Independent Senator Bernie Sanders floated Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a potential presidential candidate in the 2028 elections, saying that even though it’s “her decision to make,” she is a “very, very good politician.”
Speaking to Axios, Sanders said that he has been “out on the streets with her” and noticed how she responds when people come up to her. “It’s so incredibly genuine and open.”
Ocasio-Cortez is seemingly positioning herself to run for higher office, whether it is challenging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for his seat or to make a run for president.
I really don’t understand the comments on these types of posts. Everyone is like “she should do the Senate I’m not sure she’s right/ready for president”. Why? Our current president is an 80 year old pedophile, our previous president was an 80 year old likeable moron…
You guys don’t want change you want you return to the status quo.
I want her to run for senate mainly because shes the best chance we have to unseat schumer, and that is important too. Id be happy either way honestly, but thats my preference.
Trump has shown this step isnt strictly necessary.
I don’t think it’s a matter of her being ready, I think it’s that she has a real chance of beating schumer, whereas with the presidency, I’m not even sure she could even manage to win the primary. If an old white dude like Bernie couldn’t beat Hilary and Biden, what chance does a Latina woman in her 30s have?
If Mamdani is an indication of anything, people will vote for leftist economic populism despite there being racial divides.
In the past few weeks and months, we saw in New York City that the majority of Jewish people still support Israel over Palestine. Yet, Mamdani has consistently pulled a plurality of Jewish support with double digit leads over the other candidates.
What this means is that Jewish people are just like any other American, and they are feeling the effects of this shit economy caused by Trump. Mamdani represents a bandaid to that more than the other candidates, so they’re going with that and ignoring Mamdani’s anti-Zionist and anti-Israel policy.
I don’t think it matters what candidate you push a campaign for if they run on Left populism. As we’ve seen with Platner in Maine, though, being a white male veteran doesn’t hurt either.
Mamdani is running for mayor of NYC.
NYC has had a majority (not a plurality) of votes go to Democrats in the presidential election back to 1952 and the last time republicans had a plurality was 1924. NYC is, sadly, not representative of the US as a whole. Also, he was going up against a man who may have surpassed ted cruz in terms of “unlikeable mother fucker”-ness
Platner is… a giant fucking mess. He has more red flags than fucking fetterman did (fun fact: He was batshit insane as far back as when he met Anthony Bourdain…), one of which being the nazi skull tattoo he had on his chest for 20 years and only removed once he was forced to during his, what, 3 months of a political career? Not to mention him having willingly joined Blackwater and his VERY questionable statements on sexual assault and his use of homophobic slurs as recently as 2020.
But, he kissed Sanders’s ring so he has the “socialist” vote and establishment Democrats support him for whatever reason (which should raise a LOT more red flags but…). And while I am not invested enough to personally verify, a few colleagues I have out in Maine insist that Smith-Rodriguez was basically the same platform but with actual details and action plans but eventually pulled out to support the mayor (?) on the grounds of platner’s horrific stances on sexual assualt and her being a victim of assault in the military.
Editorialized that a bit but… I think that is the real key. The vast majority of people don’t actually care about policy or even basic human rights. They just want populist candidates. And that is not just limited to the US.
Which REALLY fucking sucks because… I’ve been incredibly critical of AOC’s career and I think she was THIS close to wearing clown shoes with the rest of The Squad. But she has demonstrated that she has strong political acumen. And when she does do shitty stuff, she actually owns up to it on social media/direct to constituents videos.There is always the need for MASSIVE grains of salt with any politician but… AOC seems to kind of be exactly what we should want out of a democracy. Someone who cares and has grand ambitions but also understands they are a servant of the people and speaks to The People.
She just was born too late considering both sides are very much at “I can excuse being a Nazi but I draw the line at… I’ll get back to you on that”
You’re right about NYC. But wins add momentum, which builds and proves the DNC wrong.
The more and more I hear about Platner, the less I’m willing to defend him. He’ll capture liberals, sure, and I prefer to have grace for people if they’ve shown that they can fix their shit and atone for what they’ve done in their lives, but he sure ain’t the perfect candidate. You’re right that we don’t want Fetterman again, which is why we need to be critical of Platner here and now and not Vote “Who” No Matter Who like many liberals are doing now. If he keeps making bad decisions, like Kamala did as soon as her 2024 GE campaign made it to the DNConvention, then it’ll suck. Janet Mills is an option, but she’s not perfect either.
If Platner can have good messaging discipline, keep his campaign to Leftist economic popularism, come out with policies that support that agenda that he’d like to see implemented in Congress, and stay woke, I think I might throw him more support. But these things build. Trust needs to be built. And we all know that trust can be destroyed faster than it can be built.
Americans want populist candidates, and Leftist economics are popular.
AOC has a good track record. I want to see her because the leader of the party. I think the establishment Dems and DNC ignore the reality in front of them that their underlying base is changing views (against neoliberalism), and AOC should lead that fight. I think she’d be better for SML instead of President tho. Because of what we said about NYC and NYS, because of how it votes differently from the rest of the country, I think she has a safer bet to oust Schumer and gain even more national notoriety as a SML. She’ll be setting the stage for the Dems, and hell, has more of a backbone than Jeffries ever will.
Lots to be excited for
Yeah… I am pretty sure “willingly joined Blackwater” and “had a nazi tattoo on his chest for 20 years” automatically kicks him off to “broke” with a shade of “holy fucking shit”. And while I do think people can, and should. be allowed to change, all signs are he very much hasn’t. Still using homophobic slurs as recently as 2020 and his defense of the nazi skull boils down to “I am a military historian AND terminally online but I have never seen an SS outfit or the Mitchell and Webb meme”
At best he is a deeply stupid person who should not be allowed anywhere near office. More likely, he thinks voters are deeply stupid. Just a question of whether he is a fetterman/sinema in disguse.
(Also apparently he says his stance on Israel and genocide is basically Kamala’s? Which is even funnier that there aren’t the “I refuse to vote for genocide, period” crowd out attacking him…).
But, he is popular and that is all that matters.
So let her try to win the primary. If she doesn’t win, what difference would it make?
If she’s at that point, she probably didn’t run for senate
To be a latina woman in her 30s would be a definite pick for a presidency over a geriatric male (let’s be honest, I like Bernie Sanders but he is very old).
For such a job you’d want someone in their prime age with sharp attention span, with a forward-looking vision, not back. With multicultural experience to better communicate with the rest of the world.
I’m not an American so I can’t vote but I would definitely pick her out of those two.
That and honestly I do like governors as canidates as they have more direct experience running a government. In the last election I was excited waltz was the vp. Granted the presidency is more about who you select to run the agencies which is one of the many reasons trump sucks so bad.
Honestly, I think she has a great chance. People didn’t not vote for Hillary because she was a woman. It’s because she represented the establishment and inspired nobody. People didn’t not vote for Harris because she was a woman. It’s because she represented the establishment and inspired nobody.
AOC is a candidate who seems to actually represent change. She seems to listen to the desires of the people and follow that. She doesn’t just do what the donors demand. She has a chance because she does inspire people to see what could be, not just to repeat what is.
So then why did anyone vote for Biden, who represented the establishment and inspired nobody?
Because it was 2020 during the height of a botched Covid response and a few months after George Floyd. And Biden barely won. If you do the math, it was about 21,500 people across three states that determined the outcome, where them voting for Trump instead of Biden would have been an electoral tie that would have been decided by Pence. That’s a technical margin of 0.012% that Trump electorally lost by.
I’m not a political analyst, but my guess would be hope that he would be better. He proved that he wasn’t, which allowed Trump to come back because, despite everything, Trump did make promises to change things for regular people. Yes, they were lies, fear mongering, and about attacking a made up enemy, but he at least said something to make people think he would help them.
I mean, if you completely ignore the DNC doing everything legally in their power to get in the way of Bernie and force feed Hilary in the first place… because they can’t allow anyone vocal about actual progressive ideas in a position of party power… yeah that’s what it looks like. But that’s a pretty big thing to just ignore.
I’m not ignoring that, that’s one of the massive hurdles she would have to overcome
AOC will need to clear the DNC hurdle whether she runs for House, Senate, or Admin. Look at Platner
Not legally. The head of the DNC had to resign, and their lawyers argued in court that because they were a private organization they didn’t have to follow their own rules.
No one was prosecuted so it was effectively deemed legal. That’s the end result.
Removed by mod
Bernie’s problem was that he wasn’t a democrat. I voted for him but I know a lot of people, like my parents, who are center-left who simply refused to vote for somebody who didn’t caucus with democrats. These are the same people who are already looking at people like Newsom.
Edit for clarification: I understand that the Bernie is considered to caucus with the democrats because he generally votes with them. However, those who used the term disparagingly as I referenced above don’t believe independents can caucus with any party and used that as an excuse to refer to him as a DINO and not caucusing or being required to caucus.
Your parents aren’t “center-left” if they didn’t vote for Bernie.
It was the primary?
He always caucuses with Democrats. That’s how Dems held the Senate under Biden. Without Bernie they wouldn’t have had their 50. You don’t have to be in the party to be part of the caucus.
I get what you are saying but that’s not what the talking heads meant when they said that.
Those talking heads should probably learn what words mean before they used them then
I take “Caususes with” to generally means “votes more or less in line with” (I know that’s not really everything about it). What definition are you using?
Removed by mod
And you think she can’t win? Why?
Yeah, and it’s been shown that establishment democrats don’t really have the appeal they need to do so. No one gives a shit because they aren’t representing their desires. They’re representing, at best, status quo. If you haven’t noticed that’s not exactly popular at the moment.
That’s exactly the question. I personally thought in 2024 that a paedophile, senile 80yo felon who already lost an election (even from the incumbent position) already wouldn’t be exactly popular either, but here we are.
US presidential elections are so unpredictable, because there’s only two actual candidates in the race, since there’s no run-off or anything like that. There’s no real way to know what’s exactly popular at the moment until it’s too late.
Did Harris lose because she’s a black woman? Did she lose due to unpolar positions? Did she lose because of poor campaign management? Did she lose because russian bots helped Trump? Did she lose because people “had enough of woke”? Did she lose because people just love dementia?
It’s really hard to know, and likely its all of the above to certain degree.
Has it? Biden thoroughly beat Trump. The Kamala was thoroughly beaten.
Biden is very much so establishment
And people realized how shit it was. It wasn’t working for them.
Removed by mod
Hi! Welcome to the present! It’s 2025, did you just arrive?
Removed by mod
Judging by how you behave you’re not fucking a lot my dude.
Well, surely the right wing democrats will “vote blue, no matter who”, right? I mean Biden got already elected , even though he was clearly unfit, maybe it’s time somebody that isn’t on their deathbed gets into office.
Removed by mod
If you imagine a room full of people, where people are evenly distributed according to their political and economic views, there will always be a right wing. Even the US Communist Party has a right wing.
But I would agree that demorats do indeed have brain damage on the right wing.
Compared to Europe, the democrats are definitely right-wing, not even centric. They are very neoliberal and capitalist. Those are all very right-wing ideas. The republicans are currently in the same class as the radical right which is unfortunately making inroads in Europe. But America doesn’t really know a real left except perhaps Bernie Sanders.
Removed by mod
The comments are a classic example of what is actually meant by “You are not immune to propaganda”
You have to win to change things bruh. If you can’t focus on that even a little and focus only on what you want in a perfect world , then it doesn’t matter you want because you’ll never win.
All else being equal a white man less than 65 who believe 95percent the same things as AOC will get at least 5 percent more votes just like that, which is the difference between winning and losing.
They’re saying this because they are bots
We want this madness to end and to do that we need to appeal to the same sort of folks who buy Chevy Equinoxes.
Fuck em and fuck that weak shit.
The neoliberals fucked up and can get out of the way forever or we might as well ride this bitch of a species screaming into the abyss.
I totally agree but every damn car looks like an Equinox so I don’t think we can win a popularity contest.
At the end of the day, the POTUS is not just a party leader, it is a national (formerly world) leader. That involves being able to at least get SOMETHING out of the other side… unless you are just going to be a fascist dictator apparently.
But you can be damned sure that the news media would immediately attack any Democrat who tried that and lead the lynch mob themselves. So we need someone who knows when to “reach across the aisle” and when to say “Fuck off” because they have enough votes.
Traditionally? The Senate is a great place to learn how to do that. Because there are only 100 (actually 101) people and almost everyone is an established politician, you have to do a LOT more negotiation to get anyone to vote against party lines (usually by benefiting their constituents). Whereas the House is, historically, where randos show up and we are just lucky if they don’t eat crayons on camera. So “protest votes”/“meme votes” are more common and they are a lot more likely to break party lines because they know they are going back home next year or trying to join a lobbyist firm.
ANY Democrat would be better than the rapist in chief… maybe even fucking fetterman. But a stronger AOC can do a LOT more good down the line… if there is a down the line.
deleted by creator
Being a woman wasn’t why Hillary and Kamala lost. Hell, Hillary had the popular vote, but Congress broke our electoral system in 1929, so that doesn’t matter anymore. So America did choose a woman.
deleted by creator
Under the Constitution of the United States, a person must be aged 35 or over to serve as president. To be a senator, a person must be aged 30 or over. To be a Representative, a person must be aged 25 or older. This is specified in the U.S. Constitution.
The US Constitution does not specify an age requirements for one to serve on the Supreme Court.
There are no specified age requirements to serve in a presidential cabinet —Wikipedia
Trump has proven the constitution doesn’t matter any more.
That’s so weird, I don’t know why I thought someone had to be 43 years old…