AOC is plotting a run for president in 2028: report
She’s embarked on a nationwide tour with Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, held town halls outside of her district in upstate New York, and raised $15 million
Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive who has cemented her popularity with young voters, is reportedly considering running for president or the Senate in 2028.
Ocasio-Cortez, 35, made a splash when she was elected to represent New York’s 14th congressional district, located in the Bronx and Queens, in 2019. Now, the Democrat is reportedly considering taking the next step in her political career as the party searches for its next generation of leaders, Axios reported Friday.
Members of Ocasio-Cortez’s team have recently been positioning the progressive lawmaker, known as AOC, to either run for president or run for a Senate seat.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-presidential-race-2028-senate-b2829945.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
"Plotting"? Wtf is this wording?
Propaganda, as is usual
It worked so hard. I'm voting for her because this means she's serious.
AOC is instrumenting a plot of running for office, while MAGA is merely preparing for another coup.
She's plotting against the democratic establishment that wants to nominate another creepy fash loser.
That's kind of how the article frames this. She's popular with young voters, but would be jumping ahead of "established" "Democrats". Very stupid framing since the establishment has failed us so consistently.
Plotting, eh? How diabolical of her.
She's earned my vote now.
She'd have my vote, but I doubt she could win.
Yeah I would definitely support her but I don't know why you have downvotes. The fascist have been running character hit pieces on her and misinformation campaigns for like a decade now non stop. Also America has shown it's true colors by electing Trump twice. I just don't know how people think we go from an open racist to a women of color without major election reform. Which is happening. Just in the wrong direction. What reality are y'all living in where she has a chance? I hope I'm wrong but just from looking at the current state of things... I know people are somewhat fed up with things, but the idea that they'll pull their heads out of their racist asses by that time seems ludicrous.
She might run if she believes it would steer the conversation in a productive way, even if she didn't believe she could win a primary.
I think she'd have a great shot at the primary.
More likely she’s running for senate.
Ah yes, I remember when Trump became a Senator.
Fun stats: 17 U.S. presidents were previously U.S. senators, and also 17 were previously state governors (additionally, Harrison and Taft were territorial governors, and Jackson was military governor of the territory of Florida).
Six U.S. presidents had held previously both governor and U.S. senator roles, including Jackson and Harrison's non-state governorships.
5 U.S. presidents were not elected to public office prior to holding the presidency - Taylor, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Trump.
Why do you think this?
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but historically it's been a lot easier to be taken seriously after a stint in the Senate. Hard to say if that's still the case, we live in weird times, but the Democrat establishment is a lot more bound by tradition than Republicans, and it frequently leads them astray.
It's very possible with a coalition formed through other recent success stories like Mamdani, she's concluded that a coup of sorts is possible (and I mean that with the utmost excitement). They might have numbers showing now is the time to capitalize on a ground swell and really shift the party. I'm assuming they've got some sort of data backing this, even if it's just "we don't know if we can win but we know the establishment Democrats will lose"
I know I’m a day late here replying but this narrative is just antiquated like our entire system. If we want to keep at this, we don’t need her after a stint in the Senate, we need her now. What exactly will she gain by going that route? Because it’s the best way to gain respect? Maybe she’ll get some experience?
Look, statistically you are right. But let’s run the facts, normal is just a setting on the dryer and we’re not playing by the standard rulebook anymore.
Usually it is said that someone is 'contemplating' or 'planning' a run for office, but since it's about a woman the headline says 'plotting' because that sounds underhanded and nefarious and the media wants to get the framing in place early.
That said, I think it would be better for her to run to replace Schumer in the Senate. A better chance to win and could do more good there.
I suspect poor headline editing. The article is about multiple options (Senate, President, other party-promoting path) where the navigational use of the term ("plotting a course") is reasonable. But then the headline couldn't fit even two options, so it got reduced to just President and no one on the team connected that plotting has a negative implication with a single subject.
If this is "plotting", then I am all for this "villain" to win. The wording of the headline implies that AOC is a bad thing, when we got...waves at orange fuckwit
Anyhow, if given the choice between AOC and Newsom, AOC all the way.
I've always interpreted it more as 'plotting a course'.
Yeah I was honestly surprised to see how many people in this thread interpret "plotting" as inherently negative.
It's both, but in journalism, you pick your words carefully. There's no chance the writer of the headline wasn't fully aware of both connotations. There are a dozen other words that could have meant the same thing without making it sound nefarious.
I think it's like when people use "scheme". In the US it has heavy tones of nefarious intent, but it's still used a lot because some people just don't think of it that way. (Be it from UK influence or whatever.)
I am guessing it is due to politics inherently being a skulduggery kind of thing, especially with mainstream media being in the pocket of the wealthy. If our news outlets had a reputation of being fair and truthful, their wording wouldn't be treated with suspicion.
As an American, I have to turn many statements like a rotisserie and think whether they make sense. They cannot be trusted if left raw.
I think "plotting" doesn't see a ton of use in that more neutral sense outside of a few idiomatic cases like "plotting a course". I definitely did not naturally associate a presidential run with that navigational sense of "plotting", but instead the "plotting an evil scheme" connotation jumped out. I'd think of planning a presidential run to be more similar in activity to plotting a scheme, another literal plan of actions to achieve a goal, than to plotting a course as a figurative map of those actions. That's why I interpreted pretty sharply that way, at least.
Since the article is about her considering multiple options - Senate or President - that she'll have to narrow down to a single path, the navigation implication seems relevant.
Yeah, I was giving side-eyed to that choice of word, too. Why not just use the word "planning"? The word "plotting" sounds like a snarl word.
Uggg I guess I'm same... But effing dems will go with the more fascist option everytime so we'll get Newsom for sure..
I don't think you know what fascist means
Look if she comes out of the box swinging, and I mean haymakers both left and right, she could do it. The DNC has to have an honest to god real primary and not the horse shit they pulled with Bernie or the last-minute Harris takeover.
If AOC wins a primary and is nominated, hits the ground at a full sprint, doesn't pull punches on either side of the political spectrum, prays to Jah, and crosses her fingers she could do a Billy Clint or Obama. She is going to have to learn to play the Saxophone, confess to smoking weed and inhaling, slow jam the news, and probably host a full episode of SNL not just appear as herself in a sketch. If she did all that and she convinces Jesus to come down from on high and endorse her she has a 50/50 chance.
Oh, and she'll need a gun for her purse like that bargain bin Barbie from Colorado or the dude from Georgia's 14th congressional district.
Very quaint of them expecting an actual election to happen in 2028
Even Russia is a "democracy".
I’m 100% sure we’ll have an election in 2028. The interesting question is whether it will be free and fair. Remember, even China and Russia hold elections; just not ones the incumbent can lose.
AOC concocts DEVIOUS scheme to repossess burger from McDonalds using PRIVATE bank account funding
AOC buy lunch at McDonalds.
AOC funds animal murder with her own monies.
"plotting" eh?
I'm picturing that family guy skin shade card, but the top says "decisive executive leadership" while the bottom says "plotting/conspiring."
Yes, such dastardly plans.
Conspicuous in their, uh, inconspicuity
She needs to go for Chuck’s seat instead
Yeah Schmucker has got to go.
Schumer writing a strongly worded letter to AOC this very instant.
He'll be 78, it would be reasonable for him to retire when his term is up in 2028. Hopefully the fiascos with Biden and multiple Democratic Representatives dying of old age this term (and the Republican Representative who went missing because her family put her in assisted living), and just slightly further back Feinstein being too sick to make critical votes, all push people to stop hanging on to their seats all the way to the bitter end. Pelosi leading the way here, showing it can be done.
If AOC is the candidate, it will be the first time since Bernie that I will phone bank, knock down doors, canvas ...... Whatever it takes.
She is one of the few people in politics that I can get behind.
" is reportedly considering running for president or the Senate in 2028."
Stupid clickbait title.
I think both oligarchs and corporatists alike will fight far too hard to take her down. The US would need a far more fair and democratic procedure to elect someone that would change the paradigm like AOC--especially since Citizens United.
But why is there such this defeatist attitude any time someone remotely not terrible tries to do something? It’s like we’re doing the fascists work for them with talk like this. I get that fuckery happens any time someone kinda different or kinda maybe good (for a politician) steps up, but that can be overcome with more support. When the margins are thin, it’s easy for them to cheat. When they aren’t, it’s fucking not. So let’s stop making the margins tighter with this kind of talk
Super PACs are the fuckery that happens any time someone steps up--and AOC wants justice--she is not an interest for them. We need to stop thinking it is a just world and think like they do. We need need an interest for Super PACs and we need to use that to replace SCOTUS and the majority of Congress. The doddering degenerates in office are an embarrassment. The three branches are littered with dolts and ignorant bigots.
This is all true. But my point is, we have to start somewhere. And politicians are an okay place to start. But they can’t be where we end. They are a small piece of the puzzle. But when we bring defeatism to every single part of the equation, before we try anything in earnest, then no one will ever get anywhere and things will continue to get worse and worse. We need our generations stepping up, and as much as it pains me to say, that includes politicians. We can’t trust them any further than they can be thrown, but they are still a part of the solution that we need.
Have you ever tried suggesting other parts of the solution? Strikes, collective action, mutual aid, etc? Because any time anything more than a weekend march gets suggested, people always, always, always sound a lot like your first comment where they just start listing reasons they can’t work or will be foiled. Why is that? We are conditioned by a lifetime of the system telling us it’s inevitable and everlasting. But it’s not the only way, and we need to start moving toward a different way. That starts somewhere, and if wherever it starts is poo-poo’ed at the first suggestion, then we are beyond fucked. We need momentum, and once it starts, it will seem like it was always going to go that way. So let’s let it start naturally, without the defeatism literally before we even get started righting the ship.
“We have to climb this mountain.”
“But look at that rock, and that stumbling block, and imagine how tired you will get before you can get up there! And look at your shoes, you’re not going to make it in those shoes. You’ll get blisters, and you’ll be sooo thirsty!”
Etc. etc. See my point?
They want to be proven right when things go poorly, increasing the odds of that happening in the process.
As JD Vance's Peter Thiel funded miracle run through the Senate proved, you don't have to be a Senator long to run for Pres. or VP.
Vance had just two years in professional politics before becoming VP, thanks to Peter Thiel's money and influence.
It's a pay-for-play system, not a Representative Democracy.
I like her. She can't win. Go for Senate.
Any democrat who runs on a populist message that doesn't just pander to working Americans can win the presidency... just not the primary.
If I'm still in the US by then and we even have elections still, she has my vote.
I was very disappointed no Tim Walz in that list of other potential candidates. He was the best part of the Harris / Walz ticket
Yes please if only for her age. I want old people out of power and I mean that across the entire spectrum including Bernie sanders. He would be great in her cabinet but we need young people FFS
Why? I'm all for AOC and it has nothing to do with her age. I don't see anything magical about someone's age when it comes to setting policy. I like AOC, but I also like wisdom and experience.
Geriatrics running the country don't have to worry about personally experiencing any of the negative long term consequences of their actions.
Maybe, but if they are progressive and/or have basic empathy and understanding, they understand the morality of planting a seed you may never see become a tree.
Young demons that have been radicalized by The Algorithm and the GOP are not going to GAF if they have the wrong ethics, no matter what age they are.
But we're repeatedly seeing most geriatric politicians not have basic empathy, especially on one side.
I also think, at the very least, if they're a young narcissist, they at least are thinking they'll be alive another 40-50 years and want a world, versus the ones who know time is running out.
Perspective and optics. The millennials were robbed of their chance on the world stage by the boomers. The boomers perspective doesn't work for what the world is now. People need to see a representation of themselves up there. A representative of the people for the people by the people yada yada yada
Gen X over there like "What the fuck!?!" (I'm a millennial, I get the plight.)
Can’t have it both ways, the same people who complain about the geriatric GOP also want Bernie. You can follow his policy but it’s ridiculous at his age to have him in the White House
You won't see me complaining about the GOP simply because some of them might be "geriatric". It's their policies that are the issue. JD seems very fresh-faced to me, but that guy is the front-man for some truly crazy shit.
I would gladly have age and term limits over Bernie. He is a good fella, but fact of the matter is, there isn't enough good people of his age to serve alongside him. We need young cohorts of likeminded and idealistic people that are regularly renewed, and I would gladly exchange Bernie's political position for something that could fix future politicians.
Unfortunately, we cannot sacrifice Bernie's political future for that. I believe we will be seeing many innocent people die before American politics are changed for the better.
Bernie probably should have stepped down after the 2016 election cycle and promoted a younger left-wing candidate for his seat, then he could have spent the last near-decade putting the weight of his name behind other young left-wing politicians.
Title is a lie. It says right in the body "president or Senate". Downvote and report.
Also: "plotting"? What the fuck is this? Has running for president suddenly become illegal??
it's subconscious conservatism sneaking into the headline.
Here's to hoping AOC is another Mamdani during the primaries.
The DNC would never allow her to win the nomination.
I am hoping that she does this to them...
IF there is something to run in 2028.
Water is planning to put out fires in a burning building in 2028
They need to primary more incumbent Democrats first. A Mamdani win isn’t enough momentum to convince MSNBC watching pearl clutching libs in progressive suburbia to vote for her in a presidential election. These people need to experience what a social democrat or a democratic socialist can do for them on a local level first. NYC is a trail blazer but that doesn’t mean the rest of Democrat voting America is closely behind NY. She has a better chance to win a Senate seat
We've got a whole midterm election to get that done. Stop it with the 'know your place' bullshit.
Whatever, I’ll wait for the official announcement. Love AOC but not getting my hopes up. Wait till there’s actual news.
Good! I hope she comes with some fire, sound policy ideas, and a tight campaign
I feel like shit typing this but I'm afraid America will not vote for a woman, each time it's resulted in disaster.
Sure I'll vote for her, but frankly we need a sure thing, we got a lot of mess to fix, starting with shoring up our constitution against bad faith actors and arresting and prosecuting fascist criminals.
Disbanding the heritage foundation, impeach and remove supreme court justices, reverse citizens United, and remove voting rights of all those pardoned for J6.
Fox news should be made an example of with laws preventing their type of misinformation and propaganda and they should be destroyed.
Scientific fact will be the rule and the standard. Education and our core of government will be free from all religion. Any church or religious organizations in politics will be taxed and disqualified from government.
So many people need to face consequences and I hope you all have a list and are keeping score.
The gloves are fucking off.
You are delusional my friend.
Trump is going to try to have her assassinated. I garuntee it.
And with a captured SCOTUS and ineffective congress the republicans will make sure she gets nothing done. Assuming there’s even an election.
She is one of only two people I would be excited to vote for.
The other person is Jon Stewart.
I want Dolly Parton.
She won't run, the DNC needs to keep her as the official party sheepdog, replacing Bernie.
I think you mean she can't "win". She can absolutely run. I bet it will even be close!
Bingo.
It's not always about voting for who you like most, it's about voting for who is most likely to accomplish the goals you align with.
Everyone should have just learned that from what happened in November. But this site constantly reminds me that many people did not learn that lesson.
I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
Probably one of the few candidates that have a chance with the democrats that would get me out to the polls.
If they nominate someone like kamala harris or joe biden again, it's all over.
This is of course assuming it's not all over already because they ran spineless crooks who don't represent the working class.
If they nominate someone like that, you should still go vote for that person and continue to fight for change, because the alternate is still far worse. The reality with US politics is that unless one of (or both) the two major parties implodes, the president will be affiliated with one of them. If one of the parties does break apart, it will guarantee a win for the other party.
If there is one thing the right does very well, it's to whip it's voters in line when election time comes. They may bitch and moan, but they'll vote for the (R) regardless.
You should be directing all of this energy towards those nominating candidates that don't represent the interests of the working class.
sure thing, but you still need to vote for the less harmful candidate if your favourite doesn't get the nomination. You got Trump because people figured they'd protest and not vote or vote for Jill Stein or whatever. Republicans may have not been fully on board with a second Trump term, but they still voted for him. They will vote for whoever has the (R) by their name next time as well.
Does voting dem just kick the can down the road? Absolutely, but better than not having a can to kick..
Yeah, looking forward to staying home on election day. So fucking tired of the moderate white.
Have fun with another republican term then, because that is the only plausible result of not voting against them. That is, if there is another election since your morally superior not-voting got you Trump again and Project 2025 is by many accounts, well ahead of schedule. Good Job!
God dammit. You people just don't learn.
We're both going to be stuck with a republican because you keep repeating the same mistakes.
Both of your comments were a complete waste of energy and did nothing to change my stance. You need to direct that energy towards the people voting for the hillary clintons and joe bidens over the bernie sanders and AOCs.
Now, are you going to waste more energy or finally learn and do something different? I know what I'll put my money on!
Have the day you protest-voted for. Keep protest voting and losing. Keep letting your rights get eroded because your perfect candidate isn't on the ballot. But hey, if you protest vote enough, you might not have to vote anymore, the candidate that you allowed to take the white house said so.
Make sure to vote, just not for the capitalist party.
At the moment, that will likely be Newsom unless something major happens.
Looks like I'll be sitting out another election.
Everyone getting mad at this needs to ignore me and direct any grievances they have towards anyone supporting newsom or another establishment candidate.
^^ supports MAGA ^^
Nah. She's politically what the country needs, but get serious, no way will America ever vote a woman as President.
We should let the Democratic party choose a person through a primary to run for president and then allow that person to run for president.
If a woman makes it through that process on her own merits then the party will probably vote for her.
If on the other hand a woman is selected because she's a woman who will cooperate with the donors and they decide to skip that process or subvert it in some way then you probably won't win.
Why would anyone do that when you can just complain about needing change, but do absolutely nothing to support or advocate for it! Or better yet, you can just start applying uninformed purity tests to progressive candidates. "She wants to implement the change I want to see, but because I don't understand how legislation is passed in the US, I'll accuse her of giving money to Israel's occupation, and say she's complicit in genocide" - average internet leftist.
Michelle Obama would be president right now if dems wanted to win more than they want to platform fascists.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
Stranger things have happened. They elected a black guy for one.
And 30% of the fucking country proceeded to lose their gotdamn minds about it.
While another 30% declared we had "defeated racism" and decided it's okay to halt all efforts to remediate past racial bias or prevent future racial bias in the system.
Sorry; unmedicated.
I hope you are wrong (and I think I might agree with you - I'm dubious about enough Americans being able to be man enough to vote for a woman, so I guess that means I hope we are both wrong), but I'm also bracing myself for the absolute tidal wave of Murc's Law that will follow in an attempt to excuse all of the worst tendencies of the hard right if we were to elect a woman that is also a POC.
If the conservatives go for someone even far worse than Taco (and face it: they ain't going back to the methadone of someone like a Romney or a W or a McCain after they have been mainlining the China White of pure Taco for over a decade now. If anything, they need to up the dosages of the hatred and the grievances.), there will be lots of analysis about how the liberals made them do it, because, look, what choice did they even have? The liberals elected not only a woman, but another POC! It's almost like the liberals learned nothing from electing Obama for two terms!
As much as I would love a very progressive Democrat from New York to be president she realistically has no chance of getting enough voters to win the GE especially in the purple/red states that Harris had a hard time with.
The best she could aim for is running in the primary, shaking up the candidates and getting the winner to adopt her agenda or at least have her as a VP.
To be fair, Harris was a reasonably unlikable candidate. Maybe AOC has similar baggage. I hope not. I'd love to see her at the top of a ticket.
I don't think AOC has that baggage. Democratic voters want someone that isn't a corpo-centrist running like being not-Trump is enough. Every argument that can be made against AOC could have been made against Obama in 2006 too, but he had a message that resonated and won. AOC could be in a good position to do something similar. I'd sure vote for her, even if she's become more mainstream she's still miles ahead of every other likely candidate.
It doesn't matter what her message is, no one will hear it because the news will only be reporting on what the white house tells them to report, and if they go off script they will get their licenses pulled or sued for billions.
That’s going to be equally true no matter who the nominee is—and given that, the key factor will be which candidate best appeals to the fraction of the population that doesn’t rely on Trump-aligned news.
One of the biggest issues with Harris is that she wasn't elected in the primary. If AOC is elected in the primary, she has way more of a chance.
Bullshit. She has a better chance in those states than Harris had, specifically because she isn't an establishment Democrat.
How much longer is it going to take before folks finally start to get it through their heads that left populists like Bernie and AOC can tap into the same disillusionment that Trump exploited?
Sorry, best we can do is Cuomo. - DNC, probably
Harris had a hard time with those places because she was an empty suit neoliberal promising no significant change whatsoever and also genocide. The whole "it's misogyny and/or racism" thing is a cop out so establishment Dems don't have to confront their godawful platform. Obama sure as hell didn't struggle with those red and purple states.
Literally yes. Biden was the most progressive American president in a loooong time (or at least one of the most progressive depending on how you parse Obama), and his campaign showed it. I mean he was still a neolib and definitely not the man of the hour, but in more normal times (and without a genocide to aid and abet) he'd be considered a better than average president, though one with his pitfalls.
Sure, but I have a very hard time believing your average potential blue voter (so not MAGA chuds) would hate a black woman appreciably more than a black man. Black is firmly at the top of the hierarchy of American hate; they got the right to vote sooner because they were willing to take to the streets about it sooner.
Phew, it's a good thing Trump solved that genocide, right fellas!
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If Harris brought genocide, you're saying Trump didn't.
What the fuck? I said Harris promised genocide, which she did. Learn some reading comprehension.
I think you misremember. Trump actually promised to further the genocide. And he delivered too.
Okay say something relevant or bless us with your silence. Just because there's another genocider out there doesn't mean your favorite genocider isn't also a genocider.
And allowing Trump to win by not electing Harris benefited the victims of genocide how, exactly?
It didn't and that has fucking nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Like, god damn did you even read what I wrote? Hint: It's about the future (and AOC), not the past.
He certainly delivered on significant change!
That's definitely true. In the worst way possible, so far.
I think winner adopted agenda would be nice but I don't think VP is the move. I would love for her to take Schumers seat.
I hope she wins
Donated.
She's not actually. I don't think she's that stupid as to think she'd be able to overcome the bias of the democratic party establishment in just 2 years. What's she and Bernie are trying to do is galvanize the apathetic left into standing up and fighting rather than just sitting on social media and complaining about how everything sucks. What is needed is huge numbers of people to come out and vote like their lives depend on it (cause they do).
if Gavin Newsome becomes the democratic front runner, Bernie Sanders coming to my house to convince me, in person, to vote for him would fail. sorry but i am one too many neo liberal canidate spent. it will never happen again.
I'm putting my chips on Pritzker. Newsome can go jump in a lake.
I'd vote for Pritzker over Newsome, but I'd rather AoC, or even better Luigi.
Yes well I would personally love to see AOC become president as well. But I live in the real world where there is a definite bias within the Democratic party against strong leftists like her and Bernie Sanders. I mean just look at the mayoral election in New York City. Even if Mamdani wins, it won't change the attitude of the party elites. They will just double down on trying to quash anymore leftist inroads into the party. That particular change needs to happen from the ground up, as in we the people need to push them as hard as possible to the left. And try to get them to drop the neoliberal philosophy that is dominated the Democratic party for the last 40 years. That why the NYC election is important. Him winning will help other leftists to galvanize left leaning people across rhe country to challenge the DNC elites and thats where we can really affect change, by supporting those candidates the way Mamdani was supported by voters in NYC.
I'm pretty certain this is said for shock value. But if i were to directly address it, this is just insane talk. No matter what I think about healthcare executives and what they might or might not deserve. Luigi Mangione is a disturbed individual who needs serious psychiatric help. Murder is not ok.
Brian Thomson, the scumbag CEO of United Healthcare, was probably responsible for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of deaths by the systematic denial of service to paying customers. If one psychopath kills another, how do we determine which is worse? You, my friend, are a boot-licking clown. When you get cancer, I hope Thompson's replacement tells you to go pound sand.
Helathcare CEO's have no problem with murder as long as they can claim their actions are just saving money. Murdering healthcare CEO's literally saves lives.
Please please please
We are 3 years ahead 2028 the "lesser evil" narrative doesn't play here. Anyone endorsing members of a corrupted party complicit in a genocide is far from being a good person.
50 years of liberal 'lesser evil' has grown to an enormous greater evil. It's been incremental fascism
She won't win a run for POTUS. Try Senate first.
I don't know if she has the volume of support needed to take on the next R candidate for POTUS, but Newsom also has a lot of skeletons that will probably tank him if he gets on the ticket. She would do great as a replacement for Schumer and from what I'm reading has a good chance to do so.
But, like, hear me out: Tim Walz is in a pretty decent position for a run at POTUS: There's enough time for him to bow out of the next gubernatorial campaign and prop up a progressive candidate. There's enough time for him to gain support in the party. His terms as governor were largely regarded as successful, showing that he is capable of being a head of state. Compared to Newsom, he also has a much better track record when it comes to standing up for minorities.
It is also worth noting that Walz is an old (-ish? Compared to recent candidates, he's apparently on the younger side...) white guy who coached high school football. This means that he's already well suited to get the swing voters - the ones that vote regularly, but will vote for either party. If he were to run, he would need a running mate that could sway the left-wing non-voters into voting, which means a fairly high-profile progressive.
Bernie is too old now and would be more useful promoting younger politicians.
AOC in the case of a Walz presidency would be more effective as a senate leader.
Any other center/center-right running mate would tank his candidacy.
Because the USA is racist AF, anyone who looks or sounds too middle eastern will tank him.
However, it's been established that a black person can be POTUS and a black woman can be VPOTUS, so might I suggest Tim Walz/Summer Lee for 2028?
3rd time's the charm for seeing if the country will accept a woman. What's the worst that could happen?
The liberal only sees a candidate through the lens of identity politics and can't imagine any other qualities.
Exactly - its definitely the liberals who refuse to vote for women. You seem super duper smart, pal. Any other insights to bless us with?
Sigh.
Look. I like her. I like her fighting spirit. I like that she gives a shit. I like it all.
But when is this country going to learn? Look around you. Our culture is trash. This country is overflowing with racists and sexists and incels. Look at where we are right now.
We've tried to elect a woman twice in a row. They were both WAY more qualified than their opponent. And they lost. I voted for both of them.
If we run AOC, they'll run a white male bigot. And they'll win. Again. Using the same tactics.
Know your audience.
I'm not sure the racists and sexists and incels are gonna vote for the Democrat candidate even if it was a literal clone of Donald Trump, solely because it's the Democratic candidate
Damn, guess we better appeal to the sexists and racists, there is just no other option. You are very smart.
So AOC vs Erika Kirk?
she might win, but she wont "win".
-sigh- She'll just have to be liberal enough to get my vote I guess. If she wants to seal the deal, she's gonna have to come out swinging against Israel though.
"if the democrats don't oppose genocide, I'll just let the party whose platform is loving genocide win instead"
AOC needs to address ageism with her followers. I saw something in my Blue sky feeds and found the following disgusting: https://bsky.app/profile/impassionata.bsky.social/post/3lza7iahur222 And https://bsky.app/profile/badtrump.bsky.social/post/3lzahgbkndc2z I'm sure there are more and I'm not sure if these users are trying to be argumentive or what
Fox has propagandized the right to hate her to such an immense degree that this simply is a terrible idea. She can never win.
Why is it a problem that the right hate her? They're not voting for her anyway. Modern US elections are won by motivating new people on your own side to vote, not by reaching across the aisle.
Well the propaganda doesn't only work on the right.
Also, the youngest elected president in history was 43. She has zero chance.
Why does that matter? She's well over the age limit, and we've been getting the oldest president ever quite a few times. The US is all about overcompensating, so I don't see why we couldn't swing back to the youngest ever by a small margin. She's nearly 36 now, so she'll be 39 when the term starts. I'd certainly be excited about the prospect of having a president who grew up with electricity.
Im sorry youre getting down voted, because youre right. Sorry to be a downer but I interact with real people (unlike i presume a lot of lemmings), and a LOT of them do not like her, for reasons spread by propaganda news all over the place. They know nothing other than she's a woman and will take yer guns, so she will never win.
I hope we are wrong though.
So the way I could see this working for her is have Bernie Sanders come and endorse her right out the gate (I doubt he'd be up for being her running mate, but it'd probably be an even better run if he accepted that).
Ol' boy had been VERY effective at breaking into right - leaning spaces and I could see him contributing to getting the historically Democrat (but not recently Democrat) voter out for AOC.
My real concern is the party leaders. I could see them trying to hold back resources and effectively pulling the same moves they pulled in Bernie to hold her down.
She's showing her face again? But not to denounce genocide? Then she's got a chance in the dem "party".
Oh hey, deja vu: https://lemmy.world/post/31181294/17600842
Nice! This comment brings your total of my up votes and down votes back to exactly zero. Very Thanos. Very cool.
Haven't you heard, the new line is there is a genocide, but of course Palestinians started it.