As Trump’s aggressive start to his second term continues unabated, many Democratic voters have begun imploring their party to punch back. Last month, several party lawmakers received an earful from angry constituents at their town hall meetings. CNN
In a general election, AOC would struggle even more than Harris to distance herself from publicly stated, unpopular, left-wing stances on contentious cultural issues.
I switched from Dem to GOP voter during the Biden administration, which was a shit show. I would vote for Fetterman or Richie Torres or Josh Shapiro - strong support for Israel is a litmus test for me, because Israel represents the civilized West (no, not Jewish or evangelical, just pro-Western values). AOC is a HARD no!
Agree. Israel is a litmus test. Men in women's sports is too. I know that affects a very small segment of the population, but it gives me insight into how a politician thinks. If they support men in women's sports, it tells me I will probably disagree with them on a host of other issues. I like Torres and Shapiro too, but not sure where they are on that issue.
AOC would be a gift to Republicans in ‘28. Can you imagine the sound bites that could be put together of her past comments? She is extremely popular with a relatively small group of coastal liberals. But that will NEVER be enough for 270 electoral. If the Democrats really want to have a chance in ‘28 - they need to find someone other than AOC and Newscum. These folks are just too darn devisive and extreme for the broader electorate.
She needs to get more experience and be able to expand her agenda to include items that will address the needs of working voters like providing alternatives to college, etc like outlined above.
You can include JB Pritzker on that who to avoid list. Too far left. I see Whitmer is starting to sound more moderate, but I think she is another fake moderate like Harris. Best bet among realistic choices is probably Shapiro. He seems somewhat moderate,. I can't think of any others.
Bad on immigration, bad on police, but she has the highly educated professional managerial voter demographic all buttoned up.
In 2024 Democrats had tons of billionaire support also, more than the Republicans did, and inequality is driven more by the highest income decile than anything else. It's easy to pick on billionaires, but that isn't really where the power and the money resides. The wealthiest 10% is 12 million households, and the 1% is 1.2 million houses.
Over half of discretionary spending is by the wealthiest decile. $200,000 in earnings per year and up, high net worth individuals. They hire lots of illegal servants, import all the big boy toys from China. They sign the checks at the fund raisers for congress and senators. AOC would never say or do anything to upset them, but Trump has, and JD Vance would.
So, in 2024, the Democrats forced Harris on us, a candidate even less likely to beat Trump than Clinton was. And they did this while howling about how they were "saving democracy." Say what you will about Donald Trump --- he had to win a crowded primary, and the Republican Party didn't tell all those other candidates that they had to let him run on his own "because he had been president.". Unlike some other party and some other candidate in the 2024 primaries.
And now they're talking about AOC for president --- someone even less electable than Harris. Or maybe they'll pick Newsom, who will be about as appealing as AOC. Oh dear.
I think there are plenty of other democratic governors not from the coasts that would be a more appealing choice than those two. Also mayor Pete is another skilled politician.
Agreed, but I'm not confident that the Democrat leadership can manage to let the voters nominate one of them. Dem leaders are like helicopter parents: they have to swoop in and take control, whether or not Little Johnny and Little Susie are acting wisely.
MAGA always wished that McConnell would show the same brilliance that Schumer did in the minority.
If you want to beat AOC in the primary, you need better candidates than Newsom and Buttigieg. Their credentials for working class warriors are highly suspect.
Agreed. Whitmer and Gallego each have a much better chance of winning back working class voters than a thorough lefty like AOC, a technocrat like Buttigieg, or an elite blue stater like Newsom.
MAGA doesn't remember that Mitch McConnell used to eat Harry Reid's lunch on a regular basis when Republicans were in the minority. I always loved watching Reid (whose top lieutenant was Schumer at the time) sputter and stutter whenever Mitch ran procedural circles around him.
He's a southern gentleman from Kentucky. He doesn't like New York brash. I went to Centre College of Kentucky. I was from Jersey suburbs of NYC and met a lot of people like Mitch. I also grew up with a lot of people like Trump.
AOC and her economic populism should serve as a reminder to the Democratic Party: A drowning person only hastens his or her likely fate by panicking in deep waters, thrashing about violently and exhaustively as the Party now seems wont to do by embracing Leftist as opposed to more centrist answers to its polling perils.
People like AOC for the same reason they like Trump. They like the persona and the performance. They're not showing up for the substance as if AOC were another Elizabeth Warren. Her recent audiences are delighted that she is bashing someone - anyone - at a time when the Democratic Party's grownups are missing in action. Oligarchs? Sure: Boo, Oligarchs!
Still, AOC's Bronx vibe and "Squad" baggage are ballot-box poison west of the Hudson.
I certainly wouldn't say she's the Dems' best shot, but I also think it's possible her critics (on both the right and center-left) could be underestimating her.
If that's the case, it wouldn't be because her least-attractive *policies* are any more popular; they'd be undercounting the impact of the fact that she understands the modern attention economy and the use of social media to influence people in a way few if any of the other major contenders in either party do, and the fact that she comes off as more 'authentic' than any of them.
If we have gotten to the point where social media now drives voter behavior more than the 'classical', community-oriented factors, and authenticity is valued over policy, I could see her winning in a surprise 2016-style upset. Under conventional assumptions it seems impossible--but remember, we're living in a world where standing on a podium and screaming "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" gets you more votes than talking about fairly common-sense tax breaks for small businesses, and a man like Trump gets a pass from average voters for a thousand transgressions because he doesn't talk like a classic politician. (though he lies more prodigiously than probably any politician that has come before him)
Trump didn't get elected by screaming "they are eating the dogs". He got elected because Dems could not have cared less, when their unnecessary federal spending, stoked inflation that increased the cost of US life by nearly $13K a year, in a country where 1/2 of all families live on less than $77K a year.
Toss in, Dems purposely importing 10 million unvetted migrants, without a single extra housing unit, doctor or bilingual teacher. Nearly all in need of perpetual and permanent subsidies, as Dems repeatedly insisted, "the border is secure".
If AOC is the 2028 Dem nominee, we will know Dems learned nothing from 2024.
Not solely by virtue of screaming "eating the dogs", no, but screaming that *helped* him rather than *hurt* him, which is the key point.
That is a reversal of conventional wisdom. Making a fool of yourself on the debate stage, in the pre-social media information environment, would be seen as a campaign failure. Lesser blunders have ruined campaigns in the past. Now--by virtue of social media and the attention economy it has cultivated--doing so is actually politically advantageous.
AOC is in tune with this new information environment in a way few others are, in Congress or elsewhere. That's why I don't find it totally unfeasible that she could surprise to the upside, even given the liabilities that the article has accurately described. But I wouldn't bet money on it, either.
Does any serious person think that AOC has the experience, knowledge, or intelligence to serve as the president of the United States? Would anyone seriously suggest that AOC should be the chief executive of any Fortune 500 company? The question begs the answer. I hope the Democrats nominate AOC in 2028. That's the surest way to permanently eradicate the progressive wing of the party.
In a general election, AOC would struggle even more than Harris to distance herself from publicly stated, unpopular, left-wing stances on contentious cultural issues.
She has a lot of work to do, if she can’t convincingly explain why those stances were wrong then she’s toast 😎
AOC is the perfect symbol for the intellectual vacuity of the Democrat left in 2025. She's even dumber than Kamala Harris.
I switched from Dem to GOP voter during the Biden administration, which was a shit show. I would vote for Fetterman or Richie Torres or Josh Shapiro - strong support for Israel is a litmus test for me, because Israel represents the civilized West (no, not Jewish or evangelical, just pro-Western values). AOC is a HARD no!
Agree. Israel is a litmus test. Men in women's sports is too. I know that affects a very small segment of the population, but it gives me insight into how a politician thinks. If they support men in women's sports, it tells me I will probably disagree with them on a host of other issues. I like Torres and Shapiro too, but not sure where they are on that issue.
AOC would be a gift to Republicans in ‘28. Can you imagine the sound bites that could be put together of her past comments? She is extremely popular with a relatively small group of coastal liberals. But that will NEVER be enough for 270 electoral. If the Democrats really want to have a chance in ‘28 - they need to find someone other than AOC and Newscum. These folks are just too darn devisive and extreme for the broader electorate.
She needs to get more experience and be able to expand her agenda to include items that will address the needs of working voters like providing alternatives to college, etc like outlined above.
You can include JB Pritzker on that who to avoid list. Too far left. I see Whitmer is starting to sound more moderate, but I think she is another fake moderate like Harris. Best bet among realistic choices is probably Shapiro. He seems somewhat moderate,. I can't think of any others.
Bad on immigration, bad on police, but she has the highly educated professional managerial voter demographic all buttoned up.
In 2024 Democrats had tons of billionaire support also, more than the Republicans did, and inequality is driven more by the highest income decile than anything else. It's easy to pick on billionaires, but that isn't really where the power and the money resides. The wealthiest 10% is 12 million households, and the 1% is 1.2 million houses.
Over half of discretionary spending is by the wealthiest decile. $200,000 in earnings per year and up, high net worth individuals. They hire lots of illegal servants, import all the big boy toys from China. They sign the checks at the fund raisers for congress and senators. AOC would never say or do anything to upset them, but Trump has, and JD Vance would.
So, in 2024, the Democrats forced Harris on us, a candidate even less likely to beat Trump than Clinton was. And they did this while howling about how they were "saving democracy." Say what you will about Donald Trump --- he had to win a crowded primary, and the Republican Party didn't tell all those other candidates that they had to let him run on his own "because he had been president.". Unlike some other party and some other candidate in the 2024 primaries.
And now they're talking about AOC for president --- someone even less electable than Harris. Or maybe they'll pick Newsom, who will be about as appealing as AOC. Oh dear.
How do the Democrats manage this?
I think they manage this by having the collective IQ of fuscia.
I think there are plenty of other democratic governors not from the coasts that would be a more appealing choice than those two. Also mayor Pete is another skilled politician.
Agreed, but I'm not confident that the Democrat leadership can manage to let the voters nominate one of them. Dem leaders are like helicopter parents: they have to swoop in and take control, whether or not Little Johnny and Little Susie are acting wisely.
How will AOC play in Peoria?
She won't.
MAGA always wished that McConnell would show the same brilliance that Schumer did in the minority.
If you want to beat AOC in the primary, you need better candidates than Newsom and Buttigieg. Their credentials for working class warriors are highly suspect.
Agreed. Whitmer and Gallego each have a much better chance of winning back working class voters than a thorough lefty like AOC, a technocrat like Buttigieg, or an elite blue stater like Newsom.
MAGA doesn't remember that Mitch McConnell used to eat Harry Reid's lunch on a regular basis when Republicans were in the minority. I always loved watching Reid (whose top lieutenant was Schumer at the time) sputter and stutter whenever Mitch ran procedural circles around him.
Yet now he routinely votes with Murkowski. What happened, or is this a Biden deal, does he even know what's going on?
He's a southern gentleman from Kentucky. He doesn't like New York brash. I went to Centre College of Kentucky. I was from Jersey suburbs of NYC and met a lot of people like Mitch. I also grew up with a lot of people like Trump.
But you are right. His age is showing.
I know he doesn't like Trump, but he worked with him the first go-round. It's only now that he is actively working against the Trump agenda.
AOC and her economic populism should serve as a reminder to the Democratic Party: A drowning person only hastens his or her likely fate by panicking in deep waters, thrashing about violently and exhaustively as the Party now seems wont to do by embracing Leftist as opposed to more centrist answers to its polling perils.
AOC is unelectable at the national level. She should set her sights on a House leadership role or try for the Senate
It's all in one's point of view. Point of view from partisans is not usually important to non partisans. No offense meant.
Denver has a population of almost 800,000. Their solid blue legislature is poised to [ass four laws specifically meant to be obstacles to ICE.
My point of view would be ONLY 34,000? How many were not the base?
Not really impressive.
As a conservative (and generally Republican) voter, I say please, PLEEEASE run AOC for President in 2028. She would lose in a landslide.
How do I unsubscribe from this Trojan horse?
People like AOC for the same reason they like Trump. They like the persona and the performance. They're not showing up for the substance as if AOC were another Elizabeth Warren. Her recent audiences are delighted that she is bashing someone - anyone - at a time when the Democratic Party's grownups are missing in action. Oligarchs? Sure: Boo, Oligarchs!
Still, AOC's Bronx vibe and "Squad" baggage are ballot-box poison west of the Hudson.
I certainly wouldn't say she's the Dems' best shot, but I also think it's possible her critics (on both the right and center-left) could be underestimating her.
If that's the case, it wouldn't be because her least-attractive *policies* are any more popular; they'd be undercounting the impact of the fact that she understands the modern attention economy and the use of social media to influence people in a way few if any of the other major contenders in either party do, and the fact that she comes off as more 'authentic' than any of them.
If we have gotten to the point where social media now drives voter behavior more than the 'classical', community-oriented factors, and authenticity is valued over policy, I could see her winning in a surprise 2016-style upset. Under conventional assumptions it seems impossible--but remember, we're living in a world where standing on a podium and screaming "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" gets you more votes than talking about fairly common-sense tax breaks for small businesses, and a man like Trump gets a pass from average voters for a thousand transgressions because he doesn't talk like a classic politician. (though he lies more prodigiously than probably any politician that has come before him)
Trump didn't get elected by screaming "they are eating the dogs". He got elected because Dems could not have cared less, when their unnecessary federal spending, stoked inflation that increased the cost of US life by nearly $13K a year, in a country where 1/2 of all families live on less than $77K a year.
Toss in, Dems purposely importing 10 million unvetted migrants, without a single extra housing unit, doctor or bilingual teacher. Nearly all in need of perpetual and permanent subsidies, as Dems repeatedly insisted, "the border is secure".
If AOC is the 2028 Dem nominee, we will know Dems learned nothing from 2024.
Not solely by virtue of screaming "eating the dogs", no, but screaming that *helped* him rather than *hurt* him, which is the key point.
That is a reversal of conventional wisdom. Making a fool of yourself on the debate stage, in the pre-social media information environment, would be seen as a campaign failure. Lesser blunders have ruined campaigns in the past. Now--by virtue of social media and the attention economy it has cultivated--doing so is actually politically advantageous.
AOC is in tune with this new information environment in a way few others are, in Congress or elsewhere. That's why I don't find it totally unfeasible that she could surprise to the upside, even given the liabilities that the article has accurately described. But I wouldn't bet money on it, either.
Does any serious person think that AOC has the experience, knowledge, or intelligence to serve as the president of the United States? Would anyone seriously suggest that AOC should be the chief executive of any Fortune 500 company? The question begs the answer. I hope the Democrats nominate AOC in 2028. That's the surest way to permanently eradicate the progressive wing of the party.