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.
In a previous post about AOC candidacy, I said that won’t happen because :
- woman
- woman of color
- US is a deeply racist country
- she’s a woman of color
Some people told that I’m a doomer. I stand by what I said.
Great. Let’s have a presidential candidate who is ‘a victim’. How could that possibly go wrong.
click bait headline
Im so glad I get my news from lemmy and don’t give websites that do this the scraps of my privacy for them to sell
In 2016, Bernie was looking great…until the DNC happened, he sported a black eye, and then endorsed Hillary for some unknown reason. The establishment Dems are just as corrupt as the Repubs. The only hope for America is in the new blood…because the milk’s gone bad.
Trump didn’t win in 2016…Hillary (and DWS) LOST.
The democrats poured all that money into mississippi, which is looking to flip blue. It was either florida or mississippi. The fact that florida was so close is a good thing. I think mississippi is a larger win.
AOC should take the House Speaker from Jeffries. It’s where she’s needed most.
The push is not over, there will still be a huge necessity to vote in 2028. We cannot let our guard down, and always remember the momentum we brought into this midterm, anything is possible.
This is why they lost in 2015, and 2023.
I’ll vote for AOC in 2028.
I’m doing it because I believe in her and her policies for improving the material conditions of the working class in USA.
If you can’t bring yourself to vote for her, consider voting AGAINST all of the other stuck up asshats in Congress who think they deserve to have political power.
I’m going to get shit for this opinion, but I think she should run as vice president.
The reason being, a huge part of why Trump won both his elections was that his opponent was a woman - I know a lot of my progressives out there don’t want to believe this, but misogyny is still a major problem in this country, even among progressives and leftists. There are too many people out there who may otherwise have decent politics but will refuse to vote for a woman, that’s a fact we need to acknowledge. Simply put I want a democrat to actually win in 2028 and she as the forerunner reduces those chances.However if she’s vice president that brings out the progressive democrats to the polls while also avoiding this pitfall. At some point in the near future I hope our country is ready to accept leadership from a woman, but our country is still too screwed up for that today.
I really don’t want her to run for president yet. I’d rather see her replace schumer first. She is my congresswoman too and am very happy with her. I just fear she might not win presidency yet. Our district is very left wing, so I need to know she can win in a place like New York State that is kind of a microcosm of the whole country
It’s pretty tough for a congressperson to head up the Senate, but who knows?
America will not vote a latina woman president.
You know this line of thinking results in quite a bit of glass ceiling for women in the workplace.
“Oh no, she might make a mistake, better make her wait.”
Meanwhile men are allowed to fail upward and transgressions are quickly forgotten.
She’s 37… if she were to become president in '28 and if she were to win 2 terms she’ll be an ex-president before she’s 50. At that point she’ll pretty much be done with politics, other than potentially being pulled out for some crucial election campaigning - but even that is very rare.
She doesn’t need to be president, at least not at this point in her career. She’s an effective congresswoman, and she’d make an incredible Senator. She doesn’t even need to be a leader of either chamber, she just needs to be a consistent champion of progressive values and help grow the progressive coalition in our government.
If she can carry on Bernie’s work and help bend our government back towards democratic socialism, then she’d be a great leader for the 2036 election. But she still has too much important work to do now to be distracted by a run for the white house.
That assumes it was about her being a woman rather than her being potentially further left than someone that could win the presidency.
Problem with the office of president is that it is rather singular, so you kind of expect a more milquetoast candidate being able to be accepted by a broader voter base.
Maybe the perspective is wrong and the voter base is ready for a more strongly socialist candidate, but I think it’s a reasonable concern to test the waters in a broader scope before going all in on a presidential run. She might be able to win a broader democratic primary but struggle in a general election in a more diverse set of voters.
I personally think the office of the president should be curtailed a bit. We shouldn’t have to suffer so much power held by a singular person for four years.
This is so funny to me. Like Republicans will literally run “Reality TV Show Rapist who is the most unhinged thing you’ve ever seen.” and WIN TWICE and the Democrats like you are still out here going “But the median voter wants a moderate voice guys!”
potentially further left
There aren’t really many of those, like you should point to a single person that is more left and therefore more popular. Bernie Sanders?
So like again this is a women being held to the standard of surpassing a theoretical man, but the men only have to surpass each other.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to inject gender into this, the original comment made no indication nor did I that a similarly prinicpled man would not face the same level of skepticism. A house rep who is under 40 and would still be under 40 who hasn’t been elected by even a statewide election nor has shown leadership as speaker of the house… That seems a crazy bet to hope to pan out. She has only ever demonstrated proven electorate support in a single district.
Note I had similar skepticism of Buttigieg, trying to be a 30-something Mayor straight to president seemed ill-advised.
I’m acknowledging there is a disparity in the treatment between genders, I’m not doing it myself. You specifically might have an equal standard, but chili cheese lies says barely anything about US politics and the one comment I see reinforces the popular unequal standard.
I agree that if she runs for Senate, that’s a good thing and it will put her on the same track as JFK, with maybe more momentum. But just to say, I’d rather she not do X without a different, more popular candidate to contrast with is just not a fair thing to say.
It’s absolutely a pattern that women are compared to theoretical men, while men are just compared to each other.
Honestly, fuck the US Senate.
If AOC wants to be president, her next stop should be the NY governor’s mansion. The state could use a politician that has a vision deeper than their back pocketbook. And NY as a laboratory for democracy gives her an opportunity to do at a statewide level what Mamdani is doing in NYC.
Interesting. I never imagined that.
I really don’t know why, NYC and California and other blue states can’t do an interstate compact and create healthcare for all without the federal government.
We are bigger than most countries as it is, even without California.
It’s not an issue of can’t. It’s an issue of won’t.
California could absolutely run it’s own healthcare independent of the federal government. So could NY. So could Vermont, ffs.
The problem is simply that it would cost the states money while cutting into private profits for state insurance companies. What - on paper - is taxable income becomes a tax liability. Even as health care becomes cheaper, the accounting math punished individual states by restricting cash flow at the private level.
“PrOgResSiVe AcTiViStS”
You mean to say the people who are trying to keep democracy from falling? Or the ones who are trying to keep a roof over their head and food on the table?
Stfu already.
I don’t like the fact that she is stating “if we had more money we would’ve won”. Fuck money in politics. Most of those voting don’t have much money so it should not be a factor, yet it is the be all and end all.
I don’t like the fact that she is stating “if we had more money we would’ve won”. Fuck money in politics.
Shit costs money. Campaign offices cost money. Staff cost money. Advertisements cost money. Transportation and venues for rallies cost money.
You cannot run for any office without spending money. Nixon was getting drowned out by Republican smears, with no bullhorn big enough to respond. If she had the $140M war chest that Talarico was packing, she’d have done better.
You don’t need to have the most money to run a campaign. Just ask Abdul El-Sayed. But you do need a significant amount. Even in Michigan, he spent $2M to win his primary and another $50M for the general election.
Angie Nixon was in a bigger state with higher costs, spending only $11M through the general, compared to $27M spent by Moody. This was after she’d won her primary for under $1M against a Democrat opponent with $16M.
Democrats spent more money to beat Nixon than they spent to beat Nixon’s Republican opponent.
Sure you don’t like it, but it’s true. The reality is political campgains need money to be successful.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.It’s unfortunately true though. You have to advertise yourself and at some point it costs money. We have to accept that fact until enough progressives are in government to change the laws to place caps on spending, require discounts, matching funds, etc to level the playing field.
To stop money in politics, first you need to get elected under the current rules. Current rules allow money, and statistics show it helps. A lot!
Once in power, you can cap money spending on campaigns.
Wha…this feels like such a strongly principled stance that is formed from a variety of (mis)conceptions. I’ve never before heard anyone evince a “get money out of politics” opinion that meant “politicians should have no money at all” instead of “stop rich people from bribing/‘lobbying’ politicians and buying political power.”
In this situation, that money is used/expected to be used for advertising and maybe paying volunteers to walk around and spread her political message. The fact that her constiuents might be poor doesn’t make advertising free. What I’m reading here makes it sound like you think “she needed more money” = “her net worth wasn’t high enough for her to buy the position”.
They don’t know exactly why she didn’t swing the votes they needed but, rather than assume that Angie Nixon’s message had reached saturation (and everyone who might would have voted was fully aware of her platform), they are pointing at the obvious deficiency in her campaign: [advertising] support from her own political party.
She’s just statingt the situation as it is. Getting money out of politics would help non establishment candidates, so I don’t think she’s against that?
I’m in Australia thinking that the only people the old Baby boomers and Gen X Democrats aren’t cruel to is Republicans and Israel.
But that pretty much links up with my workplace (minus the Israel).
Old people Haaate everyone under the age of 30… 40… 50 I realised today that I’m a year older than AOC… I don’t remember a time where my generation wasn’t hated by older generations…
Sorry let’s be fair my Nana loved me immensely and she thought we were all great but she was part of the great generation (the people who gave birth to baby boomers).
I’ve got more to say but what I have to say about AI, tech and old people could fill a book almost as long as the book I could write about cyclists and their hypocrisy (FYI I’m always careful of cyclists when I’m driving. Just wish they could be as careful of children playing in a park… But cyclists don’t care about people slower than them… I need to write a book)
I am so polite on my bike when in the sidewalk. Just today, waited first for a guy to walk by slowly, and went onto the grass (thankfully it was the part of my route with a grass strip between road and sidewalk) around another.
It’s my understanding that the sidewalk is for pedestrians and I am supposed to ride in the road, but of course the road is dangerous. We are allowed the sidewalk with a speed limit of 10mph. So I yield always to anyone on foot.
And you HAVE to be careful. Monday night coming home in the dark there was someone sleeping on the sidewalk! If I had been going fast I’d have run them right over.
Maybe Australia needs the sidewalk speed limit? Or if your motorists aren’t so aggressive, ban the bikes from the sidewalk?
Yeah, but we’ll be the same. If some broccoli-haired youth in trousers that are too short turns up at my door canvassing for votes, his policies had better be extraordinarily good to get over my overwhelming first impression of “this guy looks like a twat”.
Sorry let’s be fair my Nana loved me immensely and she thought we were all great but she was part of the great generation (the people who gave birth to baby boomers).
The Silent Generation gave birth to the Baby Boomers.
The Greatest Generation fought in WWII.
Obviously, if you have a very early Boomer with older parents, you’d then have a boomer born to the greatest generation. But the bulk of that generation was from the Silent Generation.
Not entirely true. All of my Grandparents were silent besides one. The way it works is:
Silent -> Gen X -> Gen Z
Greatest Generation -> Baby Boomers -> Millenianals
Unless everyone in your family is made up of teenage pregnancies, it tends to be this pattern from what I’ve observed.
I don’t think you quite understand what baby boomers are. They are the generation of children born immediately after World War II (1946- the 1950’s). They are the kids of the soldiers who came back from the war and who’s lives were heavily impacted by the various programs that were put into place at the time to encourage families like affordable housing, job incentives, and funding for college. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill)
The silent generation are the people who were born amid World War II (1935-1945). And were growing up while the baby boomers were being born.
Dead link. Meh.
