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.
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.
There’s plenty of valid criticism but she’s better than like ~90% of congress. She’s got some of the broadest appeal of progressive adjacent options. Would be happy if she does run.
I’ll vote for her over Kamala Harris any day of the week. But I want much tighter border control.
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.
2015 and 2023? those are local cycles in most states
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
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.
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.
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.
It was the same dog whistle “know her place” comment that comes up on every post about her. Whether they meant it to be or not, it is absolutely about gender.
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!”
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.
America will not vote a latina woman president.
I mean I would in a heart beat. There are a couple votes that I don’t agree with in her career, but she seems like a decent person who wants to do right by the country.
Even if a revolution happened, and she was put forward as potential leader of the new government, I would vote for her on those criteria.
People like yourself need to stop wussing out in advance, imo.
I would!
As for others, I think things have changed and they want a change in the philosophy of our government. I think she has a chance.
Congress has a chance to show people what a little left-wing progress can do for them. They can’t squander this chance.
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.
she should run as vice president.
That’s just called “running to lose the primary”. Last thing a DSA candidate needs is to walk into an election saying “Please don’t actually vote for me, I can’t win”.
If someone like Ossoff or JB Pritsker want to extend an offer in advance, they’re always welcome to do so. But to announce “I’m running for VP” is like entering the Olympics with a pledge to come in second place.
playing by the rules you want rather than the actual rules isn’t usually a good way to play a game
“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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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)
The absolute WORST managers/bosses I’ve ever had were Baby Boomers. Outside of work most don’t try or even show any consideration for your well being and what that entails. Slowly going broke, boot straps harder you entitled millennial swine. Work harder for daddy warbucks so my retirement looks good.
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’m a xennial and even my teenage mom was a boomer (very young one). My grandma is silent generation though (another young pregnancy!).
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.
I will vote for her in the primary and happily the general election if she wins the primary. I certainly hope she does.
I’d consider voting for her in the general even if she lost the primary.
If only we had ranked choice voting nationwide
It’s as obvious to them as it is to us. It would be naive to think they don’t know. At this point everyone against RCV is telling us who they really support by their actions.
AOC supports ranked choice voting and that’s why she’ll likely get my vote.
If she’s the democratic candidate then democrats are dummer then I thought. It’s been proven the US will not vote in a women president. Boomers won’t, Muslims won’t, orthodox Jewish won’t. Uber religious Catholics won’t. Just too much change at once will ruin the it for her. 10:years from now maybe.
More people voted for Hillary Clinton than Trump.
This is unfortunately very true, have my upvote.
you have no idea what you’re talking about, so you should stop.
I have a pretty good idea what I’m talking about
obviously, you think you do.
you don’t.
Yes, he does. He is correct, too many people (even those on “the left”) don’t seem to come out to vote when a woman is the candidate, not for president at least.
AOC is far far more popular than Hilary ever was. The problem isn’t the voters.
Well in a couple years we’ll see won’t we. Frankly I hope I am wrong. But I’ve seen this before and how it ends.
go ahead and message me in a couple years.
also, you spelled dumber wrong.
I would say it’s been proven that Democrats, mostly progressives, won’t vote for a candidate who spouts conservative values. Which is what both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris did. For fuck’s sake Kamala Harris graciously accepted the endorsement by fucking Dick Cheney and his piece of shit daughter. Literally the moment she did that I knew we lost the race.
Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. We have had a decade since then. I think you are also way over-generalizing the groups you mention.
Last time I checked we still have the electoral college. I should have used that example as well as to why a female president won’t happen yet. I say 10 years as that’s when many older boomers will be dead. A see of change will happen in Washington as millennials step up to the plate to control the white house
For those of us paywalled out and looking for the video, I think I found it.
I am not on Instagram, but I found it via another article. Yesterday, November 9, AOC posted a live on her IG reels that explained the process of selecting a new Speaker of the House, and it is 100 minutes long, so I’m pretty sure this is it.
I use igram.mx to view and download Instagram reels, for those of us who do not use Meta products at all. Put her username “aoc” in the searchbox, it will take you to her profile, and right now it’s the one in the top center with her pointing to a white board with a dry erase marker. You might have to pass a quick bot check; I always do on that site.
Thank you! I thought all the frontends were dead.
‘…Anyway, that’s why I’m excited to give Hakeem Jefferies my full and unconditioned support.’
(Did the article mention this? It’s paywalled for me.)
I can defend that. Jeffries is a nonentity; house democrats have been able to walk past him for 2 years. Schumer is far more of a problem, and has the contacts and connections to ratfuck anyone over anything. When Schumer wants to raise money and whip for Israel, he opens his Rolodex. When Jeffries wants to raise money and whip for Israel, he asks Schumer to open his Rolodex. Both need to go, but ousting Schumer as majority leader is step 1 towards that. You can disagree with the political calculus on that, but there is political calculus on that.
I’m not a parliamentary expert, but that doesn’t sound correct to me.
Doesn’t the speaker control who chairs each committee and what legislation makes it to the floor?
As speaker, Jeffries can – and will – put allies as chairs of committees to make sure that Medicare for All never gets out of committee. He could single-handedly prevent a vote to abolish ICE from taking place, even if a majority were in support. The speaker is third in line of succession to the presidency, and is arguably the most powerful position in the federal government after the President.
I don’t think your characterization matches reality at all.
I think he is not talking about what the speaker can do, but what sort of person Jeffries is personally. I can kind of see it, he interviews kind of like phone tree. So if he ‘leads’ like that then he may be a fairly mundane pass through for whatever most folks are going with. Others can and have meddled a lot, but he may just be background character enough to insert much of anything specific to the role.
But not crazy about the concept of a guy that I don’t think can think on his feet in being in such a high visibility role either way.
Her honesty and directness are so refreshing. I wish I could be more like her, just a totally good pure person. It also seems like she genuinely tries hard, like her success is not without extreme effort.
It’s a choice, she chooses that path, every time. Repeatedly, regardless of what she faces, she tries to make the best choices in that situation. And the more you do that the better you get at it. It sounds simple, in writing it out, but it’s usually the hardest choice. It’s choosing to stick to your guns, regardless of social ostracism.
Repeatedly, regardless of what she faces, she tries to make the best choices in that situation
Including voting against the bill to discontinue funding for the Zionazi state’s Iron Dome?
(Edit: My mistake, she actually voted "Present’, and her excuse was basically “the bill didn’t do enough so I decided we should do nothing at all”. Very Democrat of her indeed.)
It was chess. She sent a long letter to her constituents explaining why she went from no to present.
There was a lot on the table they were fighting for in a republican led congress.
Dems pressured her hard to vote yes, and she needed them to synchronize to try to rescue “The Build Back Better package”
The bill was rushed in to create a political wedge
finally her vote was not actually affecing the outcome, so it was pure political capitalI don’t give a fuck about your “chess” during genocide. You vote to stop the mass ethnic cleansing of human beings or you don’t. And if you don’t, fuck you, in the least uncertain of terms.
How often have you been in a position where you had to chose between results and principles?
Politicians who stand unflinchingly on their convictions do not serve the people. You will never hear the voices of those who fell on their swords to avoid going against their morals, for they are dead and their swords are buried in what could have been our ally.
Well lookie here, another fine blocked user, good riddance
liberals when they encounter principles: BLOCKED
No concessions on Genocide support.
good for you, nothing to see here
People pointed out that any financial support frees up budgets for offensive weapons and she changed her stance. (Or maybe it was the backlash in general.) I don’t know what votes have come up since.
No such a thing as a “totally good pure person”. You can praise people without lying to yourself, it’s possible I promise . She deserves more intellectually honest praise than “she’s perfect and without flaw”
‘Pure’ is nonexistent drivel. No human is ‘pure’ anything. Its dehumanizing. She’s human. She’s imperfect. She gets the job done and has a good heart. She’s not pure in anything.
I don’t know…it’s hard to think Stephen Miller isn’t pure hobbit Nosferatu.
Her honesty, directness, and willingness to continue using our taxpayer dollars to continue funding ‘defensive’ weapons for an apartheid occupation determined by the UN to be guilty of genocide.
(Edit: My mistake, she actually voted "Present’, and her excuse was basically “the bill didn’t do enough so I decided we should do nothing at all”. Very Democrat of her indeed.)
Dead link. Meh.
A 100 minute video from AOC? I’d love to watch it, why would she only post it to Instagram? Are there any mirrors out there?
^ yes. Elected officials speaking about elected stuff should never post to closed platforms only.
Why in the hell twitter was ever used for emergency management / communication, particularly exclusively, was a mystery to me
“Exclusively” is def a problem, but it makes perfect sense to put important stuff where the people are.
She meets people where they are. People are, unfortunately, on instagram
Not all people. I want to watch the video, but not bad enough to make an Instagram account.
She should post her stuff on lemmy. All 15 of us would be so happy and informed
Found a mirror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFqWmoyDN1s
Thats unfortunately not even a little surprising
