most people's understanding of socialism includes the government doing basically anything
What people want is free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich. We just need to double down on that populist messaging - and when they cry out "that's socialism" we have to stop trying to run from it
Tax the rich. How are we going to pay back our deficit? Tax the rich. Why does everything suck? Because we haven't taxed the rich. What are we going to do in office? Tax the rich. Isn't that socialism? Who cares, tax the rich.
You make some good points. It's a case of why not both. There is a way to own socialism mainly by appealing to Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada. Learning from what works and if people want to call it socialism, fine.
There are about five socialists elected at the federal level. What basis do you have to believe that hundreds of millions would vote for a socialist leader when most of them haven't ever voted for a socialist anything?
Harris was a full communist to the GOP.
I dont think it matters much.
Harris lost. That's the point. If the dems want to win they need to learn from their mistakes, not give even more wedges to the right to scare away voters.
Harris lost by a razor thin margin, and there's legitimate concerns that they cheated (more directly than usual). They lost because they tried to ease up her messaging to avoid alienating the people who were always going to vote for Trump
We need to rally around what everyone wants - free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich to do it. Just chant that over and over. Anyone who does that is going to win
She lost, because (IMO) she basically gave a big middle finger to:
And, because she decided these people were great people:
You know? The war criminals and war criminal enablers.
The lesson Dems need to learn is that no matter how much they shift right, they're not winning GOP voters. All they are doing is shedding voters on the left. The whole "Vote for us because other team is bad" rings hollow when you're doing everything the other team is doing, too.
Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the senators who stood with Schumer and folded as they voted for the republican spending bill, was literally the AOC of yesteryear. You can push populist candidates to your party of capital until the cows come home, but special interests will swallow them up every single time for eternity. You need to think beyond the democrats and American electoralism in general for that matter. The devolution into fascism is well underway. It's time to abandon the democrats that helped achieve it.