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.
The old guard has helped republicans turn this country into a facist shit hole.
She 100% has my vote.
I love her, but Congress needs to change its makeup first to be all progressive and pass progressive legislations that will turn successful before she has any chance of presidency.
As of right now if she would run I expect she would lose. I think people want to give progressives a chance but likely would still be hesitant until progressives prove themselves.
I’ve literally heard these sentiments my entire life, and progressives keep proving it wrong every time.
The latest was my dad saying, “well of course a progressive could win in New York, but not anywhere else in the country.”
I think the nation has shown multiple times in the past decade that what we really don’t want is another fucking status quo democrat. The country is desperate for change, and if the democrats and people with your sentiment would take their foot off progressives’ necks and stand behind us instead, progressives could actually make this country great (for the first time, btw).
This is exactly why Hillary lost, FWIW. People were tired of establishment dems being in control. They wanted a shakeup. And in response to that, Dems ran the very personification of the establishment. Hillary was the face of everything that people hated about democrats.
As far as the establishment saw it, she had done her time as a good little soldier, paid her dues promptly, sang the party’s songs, danced the party’s dances, and was “owed” the chance at a presidency because of that. Not because she was the best candidate for the people, but because she was the one who best embodied the establishment that Dems wanted to uphold.
Instead, people voted for the candidate who promised exactly what people wanted: A shakeup. Trump wasn’t a good candidate during his first campaign, but he did promise an end to the old status quo. And to a lot of voters, that was the only thing that mattered.
Bruh, Texas just turned blue. Anything is possible rn.
AOC as presidential candidate would prove some interesting things about the voting populus, but it would also bring some interesting things to light about the current state of the power the wealthy hold.
The old DNC could try hard to oppose her. But there isn’t a single Democrat with name recognition on her level.
They can’t argue against her policy stance in a way that people would support a competitor.
They could argue against her age and experience, but I think the voting populace doesn’t give a fuck about that anymore. They could result to other personal attacks like her being Puerto Rican, or a woman.
The GOP would result to scare tactics that, apparently, have finally lost their edge.
What I’m curious about isn’t the stuff we see in the news. Trump and the oligarchs would stop at nothing to prevent her victory. The ultra rich never had nearly as much wealth and power as they do now, and a lot of people conveniently died as they became too popular.
You’re a tough woman! Fight back.
That’s quite literally what she’s doing - she’s planning on running for president despite the horrible treatment.
We don’t have enough of her to go around. We also need her to take one of the New York Senate seats. It’s weird how leadership is not only Zionist but also made up of a significant number of people from the New York metro area.
Mamdani is seeding enough people that can jump into that Senate race if AOC runs for president.
For instance I still contend the long play is to have Brad Lander run for Schumer’s seat
And depending on his ambitions I could see Mamdani running for governor of NY in 2030 and one of the NYC DSA reps challenging Gillibrand.
I would vote for Mamdani so hard for governor.
It’s not weird at all, and doesn’t even require conspiracy. Social clubs, sports clubs, religious sites, and schools.
The way the craven privileged bond and form their cliques, and how easy they are to influence during their early stages of teenage “I know everything”, spoiled rich brat version, are neither imaginative nor mysterious.
No matter how badly the chuds try to give their group chats cool names, they’re always either impressionable fucks trying to outrun daddy’s legacy to make their own, or already compromised by generational favor debts.
The most insulting part of Israel’s puppet up the ass of the world’s wealthy white men, is how fucking embarrassingly easy it was to size the fit.
Why do you think all the pro Zionist arguments (or defenses) right now are emotion based? The most common example is “we don’t feel safe without Israel” followed by “objecting to Zionism or Israel is anti-Semitic!”
When I see these people arguing for Israel I just think, “wow, you’re really unhinged and haven’t addressed the argument being brought forth”
Who is she planning to vote for Majority Leader?
I believe you probably mean Speaker of the House. House Majority leader is 2nd to the Speaker?
Or you do mean majority, either way.
It looks like there’s some ambiguity between the House Speaker and Majority Leader roles.
In the House of Representatives the majority leader’s presence and power often depends on the session. In some sessions, the majority leader takes precedence over the speaker as House leader and legislative party leader either by force (which usually occurs when the speaker of the House is unpopular) or because the speaker of the House voluntarily surrenders power to the majority leader. In most sessions, the speaker of the House takes precedence as house leader and party leader, with the majority leader being irrelevant and largely powerless outside the fact they might be speaker of the House one day. Except, of course, for the fact that the majority leader (as well as the speaker and the minority leader) are the only members of the House that can speak on the floor for an unlimited amount of time and cannot be interrupted by the chair.
There were rumors a month ago that she would run against Schumer. I don’t think it’s AOC you have to worry about there, but we’ll see.
She’s in the House, not the Senate. She can neither run nor vote for majority leader, and she has already said she can’t/won’t run for Speaker.
I don’t think she would be a particularly good Speaker of the House anyway. I like her, but that role is not her political strength.
I was just pointing out that all signs indicate she doesn’t support Schumer being reelected.
I agree. I am warming up to the idea of her as president though.
I imagine it would be hard for her to vote for Schumer since she’s in the House, but I read that she did some horse trading with Jeffries so might feel obligated to support him… I think if she wants to maintain her leadership of the progressive wing of the party–which is the real source of her power–she’s going to have to abandon that sinking ship.
I believe she’s smarter than to support Jeffries and Schumer with the way the winds are blowing right now.
I agree. The time to come at the king is now.
She doesn’t get to vote for Majority leader. She’s a representative, not a senator.
The House and the Senate each have a majority leader, refered to as the House Majority Leader and the Senate Majority Leader, AFAIK.
You are wrong. You could look it up, you know.
This took me 5 seconds:
I think you might want to re-adjust your confidence level.
True, but it also says:
In most sessions, the speaker of the House takes precedence as house leader and party leader, with the majority leader being irrelevant and largely powerless outside the fact they might be speaker of the House one day.
This is why most people doesn’t know it. It seems like it is just a good trivia fact.
This article has multiple issues.
Indeed it does. But this is not one of them.
Thanks.
deleted by creator
or incredibly stupid.
Or simply mistaken, friend.
