AOC would receive my vote.
post
The DNC will absolutely shit all over her efforts. They'd rather lose the elections than have a progressive win.
Right now I'm more interested in 2026. We need to be out there volunteering and promoting the DNC to hold seats and remove the GOP.
she’s gonna have to primary gavin probably
If Gavin is the Democratic nominee, the country is 100% over. Even if he wins, another spineless corporate neoliberal will not be up to the job ahead.
He most certainly don't do a fucking thing to reverse any of the Trump executive orders or damage either, he'll keep ICE funding where it's at and continue the horrors.
... what?
No you didn't. You said "lol..." not "lol...." The former implies something will follow as the sentence is not complete. I was inquiring as to what (presumably) clever thought you omitted.
At this rate, there might already be civil war or at least no regular elections anymore in the US.
We're already in it chief, just because there's no factions warring on the streets doesn't mean shit, there's stochastic terrorism happening on a regular basis, there's secret police disappearing people from their homes in the cover of darkness, and there's militias training for the next push forward. A fascist trained today, did you?
Ye the Democratic party is being paid to do nothing and let the technofasicsts take full control. If elections do happen they will be rigged.
I can't wait for the DNC to pull a 2016 and tank her campaign for someone more "moderate"
By god, it’s Hillary Clinton for a twelfth attempt at the Presidency! It’s HER TURN
I think this is the point she should start fearing for her life.
A car accident or random violence could always just, y'know, happen.
That's a very fair fear. 2 dead demos 1 almost kid napped that wacko that charged the white house and all the bombs that got sent to Obama.
It's rumored that the CIA hacked Michael Hasting's car and killed him before he could expose the CIA Director.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Controversy_over_alleged_foul_play
Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that what is known about the crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack." He was quoted as saying: "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers—including the United States—know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber attack on [Hastings'] car — and I'm not saying there was, I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."
I have never forgotten that case, and remote control of cars has been demonstrated IRL in the time since, so I'm definitely convinced of the possibility.
Oh wow - haven’t heard about this in a minute. I was in Los Angeles for an internship when this happened and I remember how weird the circumstances of his death were. Thanks for the reminder!
Also Kirk Advenger whacko's. Her and Bernie along with progressive YouTubers are probably the top of their list.
To all the "pragmatic" Americans will never vote for a woman crowd... There are already women in high positions of government all around the world, including Italy, not exactly a bastion of progressiveness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Current_heads_of_state_or_government
Hillary Clinton and Harris lost because they were terrible. Maybe the Dems should run a candidate who's not terrible??
The "never women" crowd would never vote for a progressive candidate to begin with, so I don't think it really matters.
The “never a woman” crowd confuses me because I’ve never seen a president or my father take his dick out to fix anything.
Now I'm confused
Michelle Obama would crush Trump... But unsurprisingly the dems would rather lose.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
Michelle Obama only polls well because of name recognition, she's essentially a non-political figure.
What's her position on the genocide in Gaza? What's her take on universal healthcare? What's her plan for Ukraine? Would she fight for gun control? Etc etc...
Right now, people can imprint their personal beliefs onto Michelle. If she would run, she would have to clarify all of her political positions, and then her poll numbers would naturally drop.
I think people underestimate how powerful it is to have a candidate that is even moderately attractive. Democrats are obsessed with running the oldest dinosaur they have because it’s “their turn”
running the oldest dinosaur they have because it’s “their turn”
Nothing says "in touch with the needs of the American People" like making sure to enforce the written rules and unwritten customs of the line of noble succession everybody is waiting in. But they're lined up to take turns on a ride that burned down long ago.
Except when you realize that the last five Republican presidents have looked like: Annoying Orange with a cobweb toupee and a perfectly cylindrical body; the guy who bullied literally everyone in high school; an unholy combination of Jeff Daniels, age 70 on the right side and Jeff Daniels, age 40 on the left side; a washed up movie star with too many hours under the warming lamp; and the villain in a teen movie about having a bake sale to save the local dance hall.
Be honest with yourself. Of the candidates that have run in the last 20 years, who was the “most” attractive? Keeping in mind the majority of voters are boomers. With the exception of Kamala, the “attractive” candidate won. Hell go back even further, Al Gore won the popular vote, Clinton before that. You could argue that to win the presidency you just have to be the most attractive.
Edit. I should have phrased it better. I meant of the 2 presidential candidates, not necessarily attractive in general.
Ok, last 20 years. So that's Obama v. McCain, Obama v. Romney, Clinton v. Trump, Biden v. Trump, and Harris v. Trump. Five elections: two featured probably the most attractive (or at least youngest) president in recent history winning, and the other three featured maybe the ugliest S. O. B. on God's green earth, who won twice. I feel like it's generally a tossup.
Really hope she does run for POTUS. She'd make a great President.
Have u learned nothing from the last 10 years. America is simply too racist and sexist and stupid, so fucking stupid, to accomplish this. She will probably be a great Commander in the Rebel Alliance though. In the coming civil war.
Kamala lost because she was an awful candidate, not because she was a woman.
If the means of political power is cynicism then the ends will be fascism.
She'd look pretty hot in a revolutionary commando outfit...
:logs into deviantart:
Michelle Obama would have trounced Trump... but the dems would rather lose than abandon fascism.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
I'd be happy to see her win. But, I don't think she would have a real shot in 2028.
Even just ignoring the fact that she's a woman, relatively young and has non-centrist positions. It's not common for people whose only political experience is in congress to win the presidency.
- Biden: Senator then VP
- Obama: Senator
- Dubya: Governor
- Clinton: Governor
- Bush: VP
- Reagan: Governor
- Carter: Governor
- Ford: VP
- Johnson: VP
- JFK: Senator
- Eisenhower: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; Military governor of American-occupied sector of Germany
- Truman: Senator then briefly VP
- FDR: Governor
- Hoover: Secretary of commerce, Director of the United States Food Administration
- Coolidge: Governor then VP
- Harding: LT Governor then Senator
- Wilson: Governor
- Taft: Governor of Cuba, Governor-General of the Philippines
- Roosevelt: Governor then VP
- McKinley: Governor
- Cleveland: Governor
- Harrison: Senator
- Cleveland: Governor
IMO, she really should first run for Governor of NY. Especially if Mamdami wins and she has a strong ally as mayor of NYC. Even a short term as Governor of NYC would give her experience as an executive, which she currently lacks.
This list is missing 45/47. If you add his qualifications to the list, then I guess reality show host, felon, rapist, etc are also presidential qualifications, but congressperson is still not one? I think it's safe to say all norms are out the window now and past performance is not anything to bet on going forward.
Maybe I'm an old timer around these parts, but I remember these same exact arguments being used against Obama. "He's only been a senator for two years, and what was he before that, a """community organizer"""?"
In fact, I'm pretty sure she's got more political experience, on a national scale, than he did at the point where he as nominated.
Some people have been elected president with no political experience. But, the trend is pretty clear.
Obama was a constitutional scholar. We can debate academic vs hands on, but he was well versed.
AOC is herself, pretty well educated:
[In high school] She came in second in the microbiology category of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in 2007 with a research project on the effect of antioxidants on the lifespan of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.[23][24] In a show of appreciation for her efforts, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez.[25][26] In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute's Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session. After graduating, she became the LDZ secretary of state while attending Boston University. Ocasio-Cortez had a John F. Lopez Fellowship.[27]
That was before she even went to college
I'm gonna focus on college and after. But it's not that just that Obama was educated, he was a practicing lawyer and professor steeped in constitutional law.
I mean she graduated cum laude from Boston University with a Bacheslors in International Relations and Economics
That isn't nothing.
Sigh. I didn't say it's not nothing. You're making up a strawman to argue against.
I'm highlighting the extensive and impressive qualifications of Obama. They are massively different. You know I started typing more but there's no point in discussing when you are making up a strawman to argue against. Go look up Obama's education and career before being president.
Hochul is towing the line well enough for now, and there's a progressive state politician who's potential run has kept her in check. I'd much rather see AOC primary Schumer.
Biden was VP
I just hope their primaries keep some unity and don’t make her or Newson losing votes depending on the pick. Dems are too split inside and I could see neo-liberals not voting for her or lefties not voting for Newson. If Dems can’t find unity they will not win.
I consider myself a neoliberal, and I am going to vote for AOC. I have grown quite fond of her over the years and she is quite the politician these days. She’s extremely sharp and polished. I think she’s ready.
Neo-Liberaliam / Economic Liberalism is part of what got Trump elected. The sense that Capitalism was beyond the reach of meaningful governance, and will always just aid the wealthy getting wealthier - created a hunger for radical change.
People end up just wanting radical change out of frustration, regardless of what direction that change takes (left or right). They just want a break in unrelenting Capitalism.
Which explains why for many, Bernie, AOC, and Trump, were all likable/popular choices at the same time.
Newsome as a moderating figure will prevent any strong shift away from the service of Capitalism as above all else, and hence is a huge danger to the politics of equilibrium. It's ratchet theory, keeps things stuck.
... Neo-Liberals should be embarrassed to admit who they are, because they caused this, by claiming that Capitalism and deregulation is a moderate position (steering the ship of state between the left and the right) - when infact that's an economic extremist viewpoint which excuses inept government and the corruptions of money... and when perpetuated infinitum as it is, it becomes the cause of voter radicalism.
Neo-Liberal economic policies create the unshifting corruption and two-tier "too big to fail, too rich to jail" system that people want to vote against.
In this sense Newsome is dead weight, representing Bidenism 2.0. Neo-Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for not just accepting their part in creating the quagmire, but wanting to continue it.
We’ve gotta do everything we can to prevent a Newsom or other craven neoliberal lunatic from getting the nomination, otherwise we are going to get a much much worse traitor lunatic next time around.
America will not vote a minority woman as President in this century. They would never even vote for a woman.
Right candidate, wrong country.
both just did the exact same strategy that always costs the dems elections. Hilary won the popular vote, remember?
Popular vote isn't enough in the United states. Also, Hilary is Bill's wife. That's part of why she got as many votes as she did. If I was American, I would vote for AOC but I know she'd never win. A woman of colour has no chance down there. I hate saying it, but it is what it is.
I think there’s something to that, but I think with a sufficient mass movement behind it, such a candidate could overcome the obvious treason.
That's how parties that don't actually serve the majority end up dying. It's a flaw in democracy that it can be so easily corrupted by the wealthy classes.
It ends up all being a sham, then a shame, then a dictatorship.
Yes, and as many of us need to say it as possible or they will ratfuck their way to running an unelectable republican-lite in the general.
No, of course I would vote against the Republican if the Democrat were Newsom, that’s just common sense. I’m saying that we need to do everything we can to prevent him from being the nominee now, while we can still affect things.
The only thing I know for sure is that if the DNC has their druthers, (and there's an election at all) they will run a straight, white man.

top 94 comments