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.
In 2016, Bernie was looking great…until the DNC happened, he sported a black eye, and then endorsed Hillary for some unknown reason. The establishment Dems are just as corrupt as the Repubs. The only hope for America is in the new blood…because the milk’s gone bad.
Trump didn’t win in 2016…Hillary (and DWS) LOST.
AOC should take the House Speaker from Jeffries. It’s where she’s needed most.
The democrats poured all that money into mississippi, which is looking to flip blue. It was either florida or mississippi. The fact that florida was so close is a good thing. I think mississippi is a larger win.
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.
click bait headline
Im so glad I get my news from lemmy and don’t give websites that do this the scraps of my privacy for them to sell
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.
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
“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.
This is why they lost in 2015, and 2023.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That’s the reality right now. Look at the unprecedentedly awful situation it took to overcome that. We won’t be able to do that every election.
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.
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?
They’re are absolutely some good cyclists like yourself trying to do the right thing.
There’s just so many that are arse holes but same thing goes for everyone.
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”.
That made me laugh and I agree.
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.
Yeah but we have an electoral college so that doesn’t matter and many of the small rural states aren’t the voting women type
The Democrats now control enough state legislatures that they can do away with the Electoral Collage via the NPVIC.
Sure. My point is that the plurality of voters would vote in a woman, and tried to.
I’m not saying it’s more likely than not, but something like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is possible.
So, the US as a people would vote in a woman but our antidemocratic political system fucks it up.
Yeah, I also said in another comment that it will happen eventually, just not this next election
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
This is unfortunately very true, have my upvote.
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 capitalNo concessions on Genocide support.
good for you, nothing to see here
I 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
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.)
‘…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.)
Did she say the bad treatment ended? She’s probably getting bullied to support him like everyone else.
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.
