She’s embarked on a nationwide tour with Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, held town halls outside of her district in upstate New York, and raised $15 million
Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive who has cemented her popularity with young voters, is reportedly considering running for president or the Senate in 2028.
Ocasio-Cortez, 35, made a splash when she was elected to represent New York’s 14th congressional district, located in the Bronx and Queens, in 2019. Now, the Democrat is reportedly considering taking the next step in her political career as the party searches for its next generation of leaders, Axios reported Friday.
Members of Ocasio-Cortez’s team have recently been positioning the progressive lawmaker, known as AOC, to either run for president or run for a Senate seat.
“Plotting”? Wtf is this wording?
Propaganda, as is usual
It worked so hard. I’m voting for her because this means she’s serious.
AOC is instrumenting a plot of running for office, while MAGA is merely preparing for another coup.
She’s plotting against the democratic establishment that wants to nominate another creepy fash loser.
That’s kind of how the article frames this. She’s popular with young voters, but would be jumping ahead of “established” “Democrats”. Very stupid framing since the establishment has failed us so consistently.
Plotting, eh? How diabolical of her.
She’s earned my vote now.
She’ll have my vote. …assuming there is actually a 2028 election. And that we’re not extinct by then.
More likely she’s running for senate.
Ah yes, I remember when Trump became a Senator.
Why do you think this?
I’m not the guy you’re responding to, but historically it’s been a lot easier to be taken seriously after a stint in the Senate. Hard to say if that’s still the case, we live in weird times, but the Democrat establishment is a lot more bound by tradition than Republicans, and it frequently leads them astray.
It’s very possible with a coalition formed through other recent success stories like Mamdani, she’s concluded that a coup of sorts is possible (and I mean that with the utmost excitement). They might have numbers showing now is the time to capitalize on a ground swell and really shift the party. I’m assuming they’ve got some sort of data backing this, even if it’s just “we don’t know if we can win but we know the establishment Democrats will lose”
I know I’m a day late here replying but this narrative is just antiquated like our entire system. If we want to keep at this, we don’t need her after a stint in the Senate, we need her now. What exactly will she gain by going that route? Because it’s the best way to gain respect? Maybe she’ll get some experience?
Look, statistically you are right. But let’s run the facts, normal is just a setting on the dryer and we’re not playing by the standard rulebook anymore.
Usually it is said that someone is ‘contemplating’ or ‘planning’ a run for office, but since it’s about a woman the headline says ‘plotting’ because that sounds underhanded and nefarious and the media wants to get the framing in place early.
That said, I think it would be better for her to run to replace Schumer in the Senate. A better chance to win and could do more good there.
I suspect poor headline editing. The article is about multiple options (Senate, President, other party-promoting path) where the navigational use of the term (“plotting a course”) is reasonable. But then the headline couldn’t fit even two options, so it got reduced to just President and no one on the team connected that plotting has a negative implication with a single subject.
Very quaint of them expecting an actual election to happen in 2028
“Plotting” is an infuriating word choice.
I’d vote for her. I’m not interested in entertaining any arguments about electability. The least electable person in the universe has won the presidency twice. If enough people vote for her she is electable.
Look if she comes out of the box swinging, and I mean haymakers both left and right, she could do it. The DNC has to have an honest to god real primary and not the horse shit they pulled with Bernie or the last-minute Harris takeover.
If AOC wins a primary and is nominated, hits the ground at a full sprint, doesn’t pull punches on either side of the political spectrum, prays to Jah, and crosses her fingers she could do a Billy Clint or Obama. She is going to have to learn to play the Saxophone, confess to smoking weed and inhaling, slow jam the news, and probably host a full episode of SNL not just appear as herself in a sketch. If she did all that and she convinces Jesus to come down from on high and endorse her she has a 50/50 chance.
Oh, and she’ll need a gun for her purse like that bargain bin Barbie from Colorado or the dude from Georgia’s 14th congressional district.
She needs to go for Chuck’s seat instead
100% agree - maybe that’s the plan.
He’ll be 78, it would be reasonable for him to retire when his term is up in 2028. Hopefully the fiascos with Biden and multiple Democratic Representatives dying of old age this term (and the Republican Representative who went missing because her family put her in assisted living), and just slightly further back Feinstein being too sick to make critical votes, all push people to stop hanging on to their seats all the way to the bitter end. Pelosi leading the way here, showing it can be done.
I like her. She can’t win. Go for Senate.
Any democrat who runs on a populist message that doesn’t just pander to working Americans can win the presidency… just not the primary.
Nah. She’s politically what the country needs, but get serious, no way will America ever vote a woman as President.
We should let the Democratic party choose a person through a primary to run for president and then allow that person to run for president.
If a woman makes it through that process on her own merits then the party will probably vote for her.
If on the other hand a woman is selected because she’s a woman who will cooperate with the donors and they decide to skip that process or subvert it in some way then you probably won’t win.
Why would anyone do that when you can just complain about needing change, but do absolutely nothing to support or advocate for it! Or better yet, you can just start applying uninformed purity tests to progressive candidates. “She wants to implement the change I want to see, but because I don’t understand how legislation is passed in the US, I’ll accuse her of giving money to Israel’s occupation, and say she’s complicit in genocide” - average internet leftist.
Michelle Obama would be president right now if dems wanted to win more than they want to platform fascists.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
Stranger things have happened. They elected a black guy for one.
If AOC is the candidate, it will be the first time since Bernie that I will phone bank, knock down doors, canvas … Whatever it takes.
She is one of the few people in politics that I can get behind.
" is reportedly considering running for president or the Senate in 2028."
Stupid clickbait title.
Title is a lie. It says right in the body “president or Senate”. Downvote and report.
I think both oligarchs and corporatists alike will fight far too hard to take her down. The US would need a far more fair and democratic procedure to elect someone that would change the paradigm like AOC–especially since Citizens United.
But why is there such this defeatist attitude any time someone remotely not terrible tries to do something? It’s like we’re doing the fascists work for them with talk like this. I get that fuckery happens any time someone kinda different or kinda maybe good (for a politician) steps up, but that can be overcome with more support. When the margins are thin, it’s easy for them to cheat. When they aren’t, it’s fucking not. So let’s stop making the margins tighter with this kind of talk
Super PACs are the fuckery that happens any time someone steps up–and AOC wants justice–she is not an interest for them. We need to stop thinking it is a just world and think like they do. We need need an interest for Super PACs and we need to use that to replace SCOTUS and the majority of Congress. The doddering degenerates in office are an embarrassment. The three branches are littered with dolts and ignorant bigots.
This is all true. But my point is, we have to start somewhere. And politicians are an okay place to start. But they can’t be where we end. They are a small piece of the puzzle. But when we bring defeatism to every single part of the equation, before we try anything in earnest, then no one will ever get anywhere and things will continue to get worse and worse. We need our generations stepping up, and as much as it pains me to say, that includes politicians. We can’t trust them any further than they can be thrown, but they are still a part of the solution that we need.
Have you ever tried suggesting other parts of the solution? Strikes, collective action, mutual aid, etc? Because any time anything more than a weekend march gets suggested, people always, always, always sound a lot like your first comment where they just start listing reasons they can’t work or will be foiled. Why is that? We are conditioned by a lifetime of the system telling us it’s inevitable and everlasting. But it’s not the only way, and we need to start moving toward a different way. That starts somewhere, and if wherever it starts is poo-poo’ed at the first suggestion, then we are beyond fucked. We need momentum, and once it starts, it will seem like it was always going to go that way. So let’s let it start naturally, without the defeatism literally before we even get started righting the ship.
“We have to climb this mountain.”
“But look at that rock, and that stumbling block, and imagine how tired you will get before you can get up there! And look at your shoes, you’re not going to make it in those shoes. You’ll get blisters, and you’ll be sooo thirsty!”
Etc. etc. See my point?
