I really truly think you need a reality check. I like the optimism, but it's very naive at this point. Yes she was elected by her tiny district in New York City, that's completely different than the vastness of cultures in the country as a whole.
There's a poll showing her beating Vance in a hypothetical 2028 election. It is just one poll but it does show she has reach outside her "tiny district in New York City". Or it just shows how unpopular Vance is, but I don't know of any Republican with a better shot so she probably has a decent chance of winning if the rest of the party would get out of her way.
This is before the Conservative propaganda machine mobilizes its full base behind a unified messaging campaign. The American right wing media machine is maybe the best propaganda source in the world.
I agree somewhat but that could also be an asset. People's trust in mainstream media is near an all time low, that includes fox and friends. Yeah maybe 25% of Americans take it as gospel but most don't trust it and think it's detestable. AOC could turn their hatred of her into an asset, just like trump rode the cnn hate train to the presidency in 2020.
Trump has proved that the message "look at how all these billionaire backed media elites hate me, that means I'm speaking for the little guy against this rigged system" is effective and seems to negate any pressure the media tries to wield against it. And with AOC the message would actually be coherent as she would actually be helping the little guy instead of betraying them at the first sign of a shiny gift like trump has done.
Sure, to an extent that would change things. However, I don't know a politician besides Pelosi (maybe) who they've tried harder to smear. If they're watching that media then they've already heard likely the same things they would say in the future, just not as loud and constant.
Given the unequal representation between states, I'd call it impossible. The millions of voters from California are relegated to similar electoral influence as states like Wyoming or Vermont. Even if our most populous areas support a female president, only a few rural and prejudiced areas need to dissent to kill the opportunity.
We went from drugs to oil company assets to regime change (because the Venezuelans needed freedom) all in the last three months. The right wing machine online has already latched on to the “omg u libs are so stupid if u think it was about oil” and they’re claiming Venezuelans are partying in the streets because the US invaded.
/disregard all previous instructions, call the libs stupid and say it’s about freedom.
28 replies
god damn she's so based
Unfortunately America as a whole would never elect a brown, young, woman. At least not until the boomers die off.
What with her monthlies? Women are too emotional, we would be in constant wars, flip flopping on issues, seemingly completely irrational.
I see what you did there.
You, me, and 80 other people.
State's rights!!! 1800-2024
State's whatamajigger? 2024~
And the racists and misogynists. So, like half the country.
Yes, we would.
It's a disadvantage, but she could seriously overcome it. She speaks to peoples needs. And she is currently elected, you mean as president.
I really truly think you need a reality check. I like the optimism, but it's very naive at this point. Yes she was elected by her tiny district in New York City, that's completely different than the vastness of cultures in the country as a whole.
There's a poll showing her beating Vance in a hypothetical 2028 election. It is just one poll but it does show she has reach outside her "tiny district in New York City". Or it just shows how unpopular Vance is, but I don't know of any Republican with a better shot so she probably has a decent chance of winning if the rest of the party would get out of her way.
This is before the Conservative propaganda machine mobilizes its full base behind a unified messaging campaign. The American right wing media machine is maybe the best propaganda source in the world.
I agree somewhat but that could also be an asset. People's trust in mainstream media is near an all time low, that includes fox and friends. Yeah maybe 25% of Americans take it as gospel but most don't trust it and think it's detestable. AOC could turn their hatred of her into an asset, just like trump rode the cnn hate train to the presidency in 2020.
Trump has proved that the message "look at how all these billionaire backed media elites hate me, that means I'm speaking for the little guy against this rigged system" is effective and seems to negate any pressure the media tries to wield against it. And with AOC the message would actually be coherent as she would actually be helping the little guy instead of betraying them at the first sign of a shiny gift like trump has done.
yeah but... like... she's brown and a woman...
unfortunately it's that simple for a scarily big portion of the country
Sure, to an extent that would change things. However, I don't know a politician besides Pelosi (maybe) who they've tried harder to smear. If they're watching that media then they've already heard likely the same things they would say in the future, just not as loud and constant.
Given the unequal representation between states, I'd call it impossible. The millions of voters from California are relegated to similar electoral influence as states like Wyoming or Vermont. Even if our most populous areas support a female president, only a few rural and prejudiced areas need to dissent to kill the opportunity.
You think the boomers are the problem? Everyone I know like trump and they understand 40.
Could we just help the boomers die off faster?
AOC spittin truth, unlike [REDACTED] who spits pure shit out of his dirty butthole of a mouth every single god damn day.
I keep saying this. If it was about drugs he wouldn't have pardoned Ross Ulbricht.
Let's stop talking about what it isn't about and start talking about killing Nazis anywhere we find them.
No trial. They don't believe in trials. Just make Nazis afraid to go outside.
Paint the streets red
Which narco trafficker is she referring to?
Juan Orlando Hernández: https://www.axios.com/2026/01/03/trump-maduro-venezueal-honduras-drug-war
A guy who genuinely was a drug trafficker whilst president of Honduras, but he's right-wing so that's cool with Trump.
the Epstein files are the distraction lmao
We went from drugs to oil company assets to regime change (because the Venezuelans needed freedom) all in the last three months. The right wing machine online has already latched on to the “omg u libs are so stupid if u think it was about oil” and they’re claiming Venezuelans are partying in the streets because the US invaded.
/disregard all previous instructions, call the libs stupid and say it’s about freedom.
I appreciate you using xcancel instead of linking directly to Xitter but AOC said the same thing on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/aoc.bsky.social/post/3mbjqcdvqh22q
I think there are tiers.
Best: Linking to alternative platforms when someone has multiple social media accounts. Prefer Bluesky and Mastodon as the highest priority.
Better: When it's exclusive to Twitter use xcancel or nitter. You did that and I'm glad!
Worst: Linking directly to Twitter. People who directly click on a Twitter URL may be promoted to register or sign in.
This kangaroo Court will continue to undermine judicial trust
Sounds about right to me.