AOC Reportedly Gearing Up for Big 2028 Campaign
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/aoc-reportedly-gearing-up-for-big-2028-campaign/Open linkView original on lemmy.world889
Comments283https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/aoc-reportedly-gearing-up-for-big-2028-campaign/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
I like AOC a lot. She started as any other member of The Squad but has actually learned how politics work and is doing a, mostly, spectacular job of balancing ideology, the will of her constituents, and generation of political capital. In so many ways, she is what Sanders would have been if he got his head out of his ass twenty some odd years ago.
If she runs for POTUS in 2028, she is a god damned idiot. I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS. But she is also still quite young but has almost an entire Hilary Clinton worth of chud-hate and attacks. Whereas Senate makes perfect sense for her.
That said? I could see a world where AOC could... once again be the anti-Bernie. Run for POTUS in the primary. Energize basically the entire youth of the nation. Then lose and immediately endorse the winner while leveraging her influence to get important action items on the ticket. But... I want AOC as a leader and not just as the bait and switch.
I'm not sure that's a reasonable takeaway from the last two times a woman was a major party nominee.
Hillary Clinton was not especially charismatic, which is arguably what wins general elections in most cases. She was also unpopular with progressive Democrats, and widely seen as having secured the nomination unfairly when Sanders might have been both more popular with the party and a stronger general election candidate.
Kamala Harris was severely handicapped by the combination of being nominated without a primary process, starting her campaign very late, and positioning herself as a continuation of Biden at a time when Biden's popularity was very low.
If AOC were to win the nomination, she would be in a much stronger position for the general election than either Clinton or Harris.
Yeah, thank you. The problem with Hillary and Kamala is nobody liked them. Now sure you can argue " maybe people didn't like them because they're women and they have a bias against women". I never heard anybody online saying " wow! I would sure love to have Kamala as president but I just don't think other people will vote for her". I see lots of people saying that about AOC. At some point you have to look around and be like oh wait...lots of people are saying they'd vote for her.
AOC has a message that people want is a key thing. Harris kept it too safe to really sway anyone that wasn’t already sold, unfortunately. That’s not to say Harris didn’t have a published policy list, but it wasn’t what people were seeing or hearing. If Harris came out as a progressive, which I believe she was, then I think she would have swayed middle America.
The problem I think is that harris said she was going to continue Bidens economic policy when a lot of people really are feeling like the economic policy from both sides is benefiting only the wealthy. If any policy helps the little guy then it is such a minor help that it goes unrecognized.
Inequality skyrocketing, wages stagnating, and then you say you want to continue the policy? Not great campaign. Trump lost in 2020 and won in 2016 and 2024 because he was anti status quo. Most people don't really care about "all the other" stuff and are too stupid to realize anything outside of "do I want change RIGHT NOW?" and then vote yes or no based on that
It was very poor messaging for sure. That’s not to say Biden didn’t have a decent economic policy plan, in theory, but it never got off the ground due to the grid-lock in the Senate.
I mean it would be better than now but I really don't think the plan was good enough to change the outcome. He would have had to be far more radical than he is
Oh for sure on all counts; Biden really should not have been the front runner in 2020. Hell, just planning on running for one term would have made a world of difference. Still I’m hopeful for AOC 2028, I think it could be in the cards if the DNC doesn’t pull a Bernie on her.
We also have to ask ourselves why no one liked them. Some of it can be attributed to sexism and or racism, yes. But I think we can attribute a lot of the unpopularity of those candidates to their lack of charisma, weak seeming positions and advocacy on progressive points of interest (such as Gaza, the Palestinians, border climate change, etc), and what seemed like stupid meddling and sabotage by the consultant class.
Biden himself ran for president and won on the third shot. But, since two woman ran for president and lost, thats a sign that no woman can get elected.
Its not that women can't win. Its that centrist dems than run on the status quo when the Democratic party is polling abysmally can't win.
Agreed. When people say they lost cuz America is too racist or sexist I think they miss out what bad candidates we had each time. Either bad in who they are, how they ran the campaign, or factors outside them that killed the campaign, or all 3
Honestly, I think unfortunately gender/sex does play a factor, in addition to race. If this administration has taught us anything, is that there is that much hate within our country.
Also think of cultures where historically their culture doesnt value women. Even if there are people who immigrated here, some still may never vote for a woman. Some will decline because they are racist. While we are all Americans, we are deeply deeply divided ATM :(
This is without even factoring the candidates political platform in yet.
I like when people claim racism was a major factor in Harris's loss, given that Obama was elected in 2008 with a larger piece of the popular vote than any President since.
It was one of many factors. Obama winning didn't prove that racism didn't exist. He won despite the racism. Harris had racism, sexism, a lack of a primary process, the lack of experience as an executive, and so on against her.
In a lot of ways, Obama winning kind of broke the country.
He was a Democrat that people genuinely loved because of how charismatic he was (which was REAL nice after Dubyah...). Or, as a certain Former President put it, he was a Clean And Articulate Gentleman.
The problem being, his very existence set off all the chuds. It completely destroyed their minds that a black man could possibly be President. And it is a big chunk of what set for the "never again" mindset we are seeing.
But it did prove that racism does not have enough of an impact to move the needle in any substantial way—it failed so hard to move the needle that, again, literally no candidate since has even matched, let alone topped, his popular vote %.
Are you sure? Maybe Obama would have swept all 50 states if it hadn't been for the racism. Maybe the only reason it was at all close was the racism.
Given the close margins I would say it surely played at least a part for Harris losing. Obama won by large enough margins that even if all the racists stayed home that he still won in a landslide.
If even 2% of the population would never vote for a women or a person of color then it was enough to have mattered when others are sitting home for other reasons. It’s certainly not the main cause of Harris losing as you pointed out, but when the margins were that close every vote did matter.
I suspect the majority of that 2% would also never vote for a Democrat.
I believe that you are mostly correct, although the actual motivations for these folks are complicated. Some may value a few extra bucks in government support, having social security, and having Medicare programs. So there are some economic reasons they may vote for Democrats on occasion, but their bigotry could get in the way of their best interest.
So, some of those people probably just stay home for election night. While a good chunk may be getting convinced to vote for Republicans if they feel their bigotry is being rewarded.
Given that, while Trump got ~3 million more votes in 2024 vs. 2020, and Harris got nearly 7 million fewer votes in 2024 than Biden did in 2020, and that the US's population increased about 8 million in that span of time, are you suggesting that there's that much misogyny and racism among the Democrats?
The total population is not the total voting population. There was also a pandemic between 2020 and 2024 so I would expect the total amount of eligible voters would be different as a result of the pandemic.
I think that’s an uncharitable takeaway from what I’m talking about to say that the misogyny and racism were the core reasons that Harris got less votes. There were notable other factors that made it a close election, which I mentioned was the case. My point was more that because the margins were that close that those smaller details did matter more.
Yeah, I think there is a substantial portion of Americans who won't ever vote for a woman, but I think it was still just a small part of the larger issues in both their campaigns
If charisma wins elections how did Trump win?
Edit: forgot that he most likely didn't, at least the second time. Still, how did his potatoe charisma get him the first win?
Have you seen the man work a crowd?
His antics don't work on you, or on me, or likely on most people you or I would be friends with. They clearly work on a huge swath of the population though, or we wouldn't be where we are today.
Work a crowd, as in talking barely comprehensible gibberish and hurling insults at people? So charismatic..
2016 Trump ran on the idea of being the good businessman who was going to clean up the swamp and get this
company'scountry's act together. Just like any other CEO selling to investors. I have friends who, halfway into his campaign, were like, "I kinda like this Trump guy, he tells it like it is," and by the time of the election they had completely 180'd on him because of the details of what he was promising.One of these friends is super into cults and true crime, and he says that listening to Trump is eerie because he sounds exactly like Jim Jones. Then, and now. Back then he sounded like Jim Jones in his prime (and read Hitler's speeches as bedtime stories according to an ex-wife, which would explain why all his campaign promises match up with Hitler's). Today, he sounds like Jim Jones making his death speeches while you can hear them forcing the cultists to drink the Flavor-Aid and gasping, choking, and dying in the background of the recordings.
The people who liked Trump the first time and didn't change their minds then were never going to change their minds the second time. They've already bought into the cult. And that's what Trump is - a cult leader. He promises them a solution to their misery by giving them an obvious target to take their aggression out on, and people eat it up because they want a simple solution that absolves them of any blame.
How could anyone buy that, given his well known complete failure as a businessman? Only a stupid person would.
Anyway, it's besides the point of our main discussion. I don't know who Jim Jones is, and you're right about Trump's populism and MAGA being a cult, that still doesn't make him charismatic though.
Jim Jones, of the Jonestown Massacre. The cult leader who we got the phrase "drinking the Kool-Aid" from (though they actually were too poor to get Kool-Aid and they laced Flavor-Aid, the off brand version, with cyanide instead). When he started out, he was actually a very influential Civil Rights activist who is responsible for the policies that would later become the foundation of the civil rights laws in his home city. But he later became a crazy cult leader and by the time of the cult's mass suicide, he ranted like Trump does today.
As for how anybody could believe that Trump's a good businessman, many people only know him as that guy from The Apprentice, not the businessman who has bankrupted multiple casinos, an airline company (and beauty pageant for young girls who he flew around the country with in his private plane - just him, the girls, and a man by the name of Epstein), and who couldn't even sell steaks to Americans.
Don’t kid yourself. It takes a ton of charisma to lead a cult of personality.
trump back in 2016 was genuinely charismatic... to his base. He was able to quickly spin nonsense schoolyard bully insults against anyone who went up against him ("Little marco rubio" and so forth). Combine that with Hilary having almost two decades of smear campaign tactics against her at that point and not committing one way or another towards decorum or "you fuckers are weird" and... yeah.
trump in 2024 won because the left blames Biden for the economy and the chuds wanted their hitler back.
That's not charisma.. maybe little kids would find that impressive, although I doubt it.
Still a big risk to take. We need progressives to win at least the next two elections to have any shot at winding back the damage from two Trump administrations and a largely impotent Biden administration.
But I agree that if she wins the primary, that's the part that really matters and what Harris was missing.
Both Hillary and Kamala were unenthusiastic campaigners, depending on democrats to anoint to victory. AOC isn't very popular outside of the northeast, and she doesn't appear fiery enough to excite those who don't know her.
Worth noting as I almost missed it myself from not RTFA, but: AOC is "gearing up for a big campaign for a bigger office in 2028 -- they're just not sure which."
I align with your view that I really thought AOC would be better to primary against Schumer. Not only is it arguably more attainable, it addresses our problem with stagnant Congressional AIPAC-representing leadership.
That said, I part ways in the belief that a female president is not capable of being elected for a couple of reasons which I'll try to lay out point-by-point:
I think there were many contributing factors to Kamala's loss, but I I think this is pretty low if non-existent among them, and it risks gatekeeping qualified, charismatic candidates like AOC out of fear of past milquetoast candidates that were unpopular from the outset and deeply lacking in charisma.
I'm wondering if Gallup has tried asking if people would vote for a woman if she made it clear she intended to help the citizens of the country and not the oligarchs who own everything.
I think part of the problem for the Hillary and Harris campaigns were that they were running for the status quo at a time when that wasn't working. Both Obama and Biden ran on change and, while it wasn't the amount of change people wanted, it was at least a recognition that things need to shift.
This is the same take I have. Both Hillary and Kamala are slimy neolibs, exactly the kind of people that nobody trusts. Gavin Newsom is the same and would be a catastrophic nomination. AOC would have a real shot, especially if she sticks to her grass-roots techniques and reaches people face-to-face. No debates, no mass media, just homegrown down-to-earth human energy.
But what am I talking about, there won’t be any more elections. The fascists have taken over and dismantled everything from the federal to local levels. The cancer, having been fed instead of removed, is now terminal.
Replacing Schumer would be a big step forward,
AOC would make an amazing VP pick. Could bring a lot of energy to a campaign and get youth/working class support. Then transition that into a presidential campaign later on.
And who would you pick for president? Even VP AOC couldn’t make me pick Newsom
Pritzker
Hey good news! *gestures to All This*
- John Nance garner, former vice president to FDR (before truman)
Ehhhhhh
People have a very weird idea of what the veep actually is. In theory, it is the person waiting in the wings, learning from the POTUS, picking up the slack, and preparing to take command if needed. In practice? It is someone The Party saddled the POTUS with and is an active threat to their legitimacy and legacy. For the past few decades, the frigging First Lady seems to have more accomplishments than most VPOTUSes.
And considering that Biden became increasingly infirm over his term and there are good odds trump straight up dies in office (woo!), a lot of eyes will be on the VP. Which has good odds of triggering the palin effect of "oh dear god... what if the old white guy dies and we are left with THAT?!?!?"
With a POTUS who genuinely likes AOC and believes in her politics? Yeah, it would be spectacular. In the world and DNC we live in... expect the same "What the hell did she even do?" smear campaign Kamala has been getting since late 2023 (I wonder why).
Funny that you say she’d be an idiot for running in 2028, then present a great case for why she might run in 2028…
You’re right, though, that Senate would be the right move. But that has its own disadvantages. If Schumer doesn’t retire, it would be very tough to beat him.
Being a losing presidential candidate could raise your profile. I’m not sure the same applies to a senate candidate.
Also, I would say the hate for AOC is much different than the hate for Hillary. There were plenty of liberals that hated Hillary (🙋♂️). I don’t think this applies as much to AOC. The hate is coming exclusively from the right.
She could easily beat schumer. I never met another nyer who likes that guy. Largely he wins now because nobody (or nobodies) primary him, and the alternative is a republican which just is not an option right now.
Schumer has seniority in the Senate, which is why many have not tried to primary him.
Seniority is a big deal in the Senate in terms of committee assignments. Just because AOC could replace Schumer’s seat, it does not mean that she will gain the current amount of power that he has for a long time. Now it may well be worth replacing his seat just so the current spokesperson for Dems in the Senate changes, but it’s not going to be AOC for a while.
An alternative is for her to grow to become the Speaker of the House, which she could do by continuing to stay in her current role over the next several decades.
Otherwise, she may look at a run for Governor, although then that is much less federally focused.
She could run for President or take on the role for VP. If she were to be VP, I think it would almost guarantee she would be able to win the Presidency at some point. Although, if she joined an administration that caused a lot of baggage, like Harris received from being VP to Biden, then it would make that route more difficult.
It’s a risk, though. She may decide the risk isn’t worth it.
Also, she this may all be an attempt by AOC to make Schumer rethink running in 2028. I don’t honestly know if he is planning on running anyway.
The far right of the country will never vote for a woman unless its a psychopathic maga woman. Then they just might...
The far right isn’t voting for any democrat though.
I honestly think if she ran for president it would be about raising her public profile. There’s many republicans and democrats whose names I know only because they ran for president.
How the fuck would doing EXACTLY what Bernie did make her "the anti-bernie"?
Couldn’t disagree with you more.
AOC for the win
I get what you're saying but consider that her participation in the primary will energize progressives. If she really has the courage, immediately after the 2026 election she should announce that she's forming a progressive party. Get people like Tim Waltz, Katie Porter, and others on board. But my guess they lack the numbers to really pull numbers away from the correct Democratic party.
That said, I could see a Waltz/AOC ticket being hugely popular.
USA has no problem electing a woman (see below). But I am still skeptical the dems will EVER nominate a non-fascist for president.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
narrator: And they never did...
You are on lemmy letting us know how much you like someone with million of followers refusing to even make an account on decentralized social media
She only had to, you know, compromise on genocide and not ever get anything done. AOC is nice to have, but if she is what it looks like when a progressive "learns how politics works," then I'd rather progressives not learn how politics work.
Harris had a ton of support early on so being a woman isn't a decisive factor, and AOC-hating chuds were never going to vote blue.
I am not going to pretend I agree with how AOC handled the Anti-semitism Panel or whatever it was.
But I will say this: NYC tends to be very Jewish and Jewish friendly. And people are stupid. Explaining "I am opposed to anti-semitism but I am not opposed to anti-zionism. Okay, let me explain to you what the difference is" isn't going to fly. Hell, just look around any message board (including these) and see what happens if you actually link someone to an article or page explaining why they misunderstood something.
And... a lot of the verbiage early on (mostly when Hamas still had any meaningful capabilities in the region) really WERE crossing the line. Stuff like "from the river to the sea" is really hard to support in a good faith reading of the conflict in the region. Which is why most politicians have stopped using phrases like that while arguing for Palestinian survival.
Which gets back to the realities of politics. In theory, an elected official is there not to push their own politics but to represent the will of the people who elected them. And if it is going to take a ten minute history lesson to explain why you snubbed a panel on Anti-Semitism to the people who voted for you...
Which is also why all of this is so insidious. Because the zionists know that they have these actually very reasonable stances to take and use them to cover for genocide.
But, as the DSA themselves admit in that press release, AOC has voted heavily in favor of Palestine in many resolutions.
That is literally what Mamdani did. And it, in fact, flew.
You seem to be well-meaning, but that's Zionist propaganda. The full phrase is "Palestine will be free, trom the river to the sea," and there is literally nothing objectionable about this. It's not like Palestinians within Israel aren't also living under apartheid, so the phrase is very appropriate. Also I see no evidence at all that rhetoric around Palestine has gotten less radical as time went on.
Except the most progressive of them—you knowz the crowd to which AOC supposedly belongs. There are people who will he tricked by this sort of Zionist propaganda, but usually those tend to not support progressive politics in general, so this is a problem that solves itself.
I hope Mamdani proves he can pull it off. We'll see what happens in the general. And I really hope he can continue to push a hard line once he gets on a stage where bills are so intertwined that it is nigh impossible to NOT support evil in the form of pork and the like.
My suspicion is that we are going to see a lot of concessions at even the Mayoral level. Let alone if he moves on to Congress. My hope is that we have actually achieved progress (hey, look at that) and the baseline of education has advanced that we can continue to push the line farther and further and actually oppose anti-semitism while also vehemently opposing zionism.
It is Zionist propaganda in that the Zionists actually said it too in the past as justification/motivation for stealing the land from Palestine et al to begin with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
There are definitely well meaning individuals who use that and I don't think it inherently means someone is part of Hamas or the IDF. But it is a phrase that literally began as Zionist propaganda to justify their occupation of the region and it is one that, in most readings, fundamentally precludes a two state solution. It is saying that the entirety of the region must belong to one group/subset of groups.
Now, whether a two state solution has been possible for closer to 50 years than not is a much more depressing topic. But when your statement of peace is also largely synonymous with past and present efforts to ethnically cleanse a region... maybe pick some different words.
Which... brings us back to the balance of politics and ideology and not trusting the masses to sit and listen to your long winded explanation of why your slogan just sounds bad but is actually good when you use it.
You don't have to explain it. Puritans will always find fault. It's why they'll also never hold power to do the things they want.
The DNC will absolutely shit all over her efforts. They'd rather lose the elections than have a progressive win.
It's a shame but they probably will.
Have you seen Democratic party approval ratings? They can shit on her all they want and it will only help her win.
And yet they've lost in every way you can lose. If we don't have a good candidate like AOC, then the GOP will dominate.
Democratic voters don't want to waste their votes on another unelectable female presidential candidate.
This Democratic voter would love to vote for a young, promising, progressive candidate though
No, the people currently in the Democratic party don't want to rock the boat and maintain status quo. They have cushy jobs they don't want to lose to people that actually want to help fix things so they'll stand in the way in any way they can.
I'm not saying that Americans won't think "oh, a third? really?" but you have to remember that Kamala fucking sucked. She was a pacifier the Biden administration threw at us to shut us up about him stepping down, and she knew she was, and if she cared at all, she lacked the strength to step out of line or say anything about it. Nobody believed she would meaningfully change their lives—that's ultimately why she lost.
She lost to the fascist head of the new project 2025, and in her closing speech said something about the stars in the night sky and went on vacation. Pointing out that she's a woman before pointing out that she and the rest of her democrat cohorts do not have any beliefs is absurd.
I agree with your statement but I mean that I want AOC instead of another unelectable female candidate.
I want to vote for AOC and I've been registered Democrat since 2016.
As much as I'd love her to be president ... I agree - this country is not ready for a female president.
Not with that attitude it isn't. It also wasn't ready for a black man to be president, a Catholic man, a disabled man, a gay man, etc.
Also, in 2016 the majority of Americans did vote for a female president. This indicates perhaps it wasn't the right candidate rather than the wrong time.
Time after time we put our heads on the chopping block thinking this Tim it will be different. Do me a favor, save this and let me know how it goes if she somehow gets the nod from the DNC which she won't. But if she does and once again we lose to a repub you let me know how that went. I've heard plenty of women say they don't want a woman in office. I don't agree. But this country is not yet enlightened enough to make that happen.
Do you even realize that Hillary and Harris have similarities that aren't tits? What voters don't want is another corporate sellout.
News flash - most voters aren't us progressives.
What does being a progressive have to do with it? They aren't liberals either. They are elitists and corporatists, and most voters aren't that either.
Except when you actually talk about policy they are. Ask someone "would you rather have free healthcare or means-tested subsidies for employer-sponored insurance purchased through 1 of 50 state-run websites. The plans change every year." "Should anyone be able to go to college without worrying about debt? Or should almost everyone take on random amounts of debt, and have no idea what that debt will be until they've already applied?"
I get where you are coming from, but I am not sure I agree. It would definitely be something to behold if it happened.
I do share some of your pessimism about this though. I to think that AOC may be shunned by the DNC neo liberals.
AOC would receive my vote.
Defeatism doesn't help anyone. It's worth trying, at least. It might not be reliable as the only action any more, but that doesn't disqualify it entirely.
To all the "pragmatic" Americans will never vote for a woman crowd... There are already women in high positions of government all around the world, including Italy, not exactly a bastion of progressiveness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Current_heads_of_state_or_government
Hillary Clinton and Harris lost because they were terrible. Maybe the Dems should run a candidate who's not terrible??
The "never women" crowd would never vote for a progressive candidate to begin with, so I don't think it really matters.
The "people will never vote for a woman" crowd is sort of right. A woman will never be elected with the current DNC, but only because they view a woman candidate as an excuse to be shittier. They think their base will hold their nose and vote for a worse candidate just because of what's in her pants.
AOC might get elected because she's interesting on her own merits and has enough name recognition to not be buried by the DNC. They'll do their best to prevent it though.
The “never a woman” crowd confuses me because I’ve never seen a president or my father take his dick out to fix anything.
I will direct you to Johnson.
Now I'm confused
This is the one tool a man has that a woman does not. So if men are somehow more in tune with leadership then it must be related to using their dick. Or something like that.
Clinton and Harris lost because
they supported the status quo of people not being able to afford things!they like genocide!they're WOMEN!Michelle Obama would crush Trump... But unsurprisingly the dems would rather lose.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
Michelle Obama only polls well because of name recognition, she's essentially a non-political figure.
What's her position on the genocide in Gaza? What's her take on universal healthcare? What's her plan for Ukraine? Would she fight for gun control? Etc etc...
Right now, people can imprint their personal beliefs onto Michelle. If she would run, she would have to clarify all of her political positions, and then her poll numbers would naturally drop.
Right now I'm more interested in 2026. We need to be out there volunteering and promoting the DNC to hold seats and remove the GOP.
Yeah next year has to happen bigly or there will definitely be no 2028
I can't wait for the DNC to pull a 2016 and tank her campaign for someone more "moderate"
By god, it’s Hillary Clinton for a twelfth attempt at the Presidency! It’s HER TURN
Joe Biden returning with his hair dyed black like Creed in that one episode of The Office.
Newsom, probably
More manly candidate
Its too bad nobody will be allowed to vote freely by 2028 and she will lose. Too little too late.
I mean 2028 is the first presidential election she's eligible to run for
Oh we'll be allowed to vote, but it will all be counted as a vote for the R candidates. Also AOC will probably be locked up and on death row when they claim she's the head of antifa.
If i can make them have to work even just a little bit harder to game the votes then it's worth it to me.
Maybe she will run in Canada?
If I had a dollar for every year I've heard "Politics is over. We're a one party country now", I'd have collected at least 6 dollars over the last 12 cycles.
So like, not very much then.
Only half
Two very different things. I know I’d vote for her if her name ever was on a ballot.
I think this is the point she should start fearing for her life.
A car accident or random violence could always just, y'know, happen.
That's a very fair fear. 2 dead demos 1 almost kid napped that wacko that charged the white house and all the bombs that got sent to Obama.
It's rumored that the CIA hacked Michael Hasting's car and killed him before he could expose the CIA Director.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Controversy_over_alleged_foul_play
I have never forgotten that case, and remote control of cars has been demonstrated IRL in the time since, so I'm definitely convinced of the possibility.
Oh wow - haven’t heard about this in a minute. I was in Los Angeles for an internship when this happened and I remember how weird the circumstances of his death were. Thanks for the reminder!
Also Kirk Advenger whacko's. Her and Bernie along with progressive YouTubers are probably the top of their list.
There are two ways this can go
Looses the dogs of war?
Honestly why can’t mofos on the Internet spell ‘loses’ correctly?….
I don't know, but it's annoying.
Same reason why they keep mixing up you're and your; or there, their, and there. It's simple stuff, but maybe they're non-native speakers (or probably just dumb).
The spelling of "lose/loose" is the exception to the common rule that words like "chose/choose" follow.
what? what words like chose/choose? i struggle to think of any word similar to chose/choose/chosen. chose isnt the same tense as lose. also, choice vs loss. theyre very different.
Just in pronunciation. Usually when you put the two O's next to each other is affects the pronunciation of the O sound, as it does in chose/choose.
But for some reason the double O in lose/loose does not change the pronunciation of the vowel at all. It instead affects the pronunciation of the S to sound either like an "unvoiced S sound" or a "voiced Z sound."
If I told you to pronounce "Loo" then we would all agree on what that would sound like, but if I told you to add a Z sound to the end of that "Loo" then you might say "hey you spelled lose wrong, it only has one O."
That's the exception to the rule that I was talking about. O sounds and OO sounds are pretty straightforward but they don't work the way you would expect in the words "lose/loose".
I don't know if my explanation makes any sense if you don't already understand what I'm talking about, but this is the reason so many people on the internet misspell the word "lose".
i just don't know of anything besides choose that would follow that rule. i mean, theres noose. just legitimately cant think of some other examples of a word that is more like choose than lose
And my Lemmy app won't let me edit my typos so it's gonna be even harder to follow lol.
Because English orthography makes no sense.
EVERYONE STOP TALKING! They also forgot an apostrophe. Gotta love prescriptivists.
It highlights lack of care, thought, or capability, thus reducing the impact of the overall message. It matters.
Yes, it's a casual comment, a casual thought written casually. All of your assumptions here don't apply. Why not spend time having a conversation rather than bringing it to a screeching halt enforcing made up rules? The only time I think criticizing grammar is warranted is if you're genuinely confused about what they're trying to say, and you can definitely be more polite when doing it.
Because they're Liberals, why would they hold a genuine conversation with a Leftist when they can just insult me and move on. They know im right as they very often do and they have no real counterpoint, when I dont have a typing mistake to make fun of they just call me a tankie or a Russian bot for not bowing to the party.
We disagree on this.
So you'd rather police grammar than provide something to the conversation?
Thanks!
That's not what prescriptivism is, unless your definition of prescriptivism is "knowing basic spelling rules"
Is that not how language actually works? How is telling people to follow made up rules not prescriptivism?
The billionaires would probably run a liberal coded centrist in the general just to take votes form her.
There are many other parties they can join that won't boycott them, if they stay there it's because they are fine with it.
Really hope she does run for POTUS. She'd make a great President.
Have u learned nothing from the last 10 years. America is simply too racist and sexist and stupid, so fucking stupid, to accomplish this. She will probably be a great Commander in the Rebel Alliance though. In the coming civil war.
Kamala lost because she was an awful candidate, not because she was a woman.
She would have won despite cheating if she wasn't trying to be republican-lite.
If the means of political power is cynicism then the ends will be fascism.
She'd look pretty hot in a revolutionary commando outfit...
:logs into deviantart:
Michelle Obama would have trounced Trump... but the dems would rather lose than abandon fascism.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
I just hope their primaries keep some unity and don’t make her or Newson losing votes depending on the pick. Dems are too split inside and I could see neo-liberals not voting for her or lefties not voting for Newson. If Dems can’t find unity they will not win.
We’ve gotta do everything we can to prevent a Newsom or other craven neoliberal lunatic from getting the nomination, otherwise we are going to get a much much worse traitor lunatic next time around.
America will not vote a minority woman as President in this century. They would never even vote for a woman.
Right candidate, wrong country.
both just did the exact same strategy that always costs the dems elections. Hilary won the popular vote, remember?
Popular vote isn't enough in the United states. Also, Hilary is Bill's wife. That's part of why she got as many votes as she did. If I was American, I would vote for AOC but I know she'd never win. A woman of colour has no chance down there. I hate saying it, but it is what it is.
She and Bill also controlled and funded the DNC.
I think there’s something to that, but I think with a sufficient mass movement behind it, such a candidate could overcome the obvious treason.
That's how parties that don't actually serve the majority end up dying. It's a flaw in democracy that it can be so easily corrupted by the wealthy classes.
It ends up all being a sham, then a shame, then a dictatorship.
No, of course I would vote against the Republican if the Democrat were Newsom, that’s just common sense. I’m saying that we need to do everything we can to prevent him from being the nominee now, while we can still affect things.
That's not what they said at all.
Yes, and as many of us need to say it as possible or they will ratfuck their way to running an unelectable republican-lite in the general.
I consider myself a neoliberal, and I am going to vote for AOC. I have grown quite fond of her over the years and she is quite the politician these days. She’s extremely sharp and polished. I think she’s ready.
Neo-Liberaliam / Economic Liberalism is part of what got Trump elected. The sense that Capitalism was beyond the reach of meaningful governance, and will always just aid the wealthy getting wealthier - created a hunger for radical change.
People end up just wanting radical change out of frustration, regardless of what direction that change takes (left or right). They just want a break in unrelenting Capitalism.
Which explains why for many, Bernie, AOC, and Trump, were all likable/popular choices at the same time.
Newsome as a moderating figure will prevent any strong shift away from the service of Capitalism as above all else, and hence is a huge danger to the politics of equilibrium. It's ratchet theory, keeps things stuck.
... Neo-Liberals should be embarrassed to admit who they are, because they caused this, by claiming that Capitalism and deregulation is a moderate position (steering the ship of state between the left and the right) - when infact that's an economic extremist viewpoint which excuses inept government and the corruptions of money... and when perpetuated infinitum as it is, it becomes the cause of voter radicalism.
Neo-Liberal economic policies create the unshifting corruption and two-tier "too big to fail, too rich to jail" system that people want to vote against.
In this sense Newsome is dead weight, representing Bidenism 2.0. Neo-Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for not just accepting their part in creating the quagmire, but wanting to continue it.
I'd be happy to see her win. But, I don't think she would have a real shot in 2028.
Even just ignoring the fact that she's a woman, relatively young and has non-centrist positions. It's not common for people whose only political experience is in congress to win the presidency.
IMO, she really should first run for Governor of NY. Especially if Mamdami wins and she has a strong ally as mayor of NYC. Even a short term as Governor of NYC would give her experience as an executive, which she currently lacks.
This list is missing 45/47. If you add his qualifications to the list, then I guess reality show host, felon, rapist, etc are also presidential qualifications, but congressperson is still not one? I think it's safe to say all norms are out the window now and past performance is not anything to bet on going forward.
Who?
The guy currently stinking up the place.
Maybe I'm an old timer around these parts, but I remember these same exact arguments being used against Obama. "He's only been a senator for two years, and what was he before that, a """community organizer"""?"
In fact, I'm pretty sure she's got more political experience, on a national scale, than he did at the point where he as nominated.
Obama was a constitutional scholar. We can debate academic vs hands on, but he was well versed.
AOC is herself, pretty well educated:
That was before she even went to college
I'm gonna focus on college and after. But it's not that just that Obama was educated, he was a practicing lawyer and professor steeped in constitutional law.
I mean she graduated cum laude from Boston University with a Bacheslors in International Relations and Economics
That isn't nothing.
Sigh. I didn't say it's not nothing. You're making up a strawman to argue against.
I'm highlighting the extensive and impressive qualifications of Obama. They are massively different. You know I started typing more but there's no point in discussing when you are making up a strawman to argue against. Go look up Obama's education and career before being president.
Some people have been elected president with no political experience. But, the trend is pretty clear.
Hochul is towing the line well enough for now, and there's a progressive state politician who's potential run has kept her in check. I'd much rather see AOC primary Schumer.
If the goal is to have some good democratic legislators, then probably AOC taking out Schumer would be good. If the goal is to have AOC elected president, she could use some experience as a governor.
Biden was VP
Good point.
she’s gonna have to primary gavin probably
That's really sad and gross.
If Gavin is the Democratic nominee, the country is 100% over. Even if he wins, another spineless corporate neoliberal will not be up to the job ahead.
He most certainly don't do a fucking thing to reverse any of the Trump executive orders or damage either, he'll keep ICE funding where it's at and continue the horrors.
... what?
No you didn't. You said "lol..." not "lol...." The former implies something will follow as the sentence is not complete. I was inquiring as to what (presumably) clever thought you omitted.
At this rate, there might already be civil war or at least no regular elections anymore in the US.
We're already in it chief, just because there's no factions warring on the streets doesn't mean shit, there's stochastic terrorism happening on a regular basis, there's secret police disappearing people from their homes in the cover of darkness, and there's militias training for the next push forward. A fascist trained today, did you?
Ye the Democratic party is being paid to do nothing and let the technofasicsts take full control. If elections do happen they will be rigged.
The next three years will be interesting, to say the least.
Years? The next three months are gonna be batshit insane
we live in interesting times
im pretty sick of interesting.
How I long for a boring election year in America
Adorable that these people don’t think that this election won’t see even more voting fraud than the last one.
I mean, if the last one was stolen, why wouldn’t the next one be, as well? He’s going to have three more years to build systems that ensure a permanent Republican ascendency.
Cool theory. Not helpful.
We have to assume there'll be an election until there isn't.
Not a theory. (2) (3) There are now lawsuits in motion due to this.
I don't mean voter fraud is the theory. Yes, obviously it definitely happened and will happen again. I mean the commonly-repeated theory that there "won't be an election" next year. That is a great way to just capitulate the election in advance.
Honestly I might have replied to the wrong comment. I'm sorry.
Do you have facts to support that voter fraud occurred? Good faith question on my part. From the security people I follow that lean towards it didn't happen. If it and there are facts it would be good to know. People I primarily follow with background in security are Matt Blaze Brian Krebs Thanks
The links I have are on my computer and that's at work, sorry. The one thing I can tell you for certain is that Musk's media manipulation on Twitter constituted voter fraud. There are a ton of rumors about more direct manipulation, a lot of which I find unconvincing, but some of which I think merit further investigation.
Oh, there WILL BE “elections”. They need the circus spectacle to justify their existence.
But with Trump’s cronies in control of ballot machines, where votes can be deleted or altered after the fact, future elections are likely to be entirely performative; a thin veneer of legitimacy papering over a massive edifice of fraud and rot.
Trump could legitimately get zero votes and the voting system will still show him with a landslide victory. That’s their objective, after all. It’s torn straight from the Chinese and North Korea and Nazi Germany playbooks.
Just stop with this. It's a form of obeying in advance: buying into the despair of nothing being possible, and everything being broken.
Their plan is to make it seem like there's no point in fighting so nobody does, but if we give up the fight three years out we're just conceding that ground to them.
Yes, they're going to cheat. So we have to make it impossible for them to manipulate. Yes, they might try to make it look like a landslide anyway. So we have to be ready to take every single possible thing all the way through the courts.
Yes, the Supreme Court is a captured entity as well. So we have to overwhelm and clog up the apparatus they're using to make it do horrible things and force everyone from the poll worker all the way up to the SCOTUS justice to publicly go on record and say "voter fraud is ok." Then, when fascism falls (and it always does, don't kid yourself) we know who to throw in jail first.
Don't give up in advance. They want you to love Big Orange Brother or fear Big Orange Brother with every fiber of your being; either way, you'll never stand up to him.
We assume there's an election until there isn't. We assume it's fair (or fair-ish) until we have proof it isn't. Anything less is saying "eh, you can have this one."
Should have done it in the last election.
She was barely old enough to run then.
@ILikeBoobies @Redditsux
she wasn't ready. Or should I say: the Country wasn't ready.
I still don't think they are. Mostly because woman. Bunch of pigs out there that can't stomach the idea of a female leader
@JigglySackles
Survivors might want a better options this time.
I certainly hope so.
Piss off imputing bigotry for the rejection of two universally unpopular sold out Corpus hack women. They both lost the majority of the woman vote, are those women not ready for a woman leader too? Or maybe you are just being tooled to say that so the people that forced those unpopular candidates on us do not have to lose their jobs to make way for people that can get us a winnable candidates.
Sadly yeah this was my anecdotal experience. Strong women with careers and positions of power in their own personal relationships felt that a woman just wasn't suited to stand up to Putin or Kim jong un.
Clearly I meant it is not about the characteristics of that person but their character. There were lousy candidates so they did not get support.
How insulting is it when someone tells you you should vote for a woman that you disagree with because they are a woman in the us?
Bigotry is there without any other input.
I voted for both women because idgaf about someone's nibbly bits.
People will not vote for somebody because they share the people will not vote for somebody because they share the same characteristics while being opposed ideologically. If it was not clear with Hillary Clinton it should have been with Kamala harris.
I'm sorry, I am not following your first sentence. Could you rephrase that?
i dont think she was old enough
She was, her birthday is in October while the election was in November.
She was born 10/13/89 so she was just old enough.
Schumer better just retire
I think people underestimate how powerful it is to have a candidate that is even moderately attractive. Democrats are obsessed with running the oldest dinosaur they have because it’s “their turn”
People are shallow, this is true
Nothing says "in touch with the needs of the American People" like making sure to enforce the written rules and unwritten customs of the line of noble succession everybody is waiting in. But they're lined up to take turns on a ride that burned down long ago.
Except when you realize that the last five Republican presidents have looked like: Annoying Orange with a cobweb toupee and a perfectly cylindrical body; the guy who bullied literally everyone in high school; an unholy combination of Jeff Daniels, age 70 on the right side and Jeff Daniels, age 40 on the left side; a washed up movie star with too many hours under the warming lamp; and the villain in a teen movie about having a bake sale to save the local dance hall.
Be honest with yourself. Of the candidates that have run in the last 20 years, who was the “most” attractive? Keeping in mind the majority of voters are boomers. With the exception of Kamala, the “attractive” candidate won. Hell go back even further, Al Gore won the popular vote, Clinton before that. You could argue that to win the presidency you just have to be the most attractive.
Edit. I should have phrased it better. I meant of the 2 presidential candidates, not necessarily attractive in general.
Ok, last 20 years. So that's Obama v. McCain, Obama v. Romney, Clinton v. Trump, Biden v. Trump, and Harris v. Trump. Five elections: two featured probably the most attractive (or at least youngest) president in recent history winning, and the other three featured maybe the ugliest S. O. B. on God's green earth, who won twice. I feel like it's generally a tossup.
The only thing I know for sure is that if the DNC has their druthers, (and there's an election at all) they will run a straight, white man.
don't usually pay attention 3 years out. VP pick could be key.
I'll campaign for her as hard as I did for Bernie - and I was whole of body when I first campaigned for Bernie. I'll break what remains of this body if it means increasing her chances of victory incrementally.
But we'll have to survive 'til then. That's not guaranteed, unfortunately.
I think the bigger problem isn't that she's a young talented woman and America isn't ready for that, I think the DNC is too stupid to ever let it happen even if it means winning because she likely won't play as much ball with them as they'd want. My money is still on the DNC pushing Buttigieg. I believe they will offer any major opponents the same kind of offer I believe he got when he was crushing Biden in the early states. Drop out, make way for the anointed one, and we'll give you a cabinet position and a shot down the line (maybe). The DNC will absolutely go younger, but I do not believe they'll ever go progressive, which is why they will never get my vote again until they do.
Aoc 2028 baby
I want to be selfish, I want New York to keep her a while longer. Chuck needs to retire already and she needs to replace him for at least 2 terms. She'll still be plenty young enough to run for VP or President after that. Maybe by then people will vote for a woman President....
We need an army of progressive young people willing to be one term politicians in every state
Young people need to know and care about their neighbors and community first. Everyone is so disconnected now. Everyone is an island. Everyone is just watching Rome burn.
Joining a local group and meeting regularly to discuss these things is one of the most powerful things we could start with.
The wave of local candidates we need will come from these groups as leaders naturally emerge.
I would get my US citizenship to vote for her.
https://objectives.ytmnd.com/
As if there will be an election in 2028
i hope i'm fucking dead by 2028
imagine thinking its okay for these fucking assholes to determine our lives by their shitty little electoralist increments
You can still be happy while the world ends
you might be confusing you for me
I've been where you are and it's fixable
Maybe she should try doing a 2026 campaign.
For what exactly? Presidential election is in 2028
O yea? Who's going to guarantee it? Not the supreme court, not Congress and not the president for sure.
Is anyone really, seriously, still expecting fair elections will happen in 2028? They are already at the "the first amendment doesn't matter" stage. Do they look like they value democracy?
You need change now. I'm not saying it needs to be violent or undemocratic, but waiting around for 3 years is no plan to save your country
No. We are in fascism and there will not be a fair election until there is blood shed.
You sure are saying a lot for someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Even if there is not a fair election in 2028, there certainly won't be an election sooner than that. There just isn't a way to elect a president outside of the term cycle. Even if there were a violent solution to the president, there is a survivors list, not an election.
Only if she can win. Whoever it is, HAS to win.
Only
ifshe can win.FTFY. Centrists are unelectable. Don't fall for their "only the middle can win" scam. That scam lost us 2016, 2024, and it would have lost us 2020 if not for covid. Clintonism is a dead strategy designed for the world of 30 years ago. Yet centrist Dems continue the "only we can win" scam, demanding we ignore the evidence we have seen with our own eyes.
There are others who can win, but she has strong chances yes
i would vote for her 100% but i dont think she would win. america has an institutionalized bias against women in higher office. the only way i see this changing is the president dying and a woman vp taking over.
She'd never win.
Not because she's a woman.
Not because she isn't white.
Not because she's more socialist than most.
She'll never win because every time she decides to not tank her entire political career and thus the entire movement behind her, the moronic delusions of leftists who think she can 1-woman revolution her ass to ending capitalism forever but chooses not to, overwhelms the public narrative.
Nobody hates the left winning more than the left, and you can see this every time AOC chooses to wisely and strategically navigate the political landscape instead of acting like a screaming banshee of a college trustfund psuedo-leftist trying to score some proletariat pussy.
If anything she won't win because she doesn't know how to act like the main character. She should be the spiritual leader of the Democratic party right now, and she easily could be by picking a fight with Schumer
When he passed the funding bill, he basically guaranteed the death of the party as it is. It's historically unpopular, everyone hates them and what they stand for - including their base
Solidarity means an end to your political career right now, people are very clear in what they want. If she had the sauce to be a leader, she wouldn't be waiting her turn... She'd already be leading
She had a propalestine blunder. Republicans will make sure to balloon that up if she were to get close to presidency. Dems need a candidate who is pro palestinian, and progressive with a tinge of socialism.
What was the blunder?
She's gearing up to be top sheepdog with Bernie handing over the reins to her.
Bro still thinks there's going to be an election 💀
These defeatist shitposts are how consent is created
Who even needs the feds to have an election? The government didn't give you the right.
She is the only one I'll vote for. No compromise. AOC or no vote.
I love her, she's my Congressional Rep, but my vote is going to the candidate who very clearly articulates that the primary mission of their presidency will be to ruthlessly and mercilessly purge the MAGA Scourge from America, including imprisoning Trump, and ALL his henchmen, including his family.
Everybody in the Trump administration is a National Security Threat, and should treated as such. They should be rounded up and sent to Gitmo, to be extensively interrogated about their treason and corruption. None of them should ever breathe free air again. Several of them should not even breathe again.
My candidate is the one who will finally say that America can't move forward until the MAGA Party is declared a terrorist hate group, and prohibited from existing, and the Conservative Propaganda Machine is dismantled and their propagandists imprisoned for treason.
Only then can we move on to dealing with the Sociopathic Oligarchs.
For real, until we crack down on the corruption there simply can't be any real improvement.
Campaign Finance Reform is the issue from which ALL other issues flow.
True Campaign Finance Reform would prohibit ALL forms of lobbying, make elections federally funded and limited to 90 days before election day. No PACS, dark money etc. No special interest groups money or ads. No political donations of any kind, from anyone. All money of any kind is is BANNED from politics.
Once money is out of politics, the only political currency will be the vote of the citizens, with each citizen getting a single vote. You are registered to vote when you are born, and it is automatically validated in your 18th birthday. Your vote cannot be removed for any reason, including a felony conviction. Incarcerated prisoners can still vote (if anyone needs political representation, it's prisoners).
Political campaign speech is required to be accurate, and if it is not, a person's candidacy can be removed. Lying candidates will not be on the ballot on election day. An "eating the pets" statement in a debate would lose your candidacy.
Debates will be weekly, will be broadcast on every broadcast network with an FCC license. and attendance by the candidates will be required. Failure to show up to the debate, fail to behave properly, whining about the hosts, interrupting, arguing, etc. and you will lose your candidacy.
A campaign should demonstrate the fitness of the candidate for office. If they can't behave properly and responsibly on the campaign trail, they have no business in the Oval Office.
And this country will never succeed until ALL money is moved from the campaign process.
I think removing money from politics would be a good thing and I think your suggestion are logical and would be a vast improvement to what we have now.
Holding politicians accountable for their policies is a no brainier. So should being disqualified for lying. Every politician should be graded with a report card on how they are doing at getting their policies enacted.
Policies/laws/regulations should also be reviewed to determine if they are having the correct impact, if not they should be repealed or replaced. Without mechanisms like this we never know if the laws we pass are working as intended. We should also always be accounting for negative externalities.
I'm with you on all of that.
Conservatives are always talking about running government like a business, which is a terrible idea. However, there are things we can borrow from the business world, like accountability.
If it's broke, we fix it responsibly, and then make sure the solution is proceeding properly, and if it isn't, we tweak it until it does. We can't keep having massive tectonic shifts in our governmental systems every 4-8 years
Any candidate that says this outloud would very likely fall out of the nearest window.
The republicans know they are guitly, they know they should be in jail. They will do ANYTHING to stay in power and out of jail.
Candidates can still signal their intentions in other ways. It doesn't have to be out loud per se.
The main concern I have—and if she's going to give it a shot, give it a shot, I say—is that she won't have the fire or aura necessary in her rhetoric to capture the anger the of the American left. I would love to be proven wrong, though. I'd certainly trust her more than that fuckin snake Gavin Newsom.
When she speaks, I feel her intelligence, commitment, strength, and FIRE. She NEVER backs down from a fight, and she always has a withering comeback to MAGA insults.
The more people see and hear her, the more people are going to love her. I'd love to see her in a presidential debate with Trump, or any other MAGA.
Didn't she back down from Nancy Pelosi over the Isreal dome stuff?
The fire I'm talking about needs to burn away the establishment rot in the Democrat party. It cannot be afraid to criticize Merrick Garland for failing to prosecute Trump because it might make the party look bad.
The party has a reputation for doing nothing. This fire cannot promise nothing; people will see through it right away.
I don't remember the content of the speech, but I do remember that during the last national convention, AOC did rouse the crowd better than pretty much anyone else there. I'm not saying she can't be the one. I am saying there's got to be a hell of a lot more than a Fighting Oligarchy tour that fails to really accomplish anything.
It takes steps to create the political environment to be successful. The first step was hitching her star to the most popular Senator in America, and having him officially pass the torch to her in front audiences all over America. In Progressive World, he has officially annointed her as his successor.
There are many more steps, including fighting the new DNC notion that a woman can't win. Kamala DID win, they just cheated (STOP! Yes they did, and we all know it. Of course they did, it's who they are).
The DNC is saying this because they know who the real female threat is, and they are still in their anti-progressive stage. If Kamala announced her intention to run, and had a valid (to them) campaign strategy, they'd back her in a heartbeat. A lot of them still believe that her loss was because of a lack of campaigning. I think that was a strength. She popped in near the end, a gush of fresh air in an extremely stale, funky political environment, and instantly energized the campaign. That gave her great momentum going into Election Day. Remember all those enthusiastic arena rally crowds, compared to Trump's half-filled high school gymnasiums, with the audience streaming out halfway through?
She ran a strong, credible campaign, it was just stolen in the swing states by switching millions of Kamala votes to Trump. That's why there's the fairy tale of all those voters who voted a straight Dem ticket, with Trump at the top. Funny thing, those sorts of ballots are almost all in the swing states, nowhere else. Another funny thing - has anybody ever spoken to ONE of these millions of Democratic Trump voters? I'm sure there are few, but they are as rare white squirrels. I've never met or heard from one.
An extended campaign would only reveal Kamala as just another weak-ass establishment Dem. She could never match AOC's exuberance and youthfulness.
And AOC will show up with proposals. Changes to our system that will benefit everyone, not just the wealthy donors that the old guard in BOTH parties kisses up to. Kamala's same old boring Republican-Lite strategy will just get a MAGA elected.
Eh, who am I kidding? Were never going to have a fair election again, if we ever even have an election at all.
Okay, well, I'm waiting for those steps to be carried out then. We can't really talk about her extreme viability until they have.
I'm going to skip over the Kamala stuff because you say this later:
Which I agree with. This is the reason she was not a strong candidate.
Was she the best we could have done under the circumstances? Well, we didn't get a primary, so who knows. The past is the past, I suppose.
I am worried that you are drinking the koolaid a little bit. Kamala did lose. Nobody cares about policy. AOC's proposals should be violent retribution against the leeches sucking the life out of the USA. Trump is successful, in part, because he pretends to be anti-establishment. The DNC's official position is to never criticize any prominent figure they've ever had.
I agree that AOC can energize people. What I'm asking is if she has the dominant aura necessary to crack the whip.
I ask, partly because having the will to mobilize our system into actually doing something is a prerequisite now to being successful, and partly because this ping-ponging between the Dems and the Republicans will burn the country down. We need like a new cultural revolution. It should be as offensive to be a Republican now as it was to be a Nazi in the 1940s. American individualism and apathy must be crushed under heel. Anything less than this is basically a slow death. A pyrrhic victory as we lose global significance.
I dont think our champion has emerged yet. Someone will be catapulted forward, maybe even by luck.
We've still got a lot of time, too. Nobody knew Mamdani 5 months ago. But yeah, I agree.
And the Democrats have to commit to doing anything it takes to get the MAGA traitors out.
Look what it took to dislodge the Nazis. If we go too long, and the MAGA Nazis get their roots in too deep, that's what it's going to take to liberate America from them.
What a stupid take
she's going to kiss the zionist ring. just watch
Honestly, as much as i dont like the "Hillary and Kamala lost because theyre women!!" Narrative, i think enough people have convinced themselves that its true that the safer bet is just to run AOC as VP and have someone more appealing to your average old white guy democrat as the PoTUS. I think Waltz would be a pretty good pick in that regard, but hell i would take Newsom (or anyone really) at this point.
She can't become the President unless she's willing to bow down and kiss the wall.
Why didn’t you just put (((President)))
Has the meaning of the (((parens))) been updated to mean only zionists or is it still how hatemongers cast aspersions on Jewish people?
😐
what if we knock the wall down
She's the next Bernie. Her purpose is to sheepdog leftists back into the Democratic party, which is far from democratic. The Dems are basically queer Nazis.
Oh Jesus. I mean, I’m with you that the Democratic Party is rotten. And I agree no politician will save us. But even a progressive dem is better than anything else we have on offer.
I get it, voting itself is tainted, politics are completely off the rails, dems are nothing but pink republicans…but Jesus. Let us at least get someone who doesn’t have their head so far up corpo’s ass that might be able to put a dent in the way the game is played. I bet you have something to say about mamdani too?
Mamdani is already backpedaling his pro-Palestine stance after getting brow-beaten by Bernie.
Jesus dude. You all are so damn negative. The jokes about the left are pretty much all dead on. The left hate each other for not being far enough left. I'm on here for progressive conversation but people like you make me not want it. Reading shit like this from other "leftists" is exhausting. You probably wouldn't support Karl Marx if he cut his right hand off because he still had a right foot.
Unification of the left is the only way to progress. Dividing the left is how the right consistently wins.
Just because AOC calls herself a "democratic socialist" doesn't mean she is. If a chicken calls itself an eagle, does that make it so?
We need a third party. If Bernie had had the balls to run Independent, he would have kicked both Trump's and Hillary's asses. Most people in the U.S. are in the middle, the real middle, not the bullshit choice of Nazi versus slightly nicer Nazi.
Lol that's just factually not true. A third party contributes to the spoiler effect. In our current voting system, a third party kingmakes the least desirable choice. Running third party without voting system reform is political suicide.
It's my opinion, so it's not "factually untrue" or empirically true. You calling it factually untrue is itself factually untrue. I'm 54, so I've seen a lot more of politics than you have (I'm guessing you're 30-something). Since you're obviously too smart to be this dumb, you're most likely a shill, which is even worse than being a MAGA r*tard.
So left and progressive that you think it's okay to use an ableist slur like that as long as you put a little censor in there. Cute. I wish I were a shill. I would love to call out cunts like you on the internet and get paid for it. You make the left worse. That's my point.
It's fake leftist like you who make the left worse, idiot. You think that accusing me of being an "ableist" makes you more of a leftist, that's a huge part of the problem, moron. See, I can use other words, like idiot and moron that are not considered "ableist slurs" that were used in the same vein as said slur you may be referring to.
No. She will not win. This has to stop. Democrats are just fucking off and giving MAGA the win, and likely inviting a Trump 3rd term.
It's not about her politics, it's about her gender. A big chunk of the voting population, probably close to 20%, will not vote for a woman president.
I don't think there's any data to prove that. There have only been two women ever nominated by a major party, and they both had substantial electoral problems absent their gender.
Remember, a "big chunk of the voting population" would never vote for a reality TV show host. Or for a Black man. Or for the son of a previous president. Or for a movie star. Or for a Catholic. Or for someone who had never served in the armed forces. Or for someone who wasn't supported by the Southern states. Or for someone who wasn't from one of the 13 original colonies. Or for someone from the Whig party. Or for someone who wasn't alive during the Revolution. ---in each case, until it happened.
47 (really 45, Cleveland and Trump being one person but having two administrations each) just isn't a big enough number to draw any statistical significance from. And we've elected women to every other elected office for decades. And other countries that are no more progressive than we are have elected women.
I'm not saying that women wouldn't have to excel to beat a merely-adequate man in a presidential race; but for a good candidate, their gender isn't as much of a drag on the vote as a ton of other factors.