I don’t think she has a chance in the general if I’m honest. She won’t even make it to nomination. However it would help with the Overton window if she ran. We need someone in the race with no gray hairs who will speak truth plainly. It’s amazing how long it’s been since we even saw that happen.
Agree but she needs to do something national for sure. She’s able to pull an audience on your all over the country, she needs to be elevated beyond congress. I really hope we can start moving away from personality politics. Let the big personalities get people excited and let the good hearted boring folks do the work. Maybe I’m wrong it’s just that personality voids attract sociopaths. Not saying AOC is one but if we’ve learning anything we need big benches from the local on up not single person leadership. Also I am inherently becoming distrustful of anyone who gains internet fame or looks good on TV and I suspect many other ppl are too
AOC is my second favorite serving politician after Bernie, she would be a great President.
But I’m afraid that the Democratic leadership will squash her, as they did to Bernie. She’s pro worker, and the Ds abandoned labor long ago (and they were paid well to do so).
If she runs, I am voting for her, whether it’s with Democrats or DSA or Green.
DNC want to keep her away from Schumer’s senate seat.
I’d sure rather vote for her than Harris or Newsom and realistically, idk who else is gonna run.
I’ll support her and anyone she supports if she fails to secure the nomination for herself.
Newsome thanks you for capitulating early.
The more people who say shit like this now. The less difficult it will be to ratfuck her campaign, rig the primary, and coronate a donor-friendly Neoliberal ghoul. I’ll check back here in a little over two years and see how you feel about my prophecy coming true.
I promise to never think of you ever again.
Try again
See ya in 2028. I absolutely will say I told you so.
DSA is going to be too busy purity testing and infighting to support her publicly.
My local DSA is quite up-front about being a “big tent”, I’d be surprised if others weren’t also.
Came here to say this.
I love it when I see some overly online person - the same types that would complain that Chomsky is some kind of right-wing stooge - complain about some way that they were betrayed by AOC.
I mean, FFS. I imagine quite a few of these posters are probably just Russian plants meant to split the Democratic party, but I do know some of these types IRL, so some people actually hold these ridiculous views.
The same complaint is made on Zizek as being a right wing plant.
DSA is run by amateurs who don’t know how to handle the media. While I agree with some of their positions, it’s too embarrassing to be represented by them.
They are normal humans and fellow American citizens. If that’s what you mean by ameuture…
I would much rather vote for normal humans right now than rich pedophile baby eaters…
Nah. We only purity test right wing neoliberals. They are the ones that accept Israeli money and share donors and campaign funds with maga
I think AOC could be a strong candidate. I would support her. I also would support Jon Ossoff.
I hope it’s not “whoever elon buys”.
It will be more like Palantir and Anduril also weighing in.
Palantir (which Thiel co-founded and still chairs) has a significant financial and personnel relationship with Jeffries and his DCCC:
Jeffries received about $25,000 from Palantir executives, plus $44,300 from Palantir manager Mehdi Alhassani to his victory fund, and roughly $22,000 more from Palantir executives for his 2026 campaign. Palantir’s lobbying firms funneled at least $3.8 million to the DCCC last year, and $2.9 million in January 2025 alone. Palantir hired Jeffries’ former chief of staff Cedric Grant as a lobbyist in May 2026, along with Steve Elmendorf, a top DCCC fundraiser who hosted events featuring Jeffries.
It’s all a game and we have to pretend that that we have representation
Spoiler: it will be “whoever Wall St buys”. Elon may or may not decide to buy a few shares in the Dem candidate this cycle.
AOC would Crush it. But to get the DNC on board would be tricky or you get a left lane split ticket. We need to flip the electoral college and statehouses, then fill those Congressional seats everytime they come up. An AOC presidency could achieve great things but she needs a receptive congress, and willing states.
But to get the DNC on board would be tricky
Why?
The current chair said he wants a presidential candidate like Mamdani, both in regards to policy and charisma…
And he said that right after Mamdani won his primary, when people didn’t think he’d win the general…
So why do you think the same DNC wouldn’t support AOC?
What they say and what’s true aren’t really the same when it comes to politicians.
Ain’t happening. The US is too racist and sexist
I love AOC and wish you were wrong… Buy after two women losing in a row to the biggest piece of shit imaginable I just don’t have trust nor desire to roll the dice again.
I don’t think it was strictly sexism and racism that led to their failure. Clinton was an elitist insider who arrogantly thought the presidency was “her turn” as part of a political dynasty while working with the DNC and the other establishment candidates to sabotage Sanders’ campaign. I was pissed learning of her leaked emails collaborating with DNC administrators to thwart Sanders every step of the way.
Harris was a milquetoast politician who was basically appointed to be the Democrat candidate when Biden announced he wouldn’t run for a second term long after the primaries could have been held. Could she have done a better job had she distanced herself from Biden’s foreign policies? Possibly, but she held firm to the status quo which was not gonna fly with a lot of those who knew the horrors Israel was inflicting on Palestinian civilians.
A lot of us on the left have this notion that our candidate has to be near perfect to win their vote and that also tends to hurt their chances. Couple that with the DNC getting high on its own neoliberal farts and you tend to get a losing combination.
AOC doesn’t have the same kind of baggage that made both Clinton and Harris undesirable to many so there’s a better chance she could make it, especially with the way Trump has ratfucked the US and the world at large. Her championing Sanders’ policies will also be a big boost to those who want a more affordable and equitable life too.
I’d love for her or someone like her to win. 28 isn’t the right year though. It’s going to be a shitshow and likely years of partisan crap. We need a good progressive dem to win with massive wins in both senate and house to be able to push and solidify policies
28 pres is going to have to punish Trump and cronies which would distract from good policies so I’d rather those wait a few years and they make sure we never have this issue again. Both at once would be great ofc by that’s setting huge expectations.
Having her run in 32 or 36 with 8 years to fully push progressive policies and not have to deal with punishing Trump and others would be amazing
She could be a VP pick in the meantime.
In fact, I think she would do more good for turnout and for the party as a VP pick to than as a presidential candidate.
I hate to say it but half the country is either a racist, sexist piece of shit, or is in an abusive relationship with one.
I just wish the vp was a better role. As a congress woman she can still do a lot and push laws.
Same. I love AOC and hold that Clinton and Harris lost primarily because they were unexciting centrists, but I’d prefer not to duplicate any of the variables with the stakes this high.
I understand this and go back-and-forth sometimes internally. But there’s a lot of women-only or women-leading statewide seats, governorships, Senate seats even in conservative states.
I think right-wingers who wouldn’t vote for her anyway are a lot of duplication with sexist voters, and sexism may just be the lowest-hanging excuse they’ll have for hating her. And it will definitely bleed into sexist propaganda in right echo chambers. But I’m not sure it would be enough to stop a good candidate, which I think she’d be.
I would never love to be proven wrong more than about this
Article doesn’t load
Honestly we need her in the Senate for at least two terms before she’s president, once she’s served her terms as president she’ll be stuck as powerless as Obama probably feels rn, let’s milk having someone like her for as long as possible, and that starts with her taking that feckless shit head Schumer’s Senate seat.
It’s a symbolic run to shift the Overton window in the right direction and to take some of the lightning off some more moderate candidate, who will look less radical next to her.
Obama is only “powerless” because he has chosen to be.
Taft became the Chief Justice of The US Supreme Court after leaving the office of president.
Obama could totally run for Senate at any point. Presidents have done it before
He could probably win a seat on Tuesday if they announced it today lol
I get what you’re saying but she’ll do much more good as President than sitting in Congress.
Trump showed just how much power the office has, for someone willing to wield it.
Fuck everything about this; strike while the iron is hot or be ruled by pedofascists forever. You won’t get another chance. You do not realize the danger we are all in.
I don’t think the world or America can wait that long.
customary way would be to wait until she’s in her 70s
Ok, six senate terms then.
Exactly… this is the way. She’s not electable until she’s similar in age to Susan Collins.
She can serve in congress after her presidential terms, no?
No president leaves office popular enough to win a race for a Senate seat
Edit: *in our modern era, for the pedants
Andrew Johnson
I’m certain that isn’t true. They are just normally done with all the shit and don’t want to deal with a lot of the same shit but with the addition of being out ruled by any of the other assholes in Congress.
No legislator is more valuable sitting as one of 100 for a decade or two than taking their turn as president.
Yes! This!
Nah. Retiring after a presidency is a tradition, not a law. Hit them while you have momentum from midterms (hopefully).
Then if she still wants anything to do with this trash fire she can just go back to being senator.
It’s probably a tradition for a good reason. I suspect that 8 years of being president is exhausting and leaves even the best of us spent physically, mentally and emotionally (current golfer in chief being a notable exception)
Even lazy-ass Trump is not immune to the rapid aging affect of being president. The difference is that it’s usually due to the stress of trying to effectively run the country, while his is due to his manic narcissism from being in the spotlight 24/7.
Obama is still young enough that after a long break now he could do another Senate term or a relatively brief federal judge shipfor 5to7 years comfortably.
Oh man if you put her in the senate for two terms the leftists will have so much ammunition why they hate her.
the leftists
the fascist propagandists, I think you mean
There is some overlap in that venn diagram yes but a lot of leftists are decent people.
I’m gotta get downvoted and cause a stir with this. Here goes anyway for the all of 5 people it might reach.
I would love. FUCKING LOVE for a candidate like AOC to get elected president of the United States. Love it.
HOWEVER.
Until there is enough power transferred in the senate and the house to candidates that would remove the current structure of how we elect the executive office; they are not electable.
See, you read that sentence thinking what I said was an opinion and pessimism. It was not. It was based in the statistics of how Americans vote and how strong the votes in various states are in a first past the post electoral system that uses an electoral college.
As it stands, and Nate Silver backs this math as well, the electoral college requires a moderate democratic candidate to overcome a 3.7 point disadvantage. That might sound small. It isn’t small. It’s the margin of victory in many races so, you effectively need to more than double the current margin of victory for a candidate, and so it when further left candidates have a harder time than that.
Jeff Jackson could make a run for office in 2028-2032 and be a candidate that historically could get elected. Statistically.
AOC is just not electable in the current structure of the electoral college and state first past the post voting that still persists in most states.
You run the virtue candidate and lose the election.
The same was true of Harris in 2024. Not because we don’t deserve a black woman president or that she couldn’t do the job.
She wasn’t fucking electable in this racist, sexiest voting base.
I get we want better candidates, but you can go too far and effectively give the election to the fascist asshole, and frankly the country can’t have that happen again post Trump. It will be the end of democracy as we know it if It does.
I know that isn’t what folks want to hear but the math is the math.
Harris lost on more than just the racism and sexism vote though?
She was bland. Did nothing to distance herself from Bidens unpopular policies AND was running against someone who made promises that they never intended to keep. She had zero interest from voters BEFORE the campaign started.
AOC already has a name for herself and what she stands for. She doesn’t need to compete against lies, because they’ve already shown their ass. It won’t be effective the second time around. She’s popular among a much larger amount of demographics. She won’t be up against Trump either, who has repeatedly demonstrated that he’s the pillar on the entire R platform. The only pillar.
Stats only work until they don’t. Statisticians are great with simple logic, not so great when some of the same people that voted Trump voted Mamdani and AOC. The political calculus is shifting in this country and now is the best chance we have of a sudden takeover. You are right that political shifts usually need to be senate and congress first (and states and counties and cities) but I think the normal political rules don’t hold as strong right now. If she can win a primary, she can win the presidency. Harris couldn’t overcome racism and sexism because she had little to offer.
I worked in Dem politics for the first Obama election. He was so popular that he regularly had racists committing to voting for him. When we got regional or national polling we would regularly hear from polling companies that people would answer polls with (paraphrasing) “I’m voting for the n-word, I might be racist, but I’m not stupid”. Also we had a white lady volunteer in one of the local county campaign offices that regularly used racial epithets like the n-word and she was sent home cause no one knew what to do about it.
Don’t expect predictable logic from voters.
People said Trump was statistically unelectable, too 🤷
Not anyone with a stats background.
In fact it was his election to lose.
I’m telling you that Democratic party operatives whose entire job is electoral statistics assured me that he was unelectable. I disagreed, and it turned out I was sadly right.
I respect your respect for statistics and statisticians, but I don’t believe their predictions are as accurate as they were a few decades ago given the current political reality. “Winning elections based off of statistics” has been the Democrats entire thing since like literally the Tammany Hall days and it isn’t as consistently reliable as it used to be for a lot of factors that could be sumed up as the increasing complexity of political society.
The difference is he proved that a huge population is very racist, sexist, and okay with rapist and pedophile being elected.
The election system is rigged against large blue states/ cities with how the senate and house are calculated
Not to be that guy but people kinda knew about Bill Clinton and still championed his politics. Like it wasn’t just a cheating scandal he was in a position of power and groomed an 18 year old, was close with Epstein, etc.
I think America has long proved that it was willing to vote for rapist pedophiles, or racist far right supremacists (Reagan).
While it is pretty blatant and specifically bad in Trump’s case, idk how you could support someone who is so obviously guilty of pedophilia, All victims of the Epstein racket deserve closure and justice, even if that means cracking down the hammer “on both sides”, with Chomsky, Clinton, Trump, etc.
If bill did anything with epstein he should go down too. The fact they pulled him and Hillary into testify and nothing happens makes me think he’s clean there.
Its pretty clear kamala was not the choice. She never sided with Palestine or went against biden. She ran as “not trump” thus advertising her rival. She was not chosen in a primary. She never had a chance because Biden didnt back down quickly enough to get a cohesive message through.
The DSA has amazing press right now and the people are begging for change. Mamdani is overwhelmingly positive for a test run, so the people are legitimizing the DSA as an option. AOC could win.
Yeah, I agree. I can understand why people think America “isn’t ready” for a woman president; two women losing to Trump isn’t great. But also, a part of me thinks maybe America is ready for a woman president, just not Clinton or Harris. Neither was ever a particularly popular candidate, and as you say, Harris never even won a primary
I have optimism because of the fdr effect. After a really shitty far right, we have hopes of electing a leftist
there’s more nuance than that. If AOC support is coupled with heavy (and popular) DSA representation in both chambers she may actually stand a chance. So the focus right now should be elsewhere which is not to say AOC endorsement should seize, but that for that to become reality a lot of things have to fall into place. Also, just as Bernie’s “failed” candidacy did AOC challenge will force DNC to acknowledge it’s leftmost side and incorporate it’s agenda.
Agreed. The US electorate has far too many ignorant bigots and the current power structure likes it that way. HOWEVER, this is kind of a self-solving problem - if AOC were actually able to get through a primary with most of the Democratic and all of the Republican party apparatus gunning against her, she actually would have a chance. So best option is to run her in the primary, and any other progressives in the future, to gauge whether the US electorate is still full of rotten people.
Harris had to run a half a campaign. I feel that was the bigger factor. you aren’t wrong about the rest of it though.
You talk about statistics and you say you would love her as a president, but then you call her a “virtue candidate”, and your real opinion is showing. You may as well have called her DEI.
One of us doesn’t know what “virtue candidate” means, and I’m pretty sure it’s you. I understood it to mean “the candidate with high ethical standards” or “the candidate that focuses on integrity and decency for all constituents rather than attacking the opponent”. Idk what that has to do with DEI.
I read that with a positive connotation, at least towards her.
That is, the virtue candidate is the most virtuous one. The best person. The one the world needs. The one you choose when you don’t want to game theory your way into your vote.
But they are not the person the world WANTS, presumably.
The negativity is cast more on the person choosing AOC, the way I initially read it. By choosing the virtue candidate, they are virtue signaling their purity of leftness or whatever. They refuse to compromise and join a coalition behind somebody electable. (again, I’m just discussing the term reflecting more positively on her in my interpretation – I am NOT arguing that she is in fact a virtue cabdidate or unelectable. )
I don’t want to hear it but I’m glad you said it.
Red Star, whose member Megan Romer is one of DSA’s two national cochairs, has expressed “serious doubts” about throwing its weight behind her, citing a lack of “political and practical alignment with DSA.” Marxist Unity Group and Springs of Revolution have questioned moves toward an early endorsement and stressed the importance of holding socialist elected officials accountable. Liberation, a much smaller Maoist caucus, has rejected the idea of making her the standard-bearer of the socialist movement.
Well, those people are fucking idiots…
Luckily no organization is going to be able to just name a candidate.
Whoever it eventually is, will have to win a full 50 state primary. And even if the DSA is outspokenly against her (or any other progressive) it just won’t fucking matter.
Progressive policy is what’s popular and what voters are eager to flock to. Not fucking Maoism.
No one wants Maoism, and the people ignorant enough to think they do, shouldn’t be listened to under any circumstances, they don’t even know what terms they’re using mean, or even worse they do and actually want Maoism…
Holding that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”,[38] Maoism emphasises the “revolutionary struggle of the vast majority of people against the exploiting classes and their state structures”, which Mao termed a people’s war. Mobilising large parts of rural populations to revolt against established institutions by engaging in guerrilla warfare, Maoist Thought focuses on “surrounding the cities from the countryside”.
Maoism views the industrial-rural divide as a major division exploited by capitalism, identifying capitalism as involving industrial urban developed First World societies ruling over rural developing Third World societies.[39] Maoism identifies peasant insurgencies in particular national contexts as part of a context of world revolution, in which Maoism views the global countryside as overwhelming the global cities.[40] Due to this imperialism by the capitalist urban First World toward the rural Third World, Maoism has endorsed national liberation movements in the Third World.[40]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism#Components
It would literally be a bunch of MAGA storming cities and killing anyone that has an education, Jan 6th on a national scale, with plenty of public executions, just like under Mao.
The fuck is the DSA doing letting self identified Maoists into their tent?
Semi-relatedly: I don’t have personal experience in the DSA, but a friend heavily into political party activism gave up going to DSA meetings because the leadership and structure was completely disorganized, ineffectual and instead concerned with infighting and power-struggles. It did not seem like an organization built to run a successful presidential campaign.
So reading statements like this seems in line with those stories. If they’re ready to preliminarily sabotage their best candidate for failing to be a specific flavor of faction, they clearly are not going to be productive at election time.
AOC, however, seems like a great candidate and one that would run a great campaign with the resources and organization of the Democratic party (assuming the traditional neoliberal factions remain not in charge).
The thing is, there’s “national DSA” they’re the ones who didn’t endorse AOC and are apparently full of Maoists…
Then there’s a shit ton of “local” DSA’s, and the one in NYC kept endorsing her.
The national seems to want to latch onto to the popularity of anyone remotely socialist, and then if that politician doesn’t do everything the Maoists want, they try to co-opt their popularity and throw them under the bus.
Anyways, that’s how you end up with “the DSA” doing great things, and doing absolutely mindless shit like telling people AOC is conservative and people shouldn’t vote.
It’s not one solid organization. And large parts of it are run by idiots
All of the groups mentioned in your quote from the article are opposing AOC because of her stance on Palestine not being strong enough. It has nothing to do with her “not being maoist enough”.
A ceasefire in Gaza is extremely popular among the electorate, so this stance is pretty solid according to your “flock to progressive ideals” argument. Linking to the wikipedia page on Maoism to make your point here makes absolutely no sense. Especially considering the liberation maoists are stated as being “a much smaller maoist caucus [within the DSA]” right there.
If you want to make an argument that there should be no hesitation in endorsing her despite her support for the iron dome and support for Biden/Harris with them “working tirelessly” behind the scenes on a ceasefire, be my guest.
Tankies always roll over their feet
What’s crazy is there’s 31 different flavors of communism that doesn’t require unquestioning loyalty to a supreme leader, and tankies can all just easily choose to support any of them.
Keep every last good thing they claim to support, and just ditch the roving gangs of murderers and literal tanks crushing anyone that doesn’t 100% agree with them…
But they won’t, because the lust for violence is why they’re tankies in the first place, instead of any of the rational flavors of communism. They’re not tankies for the communism, it’s just a path to acceptable violence against an out group
They’re not tankies for the communism, it’s just a path to acceptable violence against an out group
Ironically this can be applied to a lot of your common folk fash supporters too. Some people just want to watch the world burn and don’t really care what path they have to take to get us there.
I agree but can we still have a little murder? As a treat? There are a few people that…well…
There’s less than 1,000 billionaires in america, and they control over $8,100,000,000,000…
They don’t need to be murdered though, you don’t get to be a billionaire without commiting enough crimes to be jailed for life. It’s just our legal system is a joke and they have more resources than the government.
-
Seize their resources
-
Prosecute them and give them a court appointed attorney
-
Nothing, we literally have to do nothing after that.
No roving gangs, no guillotines, throw them in the same ocean they throw us.
Completely ethical and moral, and that shit matters. Because how you start a new society influences it the entire time it exists.
Once their wealth is gone, all the underlings will be scrambling to turn states evidence, no one hates billionaires more than the people who have latched onto them to siphon off wealth. The ones who actually have to interact with them, clean up messes, and know where both literal and figurative bodies are buried.
The only thing that puts billionaires out of reach of consequences is their billions we just have to remove that and let nature do the rest
Its the first step of your plan that is really the sticking point. They really don’t like doing that. And they have a lot of ways of avoiding it and harming those who tried. I love the way you frame it all but there is no way that that is going to happen peacefully. They would pay for roving gangs themselves to stoke fear long before they allowed it.
I don’t think you understand how numbers work…
There’s less than 1,000 billionaires, there’s like 330,000,000 Americans
That’s 1 billionaire against 330,000 Americans…
Do you have any idea how many guns 330,000 random Americans have?
Right so then there will be some murder, as I said. You can’t just ask them politely for their money. Even if you show up and demand it with guns, they will have guns of their own, and will shoot back.
-
fuck is the DSA doing letting self identified Maoists
Holy fuck go back to Reddit
You’re telling the only person in this thread with a brain to go back to reddit?
We must have the echo chamber properly resonant
Luckily no organization is going to be able to just name a candidate.
Whoever it eventually is, will have to win a full 50 state primary. And even if the DSA is outspokenly against her (or any other progressive) it just won’t fucking matter.
Uh that’s not how that works. Any candidate needs people to organize and get out the vote for them, and for a leftwing candidate those tend to disproportionately come from the hard left. This means that for someone like AOC, the DSA might not be essential but it’s really nice to have.
We’re who got her elected in 18 - NYC DSA was the foot power
They’re being in solidarity with the left. Which we should all do.
with the left
Buddy…
In 1978 the CCP split from Maoists, because the Maoists were too extreme
Do you have any idea how many people died because of Maoism?
Jung Chang and Jon Halliday contend that implementation of Maoist thought in China was responsible for as many as 70 million deaths during peacetime,[118] with the Cultural Revolution, the Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957–1958,[119] and the Great Leap Forward. Active campaigns, including party purges and “reeducation”, resulted in imprisonment or the execution of those deemed contrary to the implementation of Maoist ideals.[120] Some historians have argued that because of Mao’s land reforms during the Great Leap Forward which resulted in famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961, the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism#Criticism_and_implementation
Seriously, do you have any idea what Maoism actually is?
They’re authoritarians. That’s not “the left”.
In 1978 the CCP split from Maoists, because the Maoists were too extreme
And because of it, I get to hear you lot constantly whining about how China is bad because it has billionaires. Well, guess what the ones who didn’t want reforms to allow billionaires were called 🙄
I am not a Maoist, and I’m critical of them, however, Maoists do not believe in directly copying every policy Mao ever did. The more relevant movement to look at is the Black Panthers, who were Maoists, and who American Maoists are more likely inspired by than Mao himself.
Most “Maoists” have literally no idea what Maoism is.
And when the DNC ratfucks that attempt as well, and coronates Newsome or HarrrisAgain, will you accept that the party is the problem?
2016: Clinton (unpleasant creepy woman) vs Trump (worst human in USA) Trump Won
2020: Biden (unqualified white moron man) vs Trump (still worst human in USA) Biden won
2024: Kamala Harris (unqualified “half progressive” non white woman) vs Trump (still worst human in USA) Trump won
2028: AOC (progressive Latina woman) vs Any white republican, pos or not Republican will win
