Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused establishment Democrats of treating her “like shit” as progressive activists urged her to run for president in 2028.
In a 100-minute long video posted on Instagram, the 37-year-old congresswoman from New York said that the party had a “remarkable opportunity” to pass left-wing policies after the midterm elections. She also accused the party’s leadership of starving funds from left-wing candidates during the campaign.
“There’s this huge conversation about candidates that were under invested in,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She cited Angie Nixon, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who came within 240,000 votes of flipping Florida from red to blue, but ultimately lost to the Republican candidate Ashley Moody.
“If Angie Nixon had just had a little bit of that support, that outcome could have changed. But that money has to come from somewhere and it comes from these people,” Ocasio-Cortez said in reference to the party’s Senate leadership.
Reflecting on the period after she was first elected to Congress in 2018 at the age of 29, Ocasio-Cortez accused senior Democrats of being “horrifically cruel” to her. “I mean I was treated like shit,” she said. “Everybody took a swing at me.”
The Bronx congresswoman is seen as the likeliest progressive candidate to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028.
AOC as presidential candidate would prove some interesting things about the voting populus, but it would also bring some interesting things to light about the current state of the power the wealthy hold.
The old DNC could try hard to oppose her. But there isn’t a single Democrat with name recognition on her level.
They can’t argue against her policy stance in a way that people would support a competitor.
They could argue against her age and experience, but I think the voting populace doesn’t give a fuck about that anymore. They could result to other personal attacks like her being Puerto Rican, or a woman.
The GOP would result to scare tactics that, apparently, have finally lost their edge.
What I’m curious about isn’t the stuff we see in the news. Trump and the oligarchs would stop at nothing to prevent her victory. The ultra rich never had nearly as much wealth and power as they do now, and a lot of people conveniently died as they became too popular.
Dems exist to stop leftists. They do it over and over.
That’s a confusing take.
That worked in 2016. That didn’t work in this election. The current DNC chair started his career as an intern working for Paul Wellstone.
Are you suggesting we just do… nothing?
We need to harass our reps until they lose the will to live. Be loud, be annoying and most of all be persistent. Tell them what you want clearly, for example, i don’t want schumer and jeffires in leadership positions, so I’m focusing on that. Also give them an alternate path to vote for, like instead of voting for schumer, please vote for Chris Van Hollen. Then do it again the next day. Phone calls preferably.
Just shouting out Joe Neguse as an alternative to Jeffries. He stopped taking aipac money, he’s generally progressive, already in leadership in the house, and he is black, so it keeps the implicit promise to the congressional black caucus to elect a black speaker.
It’s not about race, it’s about Jeffries.
I fully agree that the next speaker should be Black, but I don’t trust the leadership of the CBC. Jim Clyburn has a lot of bad politics once you look deeper than his civil rights history, and their unwillingness to see the problems with Jeffries are plenty of reason to be concerned with their organization
I’ll look into him, he sounds promising
Why do you think it didn’t work? A few leftists managed to sneak through, but they succeeded in blocking many more in the primaries.
I’d personally rather see her jump to the Senate for a term, or NY Governor, before trying for the presidency. I’d say the same for any House rep. Governors and Senators have the clearest parallels to the office, as executive and foreign-policy roles themselves.
I think AOC is a high-variance candidate - much the same way Trump was in 2016 - and she will either get much more or much less support than expected in the general election.
I think her biggest electoral baggage will be her statements over the years on the ‘Woke 1.0’ items that the electorate soured on. She has moderated her past statements here more recently, which leaves a lot of doubt as to her actual beliefs and policy goals. She’ll be attacked for that from the left and the right, and it will take oxygen away from a progressive economic agenda that would likely be broadly popular if explained well.
Whoever the dem candidate ends up being, I doubt they can rely on the same level of support as the party received in the midterms. 2 years is an eternity in politics and 2028 will likely be defined by some new crisis that isn’t even on our radar right now. If she runs, I’ll likely vote for her (at least, based on who else seems to be running as of now).
We simply don’t have time, we’re in need of that once in a generation leader right now and she’s the best we’ve got.
There are plenty candidates who could jump in and do a great job. The campaign hasn’t even started yet. I genuinely don’t think jumping from the House to President is a good move, someone needs to hold a higher office first to demonstrate their ability to manage a much larger organization than a House office.
The only person ever elected directly from the House was James Garfield in 1880. Most presidents were previously senators or governors. The only person ever elected without holding any prior office was Donald Trump in 2016.
Jon Ossoff
Jon Ossof isn’t a progressive; he’s a spicy centrist. He voted for the Laken Riley Act and his record on Israel while not wholly bad is way too mixed.
I have little idea who this is mostly, but I know he came sort of out of nowhere and has been pushed relentlessly in the media, and that make me suspicious. Why him? Why now? Does he have more corporate-friendly moderate-conservative Democratic views that people with money prefer as the alternative? I genuinely don’t know. I really wonder if conservative money interests are scared of AOC and so they are pushing a more moderate Democrat. I don’t know his policies at all though, so maybe I am wrong?
He’s kind of a Sheldon whitehouse type progressive corpo dem. I don’t think he has principles but he’s at least better than schumer/Jeffries/pelosi.
We don’t have to settle.
Fully agree!! I was just trying to give the most factual description I could.
Definitely check him out, he got elected the same time as Warnock. Look at his record, watch some of his speeches. He’s great.
I don’t know as much about him but everything I have seen/heard is promising.
only one sitting house rep has been elected president. ONE. garfield, in 1880. a 9-term rep, and at that time he was already chosen by his state legislature to be a senator… so like a ‘senator elect’ today… which he declined when he won his presidential campaign.
Might I remind you, we elected a twice-impeached, pedophilic reality show star. I think we are well past historical precedents, here.
Yeah I like AOC and would vote for her, but I don’t think 2028 is her year. She has a lot of qualities that each individually could lose support: she’s a woman, non-white, vocally progressive, relatively young, only a Rep, and has a long history of demonization by the right.
None of those traits is particularly damning alone (to the general population, I don’t have a problem with any of it personally), but taken together that’s a lot of hill to climb.
I’d like to see her go for a couple terms in the Senate, which would take care of the “relatively young” and “only a Rep”. Plus, hopefully the landscape shifts more progressive which would make her less of an outlier.
I think 47 year old Senator Cortez is a much better bet than 39 year old Representative Cortez, and I’d rather not spoil the former by pushing the latter.
There’s simply no evidence that the plausibly Democratic electorate has a problem with any of these. Capturing swing voters is nice but it’s not how elections are won.
The primary two I’m focused on are her age and highest office. She is a 37 year old House Representative.
As others have pointed out, only one other President (Garfield) was just a House Representative, and even he was elected to the Senate. And the youngest president ever elected was JFK at 43.
I’m not betting on the youngest, first female, first House Rep. becoming President. I’ll bet on the first female president when she’s not the youngest and has been Senator or Governor.
Maybe the political landscape will radically change over the next year, I’m not opposed to the idea and that would be awesome honestly. But that’s a lot of firsts to tackle, especially when fascism is so pungent in the air.
Put out a 45+ white male progressive for a term or two, lay some groundwork, and then hit’em with Senator Cortez’s campaign.
I feel like she could win anyway. She’s just a natural star politician. It’s a mix of things: the model looks, the clear explanation of policy, the fact that she is relatable in a way so many are not. I think she’d easily win. I think she’d even do okay with the racists… she’s just that likable. Why not have 2028 be her year? If not 2028, when? There’s always a reason among corporate elite conservative Democrats to avoid someone too helpful to the poor and middle class, isn’t there?
I don’t disagree with her positives, I just think she’s on the young side to win in 2028.
I think you underestimate how much the right wing media has demonized her. I like her, you like her, but a lot of people think she’s a dumb waitress.
2036, after a stint in the Senate. She’ll be older, she’ll have experience in the Upper House, it’s just a much better position for a win.
This isn’t about corporate Democrats, this is about progressives acting strategically. I think it would be much better to run an established progressive Senator or Governor in 2028.
Give her the podium to debate a Republican on national TV. No one will think that anymore. It’s easily dealt with, even an advantage. They don’t know her yet, so Republicans think many USA Americans hate her. But she is great, middle America just doesn’t know yet.
I disagree. Yes, I like her, but you’re extremely optimistic about how middle America will react. I fear that your perception is biased by surrounding yourself with progressives, not that I blame you. I implore you to spend more time talking to “average” Americans. A very large number don’t respect her, and think she’s not even qualified for the House. Never mind her credentials, they think she’s a dumb commie waitress.
Many people are going to think that no matter what. I wish it were otherwise, but people talk to me about their political views. She is a very controversial figure. This isn’t speculation, this is talking to actual people about what they believe.
I want her to run, and I want her to win. And the last thing I want is for her to jump the gun on an early run and ruin her future chances. I would’ve liked to see Walz run, but the Harris campaign is an albatross around his neck. I do not want her to suffer the same fate, I want her to actually win when she runs.
Again, she would be 39 in '28. That’s four years younger than JFK, the youngest person ever elected President. That’s going to be too young for a lot of people.
We already tried this with Bernie Sanders, the people’s vote don’t matter because the corporations are in danger
Previous losses should not stop us from trying again. The public is shifting. The scenarios are changing in each election cycle.
The public shifted because gas hit $6/gal. I don’t disagree that class consciousness is growing, but I don’t think it’s as prevalent in the real world as it is online. And more importantly, I don’t think the party apparatus of the DNC is remotely ready to hand over power to the progressive wing. They will use their oligarchs’ money to promote right wingers like Newsom.
All valid points. Although I think conservatives are the ones who are only upset by the gas prices. I suspect the rest of the normally disengaged public may have become engaged in the midterms for the litany of other good reasons as well.
Conservatives obviously can’t change, but my hope is that the normal people will continue to become more and more upset during the remaining time Trump has in office.
By November 2028, if we stay on this course, we might be primed for another dramatic shift left which could affect some components of DNC leadership.
Ejecting conservatives from DNC leadership is the real test, in my opinion.
I like your hope and I want to agree with it, but I also am wary of assuming that normal people are even as aware of news and politics as much as we would hope, let alone care enough about it to do something. I know I live in a bubble of people who care, and Lemmy obviously is its own very specific bubble. I don’t want to take for granted that the majority of people align with my worldview.
Your fears are valid. My fear has subsided slightly because of the midterms. My hope comes from focusing on the next two years only right now.
Beyond that, I worry for the long-term that we may be unable to make extreme reforms: removing money from politics, ending gerrymandering, reforming SCOTUS, dissolving billionaire control of media, etc.
It all seems overwhelming and unlikely. But an overwhelming progressive push for long enough is exactly what it would take to accomplish it.
They didn’t lose the midterms only on gas prices.
The graph of rise in gas prices maps almost perfectly with lost support for the Republicans.
Those two graphs map like 1:1
I agree with you. Things don’t always have nuance and sometimes correlation does equal causation. There was lots of stuff going on, but that was the main thing.
And that is one sad motherfucking state of affairs.
I actually tried to find the stat for you, because I saw it on a dependable news channel and it shocked me because it was like 1:1.
Let me see if I can get Jamie to pull that up for me, hey Jamie!
It’s not the only thing that voters were mad about, but it didn’t help Republicans, that’s for sure.
For sure.
Agreed, there were many things that influenced people in a variety of ways, but cost of living is the one big thing that impacts everybody.
I don’t get the hate for Newsom. From what I’ve seen he’s doing a good job.
He’s a standard corporate Dem that looks out for oligarchs before working people. He recently opposed the ballot measure that would have put a one-time wealth tax on billionaires.
He is a snake that adopts progressive policies when it suits him, then drops them when the political winds shift if when they threaten capital. He opposed the cali wealth tax. Hes thrown trans kids under the bus retorically.
Newsom has done good things. He was the mayor of San fransisco in like 2002 that issued marriage licenses to gay couples before it was popular or even legal. But he is not our friend and he doesn’t seem to have principled beliefs, just political instincts.
Who is “us”? Friend of whom? We’re not a monolith.
And I hear what you’re saying, but it’s all hearsay to me. I’ve watched his politicking and he’s fighting the good fight, I think. And I’m afraid people are so hypersensitive now that they will interpret anything he does as anti-“them” and just refuse to vote, giving the republicans a very easy fight because nobody is voting.
That’s the plight of a two party state. But if you have something you think particularly he did wrong or was unforgivable, give me the source and I will read up on it and see what it’s about, because I have so far, and I can see what is maneuver and what is a semblance of idealism.
Fighting against a billionaire’s tax, hating on trans people, and sleeping with your best friend’s wife? Count me out! If he’s the candidate, I wouldn’t vote for him.
Listen, I only know what I know from what I see from abroad. Could you provide some links or verification for what you say? Because I read a lot of US news, but it’s a bit much to keep track of, so, for me, from what I’ve read in actual articles, I’ve been on his side for a lot of the more controversial topics, because he’s had some 50/50 decisions, like that one thing with trans…
So the bill was like, you allow gender affirming care AND allow other states to extradite citizens from California from seeking GAC in Ca if they come there specifically for that reason.
Which is extremely fucked up. It’s pork barrelling, as far as I see it, and I think Newsom catches a lot of flak from the queer crowd even though his decisions protect them from nazi state interference…
I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
What? Really? That allowed other states to extradite those in the state specifically for GAC?
He threw trans people under the bus.
And everyone not in the 0.1%
Not to minimize what he did to us, but to show he’s not only problematic for trans people.
True, true. It was just the first issue that came to mind.
It’s the only thing that comes to your mind, though, and that’s a pretty big issue. That’s single issue shit, like 2A shit or something. You expect solidarity, but you’re not willing to give it.
I mean that’s the same single issue shit that the Republicans do with the 2A. What’s the difference? “He’s not 100% perfect, therefore I will refuse to vote for him and let Republicans take a seat that will for sure be worse for my cause”
It’s Palestine all over again
We just mentioned two issues. There are plenty more. You didn’t even ask. You can love the corporate, pro-genocide, anti-trans, wealth protecting guy if you want.
I think that’s closer to maga than my viewpoint. But I understand that we’re easier targets than they are, and you’re really feeling yourself right now
Bonus points for calling my safety a political issue.
How? How did he do that exactly?
He is fighting against the billionaire tax.
How is he doing that? You got a bill or something he voted against? Because I hear a lot of criticism but not a lot of sources.
Please don’t “google it bro” me, please. I want to know exactly what you guys have a problem with and I have for some time and I never hear anything concrete.
Please mind, I’m not from the USA, I try to keep up as best I can, but from my point of view he has some pretty sensible politics.
Here is the first google result of Gavin Newsom billionaire tax.
deleted by creator
These midterms just proved that numbers are more important than money. It’s not just “possible” to outvote corporate candidates, it should be considered an obligation.
So we should just do nothing