*blink* for real? I love AOC, but the country couldn't get behind 2 different establishment democrat women...and we are supposed to hope a "democratic socialist" woman gets elected? Methinks we have given the American population far too much credit as far as their ability to accept a woman in power...
The key word there is “establishment”. No one wants establishment politics. The failures of centrist politics is the headline for Hillary and Kamala, not their womanhood. Give people credit for being able to sniff out and reject spineless centrism as opposed to assuming it’s all underlying misogyny. People (and I mean red and blue) want change more than anything.
I'm arguing dems had no issues voting for less progressive, old, establishment white dude vs 2 women. So to say its not about women seems...shortsighted
I really mean this with the utmost respect, but the irony is that your fear of wasting this opportunity to push back against the right is instilling in you and many people on the left a your own misogynistic outlooks. Don’t compromise for the sake of appealing to a fictional idea of the median voter. This mindset is its own self fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not afraid of pushing back :) I've been doing it for 30+ years, since I was a teenager in the 90s doing clinic defense during the Spring of Life in Buffalo NY, or marching to free Mumia in Philky. I will gladly vote and push for as many progressives as I can. I've just lived thru too many disappointments to believe "this time" it will be different. Mainstream media is nearly 100% propaganda at this point. For over educated systems thinkers...well...I just think we can't keep holding out hope. Granted, we will. Because, maybe. But optimism left the room years ago :/
I agree. I turned 70 this year. The last ten years have proven to me that both parties are to blame for how we got here. Our political system needs a major rehaul. Younger folks understand that greed and corruption abound in both parties. A centrist candidate will not help us if they are elected; they will simply fall back on long held practices. Dems need to fall behind a candidate who stands for social change and will deliver a progressive agenda.
I don't want to downplay that misogyny is rampant in the United States. But if you look at dozens of democracies across the world that have had women as heads of state or heads of government, many of them several decades in the past. I do not think that the United States is a *uniquely* sexist democracy, compared to counterparts in Europe or Asia or Latin America. It's entirely reasonable to believe that there were other contingent or personal factors that held those candidates back, even if sexism has held them back as well (like it has been an impediment in all those other countries over the decades that have elected women successfully, sometimes repeatedly).
Plus, as much as I hate her politics, Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 by three million votes. That's proof right there that you can get a plurality of Americans to accept a woman candidate.
I love her, but I feel that you are right. I remember when Bernie supporters in 2016 insisted they weren’t misogynistic and if it was Elizabeth Warren running for president they would be so happy and then in 2020 they hated her and thought she was a turncoat. It is always the misogyny.
Yes, this. Many "Bernie Bros" will swear no way they are misogynistic and yet...sorry. Evidence shows otherwise. I appreciate the "not all men" folk saying "not all men" but...yah, most of them. The more they claim NO it's not misogyny! The more I stare at the blatant misogyny and say Um...yes. Yes you too. You are just too blind to see your blindspots. (Me as well with my blind spots to racism, internalized sexism, heterosexism, etc. You can't just out think this shit, and pretending you are above the muck just illustrates how stuck in it you are)
I agree. You want a candidate where there is no doubt that they will not fumble the progressive program; someone who will get it done because they believe sincerely in the progressive objectives, particularly around equality and the environment. Roosevelt's election win in 1936 is an important lesson. His campaign was to attack big money. He went hammer and tongs against the rich class. He was warned repeatedly by his advisors he should soften his tone, not alienate all of the moneyed class, take his rhetoric down a notch. Roosevelt flatly refused. He ran the strongest anti-capitalist campaign of all of his election campaigns, and he scored the biggest victory. The people were sick of the rank inequality, the indulgences given to the rich, of their own hardships. The same applies now. People have had enough of the excessive power of the billionaires. That tiny fraction of the ruling class needs to be seriously reigned in, financially and politically. It's time for someone like AOC with a clear and committed vision to present the case for progressive change.
I love AOC. I'm also certain that she has little chance of winning a statewide office in NY, let alone a national election. If she wants to throw her hat in and see what happens in the early primaries, fine, but she needs to keep her seat in hopes of Dem House majority.
There certainly is some misogyny to overcome, but both Hillary and Kamala were electable, they just didn’t get elected. There were reasons for that that were probably under their control and things could have easily turned out different. AOC is simply better at politics than either of them. George McGovern ran a brilliant primary campaign and then tried clumsily to tack to the center and ran an abysmal general campaign. AOC is a better politician than that and has some significant strategic advantages over McGovern. Both are outsiders wrt their party but McGovern needed the party and in the present moment the party needs someone like AOC. She brings a powerful center of gravity to the party.
I see absolutely no reason to imagine that the Republicans are going to have their act lined up by 2028. If Trump isn’t dead and tries to overcome the Constitution that’s one form of an awful mess and the alternative is the awful mess of an open primary between a bunch hateful stupid assholes and that’s a whole other kind of mess.
I have been saying this to people for like 6ish months now for basically all the reasons you outline, and it’s fascinating to me how skeptical so many people are who otherwise support the left and AOC. The Democratic base is profoundly discouraged at this point, and people have beat themselves into a defeatist pulp, and are incapable of imagining A Single Good Thing.
But that’s EXACTLY why a successful AOC campaign would explode - the kindling is there for a huge exciting movement. People are scared to hope again, but if they are given the chance to, it’s irresistible.
i've also been daydreaming about a DSA presidential run but imo i think it's too early. slow and steady is the name of the game to make sure progressive organizing actually works for the people who need its help — the priorities (in my opinion, ofc) should be to focus on local level elections, city board elections, state level seats, and governerships.
to be clear, i think AOC's heart's in the right place and i think she could be a successful candidate if the cards are played right, but if she does win and the administration turns out to be a mess — which could happen to any presidential candidate, like obama was saddled with the 2008 recession which derailed his entire administration (not to defend obama, but it could happen to AOC as well) — then all of the DSA program will be delegitimized in the eyes of the nation.
the focus (again, imo) needs to be building political legitimacy by doing the actual work of reshaping local politics and gaining leverage in the house and senate before putting a president in office. without establishing that leverage first, having a president in office will work against us because it's not like the GOP or the geriatric dems will ever allow a DSA endorsed president to actually accomplish anything if they don't also have a sizable foothold in the other branches.
I am a fan of AOC, and I have mixed feelings on this. I don't think she stands a chance of getting the nomination. No one, woman or man, running from a House seat will be nominated for president. It just doesn't happen, and the likelihood of it happening from either party at anytime is close to nil. Running for president in 2028 would give her the national campaign experience she will need down the road if she decides to run again from the position of a Senate seat or as Governor. The downside is that she (and the progressive left movement) is soundly rejected by Democratic voters. Her running could do more harm than good.
100 percent agree. I will add: By the time centrist Democrats have a look at the other options on the left, AOC will seem to THEM to be the reasonable choice. She is of the left, but she is also an institutionalist. And then there's the whole toxic masculinity vibe, too. Large majorities of the population have had enough of it, and those who haven't wouldn't vote for a Democrat if their lives depended on it.
I think it's absolutely essential to have a genuine left candidate in the 2028 primary and I'm totally OK with that person being AOC. Whether she can win the primary is immaterial. The left agenda needs to be articulated on the national stage as it was in 2016 and 2020. (2024 was a missed opportunity.) We have no way of predicting what the environment will be like in 2028. If 2028 turns out to be like 2008, the election will be transformative. If not, we get the message out anyway and her candidacy could impact down ballot primaries.
Sadly, and i do mean sadly, AOC has not proven herself tough enough to lead the charge. She folds when pressed, see her remarks on Harris and Gaza or her climb down over progressive calls to consider negotiations to end Ukraine war or her falling i to line with Pelosi (mama bear!) when push quickly came to shove or her reluctance to support her past supporters when they ran for congress when it meant bucking the powers that be. None of this applies to Ro Khanna. He does not back down and he does defend his views. He has spine. She does not. It is too bad that a generational talent like AOC folds regularly like a cheap umbrella, but thems the facts.
*blink* for real? I love AOC, but the country couldn't get behind 2 different establishment democrat women...and we are supposed to hope a "democratic socialist" woman gets elected? Methinks we have given the American population far too much credit as far as their ability to accept a woman in power...
The key word there is “establishment”. No one wants establishment politics. The failures of centrist politics is the headline for Hillary and Kamala, not their womanhood. Give people credit for being able to sniff out and reject spineless centrism as opposed to assuming it’s all underlying misogyny. People (and I mean red and blue) want change more than anything.
Except like...Biden and all...so I will respectfully disagree that it's not misogyny.
Yes right, Biden, who famously ushered in an era of centrist of politics that stood the test of time…
I'm arguing dems had no issues voting for less progressive, old, establishment white dude vs 2 women. So to say its not about women seems...shortsighted
2020 Biden was significantly more progressive than Hillary or Kamala in 2024
I really mean this with the utmost respect, but the irony is that your fear of wasting this opportunity to push back against the right is instilling in you and many people on the left a your own misogynistic outlooks. Don’t compromise for the sake of appealing to a fictional idea of the median voter. This mindset is its own self fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not afraid of pushing back :) I've been doing it for 30+ years, since I was a teenager in the 90s doing clinic defense during the Spring of Life in Buffalo NY, or marching to free Mumia in Philky. I will gladly vote and push for as many progressives as I can. I've just lived thru too many disappointments to believe "this time" it will be different. Mainstream media is nearly 100% propaganda at this point. For over educated systems thinkers...well...I just think we can't keep holding out hope. Granted, we will. Because, maybe. But optimism left the room years ago :/
Disagree. Many of her own voters also voted for Trump as both seemed 'anti-establishment'.
There's plenty of misogyny in this country, but I think there's a lot more rage at the establishment and ruling class.
I agree. I turned 70 this year. The last ten years have proven to me that both parties are to blame for how we got here. Our political system needs a major rehaul. Younger folks understand that greed and corruption abound in both parties. A centrist candidate will not help us if they are elected; they will simply fall back on long held practices. Dems need to fall behind a candidate who stands for social change and will deliver a progressive agenda.
I truly wish/hope you are right
I don't want to downplay that misogyny is rampant in the United States. But if you look at dozens of democracies across the world that have had women as heads of state or heads of government, many of them several decades in the past. I do not think that the United States is a *uniquely* sexist democracy, compared to counterparts in Europe or Asia or Latin America. It's entirely reasonable to believe that there were other contingent or personal factors that held those candidates back, even if sexism has held them back as well (like it has been an impediment in all those other countries over the decades that have elected women successfully, sometimes repeatedly).
Plus, as much as I hate her politics, Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 by three million votes. That's proof right there that you can get a plurality of Americans to accept a woman candidate.
You can get a plurality of DEMOCRATS to accept a woman candidate. That's different.
She won a plurality of the vote in 2016. That's a statistical fact.
Yes that is a good reminder. America's form of democracy is broken to begin with.
I love her, but I feel that you are right. I remember when Bernie supporters in 2016 insisted they weren’t misogynistic and if it was Elizabeth Warren running for president they would be so happy and then in 2020 they hated her and thought she was a turncoat. It is always the misogyny.
Yes, this. Many "Bernie Bros" will swear no way they are misogynistic and yet...sorry. Evidence shows otherwise. I appreciate the "not all men" folk saying "not all men" but...yah, most of them. The more they claim NO it's not misogyny! The more I stare at the blatant misogyny and say Um...yes. Yes you too. You are just too blind to see your blindspots. (Me as well with my blind spots to racism, internalized sexism, heterosexism, etc. You can't just out think this shit, and pretending you are above the muck just illustrates how stuck in it you are)
I agree. You want a candidate where there is no doubt that they will not fumble the progressive program; someone who will get it done because they believe sincerely in the progressive objectives, particularly around equality and the environment. Roosevelt's election win in 1936 is an important lesson. His campaign was to attack big money. He went hammer and tongs against the rich class. He was warned repeatedly by his advisors he should soften his tone, not alienate all of the moneyed class, take his rhetoric down a notch. Roosevelt flatly refused. He ran the strongest anti-capitalist campaign of all of his election campaigns, and he scored the biggest victory. The people were sick of the rank inequality, the indulgences given to the rich, of their own hardships. The same applies now. People have had enough of the excessive power of the billionaires. That tiny fraction of the ruling class needs to be seriously reigned in, financially and politically. It's time for someone like AOC with a clear and committed vision to present the case for progressive change.
Fuck. Yeah.
You're convincing me.
I love AOC. I'm also certain that she has little chance of winning a statewide office in NY, let alone a national election. If she wants to throw her hat in and see what happens in the early primaries, fine, but she needs to keep her seat in hopes of Dem House majority.
I think she can beat that schmuck Schumer.
I think running for POTUS is delusional.
She is not delusional, and therein lies your answer to all of this nonsense.
No. Absolutely not. AOC is a Biden repeat. We need someone who is acctually interested and capable of delivering progressive wins.
Huh? They couldn’t be further apart you’re kidding me.
There certainly is some misogyny to overcome, but both Hillary and Kamala were electable, they just didn’t get elected. There were reasons for that that were probably under their control and things could have easily turned out different. AOC is simply better at politics than either of them. George McGovern ran a brilliant primary campaign and then tried clumsily to tack to the center and ran an abysmal general campaign. AOC is a better politician than that and has some significant strategic advantages over McGovern. Both are outsiders wrt their party but McGovern needed the party and in the present moment the party needs someone like AOC. She brings a powerful center of gravity to the party.
I see absolutely no reason to imagine that the Republicans are going to have their act lined up by 2028. If Trump isn’t dead and tries to overcome the Constitution that’s one form of an awful mess and the alternative is the awful mess of an open primary between a bunch hateful stupid assholes and that’s a whole other kind of mess.
I have been saying this to people for like 6ish months now for basically all the reasons you outline, and it’s fascinating to me how skeptical so many people are who otherwise support the left and AOC. The Democratic base is profoundly discouraged at this point, and people have beat themselves into a defeatist pulp, and are incapable of imagining A Single Good Thing.
But that’s EXACTLY why a successful AOC campaign would explode - the kindling is there for a huge exciting movement. People are scared to hope again, but if they are given the chance to, it’s irresistible.
She’s unelectable
she's in elected office
Maybe be a little more specific? Because I am partly with you.
i've also been daydreaming about a DSA presidential run but imo i think it's too early. slow and steady is the name of the game to make sure progressive organizing actually works for the people who need its help — the priorities (in my opinion, ofc) should be to focus on local level elections, city board elections, state level seats, and governerships.
to be clear, i think AOC's heart's in the right place and i think she could be a successful candidate if the cards are played right, but if she does win and the administration turns out to be a mess — which could happen to any presidential candidate, like obama was saddled with the 2008 recession which derailed his entire administration (not to defend obama, but it could happen to AOC as well) — then all of the DSA program will be delegitimized in the eyes of the nation.
the focus (again, imo) needs to be building political legitimacy by doing the actual work of reshaping local politics and gaining leverage in the house and senate before putting a president in office. without establishing that leverage first, having a president in office will work against us because it's not like the GOP or the geriatric dems will ever allow a DSA endorsed president to actually accomplish anything if they don't also have a sizable foothold in the other branches.
This is a very bad idea.
I don't know that she even thinks this way.
I think not.
Now, STOP IT. Please.
Btw: I myself am a Democratic Socialist.
I am a fan of AOC, and I have mixed feelings on this. I don't think she stands a chance of getting the nomination. No one, woman or man, running from a House seat will be nominated for president. It just doesn't happen, and the likelihood of it happening from either party at anytime is close to nil. Running for president in 2028 would give her the national campaign experience she will need down the road if she decides to run again from the position of a Senate seat or as Governor. The downside is that she (and the progressive left movement) is soundly rejected by Democratic voters. Her running could do more harm than good.
100 percent agree. I will add: By the time centrist Democrats have a look at the other options on the left, AOC will seem to THEM to be the reasonable choice. She is of the left, but she is also an institutionalist. And then there's the whole toxic masculinity vibe, too. Large majorities of the population have had enough of it, and those who haven't wouldn't vote for a Democrat if their lives depended on it.
I think it's absolutely essential to have a genuine left candidate in the 2028 primary and I'm totally OK with that person being AOC. Whether she can win the primary is immaterial. The left agenda needs to be articulated on the national stage as it was in 2016 and 2020. (2024 was a missed opportunity.) We have no way of predicting what the environment will be like in 2028. If 2028 turns out to be like 2008, the election will be transformative. If not, we get the message out anyway and her candidacy could impact down ballot primaries.
Sadly, and i do mean sadly, AOC has not proven herself tough enough to lead the charge. She folds when pressed, see her remarks on Harris and Gaza or her climb down over progressive calls to consider negotiations to end Ukraine war or her falling i to line with Pelosi (mama bear!) when push quickly came to shove or her reluctance to support her past supporters when they ran for congress when it meant bucking the powers that be. None of this applies to Ro Khanna. He does not back down and he does defend his views. He has spine. She does not. It is too bad that a generational talent like AOC folds regularly like a cheap umbrella, but thems the facts.
AOC the turncoat.......no thanks.