post
Plotting, eh? How diabolical of her.
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.
She'd have my vote, but I doubt she could win.
Yeah I would definitely support her but I don't know why you have downvotes. The fascist have been running character hit pieces on her and misinformation campaigns for like a decade now non stop. Also America has shown it's true colors by electing Trump twice. I just don't know how people think we go from an open racist to a women of color without major election reform. Which is happening. Just in the wrong direction. What reality are y'all living in where she has a chance? I hope I'm wrong but just from looking at the current state of things... I know people are somewhat fed up with things, but the idea that they'll pull their heads out of their racist asses by that time seems ludicrous.
She might run if she believes it would steer the conversation in a productive way, even if she didn't believe she could win a primary.
"plotting" eh?
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.
More likely she’s running for senate.
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"
Ah yes, I remember when Trump became a Senator.
Fun stats: 17 U.S. presidents were previously U.S. senators, and also 17 were previously state governors (additionally, Harrison and Taft were territorial governors, and Jackson was military governor of the territory of Florida).
Six U.S. presidents had held previously both governor and U.S. senator roles, including Jackson and Harrison's non-state governorships.
5 U.S. presidents were not elected to public office prior to holding the presidency - Taylor, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Trump.
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.
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.
is reportedly considering running for president or the Senate in 2028.
Stupid clickbait title.
As JD Vance's Peter Thiel funded miracle run through the Senate proved, you don't have to be a Senator long to run for Pres. or VP.
Vance had just two years in professional politics before becoming VP, thanks to Peter Thiel's money and influence.
It's a pay-for-play system, not a Representative Democracy.
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?
They want to be proven right when things go poorly, increasing the odds of that happening in the process.
If I'm still in the US by then and we even have elections still, she has my vote.
I was very disappointed no Tim Walz in that list of other potential candidates. He was the best part of the Harris / Walz ticket
She needs to go for Chuck’s seat instead
Yeah Schmucker has got to go.
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.
If this is "plotting", then I am all for this "villain" to win. The wording of the headline implies that AOC is a bad thing, when we got...waves at orange fuckwit
Anyhow, if given the choice between AOC and Newsom, AOC all the way.
I've always interpreted it more as 'plotting a course'.
Yeah I was honestly surprised to see how many people in this thread interpret "plotting" as inherently negative.
It's both, but in journalism, you pick your words carefully. There's no chance the writer of the headline wasn't fully aware of both connotations. There are a dozen other words that could have meant the same thing without making it sound nefarious.
I am guessing it is due to politics inherently being a skulduggery kind of thing, especially with mainstream media being in the pocket of the wealthy. If our news outlets had a reputation of being fair and truthful, their wording wouldn't be treated with suspicion.
As an American, I have to turn many statements like a rotisserie and think whether they make sense. They cannot be trusted if left raw.
I think "plotting" doesn't see a ton of use in that more neutral sense outside of a few idiomatic cases like "plotting a course". I definitely did not naturally associate a presidential run with that navigational sense of "plotting", but instead the "plotting an evil scheme" connotation jumped out. I'd think of planning a presidential run to be more similar in activity to plotting a scheme, another literal plan of actions to achieve a goal, than to plotting a course as a figurative map of those actions. That's why I interpreted pretty sharply that way, at least.
Yeah, I was giving side-eyed to that choice of word, too. Why not just use the word "planning"? The word "plotting" sounds like a snarl word.
Anyhow, if given the choice between AOC and Newsom, AOC all the way.
Uggg I guess I'm same... But effing dems will go with the more fascist option everytime so we'll get Newsom for sure..
Whatever, I’ll wait for the official announcement. Love AOC but not getting my hopes up. Wait till there’s actual news.
Good! I hope she comes with some fire, sound policy ideas, and a tight campaign
Very quaint of them expecting an actual election to happen in 2028
She is one of only two people I would be excited to vote for.
The other person is Jon Stewart.
And with a captured SCOTUS and ineffective congress the republicans will make sure she gets nothing done. Assuming there’s even an election.
The DNC would never allow her to win the nomination.
Title is a lie. It says right in the body "president or Senate". Downvote and report.
Yes please if only for her age. I want old people out of power and I mean that across the entire spectrum including Bernie sanders. He would be great in her cabinet but we need young people FFS
Why? I'm all for AOC and it has nothing to do with her age. I don't see anything magical about someone's age when it comes to setting policy. I like AOC, but I also like wisdom and experience.
Geriatrics running the country don't have to worry about personally experiencing any of the negative long term consequences of their actions.
Maybe, but if they are progressive and/or have basic empathy and understanding, they understand the morality of planting a seed you may never see become a tree.
Young demons that have been radicalized by The Algorithm and the GOP are not going to GAF if they have the wrong ethics, no matter what age they are.
I also think, at the very least, if they're a young narcissist, they at least are thinking they'll be alive another 40-50 years and want a world, versus the ones who know time is running out.
Perspective and optics. The millennials were robbed of their chance on the world stage by the boomers. The boomers perspective doesn't work for what the world is now. People need to see a representation of themselves up there. A representative of the people for the people by the people yada yada yada
Can’t have it both ways, the same people who complain about the geriatric GOP also want Bernie. You can follow his policy but it’s ridiculous at his age to have him in the White House
You won't see me complaining about the GOP simply because some of them might be "geriatric". It's their policies that are the issue. JD seems very fresh-faced to me, but that guy is the front-man for some truly crazy shit.
I would gladly have age and term limits over Bernie. He is a good fella, but fact of the matter is, there isn't enough good people of his age to serve alongside him. We need young cohorts of likeminded and idealistic people that are regularly renewed, and I would gladly exchange Bernie's political position for something that could fix future politicians.
Unfortunately, we cannot sacrifice Bernie's political future for that. I believe we will be seeing many innocent people die before American politics are changed for the better.
They need to primary more incumbent Democrats first. A Mamdani win isn’t enough momentum to convince MSNBC watching pearl clutching libs in progressive suburbia to vote for her in a presidential election. These people need to experience what a social democrat or a democratic socialist can do for them on a local level first. NYC is a trail blazer but that doesn’t mean the rest of Democrat voting America is closely behind NY. She has a better chance to win a Senate seat
Bingo.
It's not always about voting for who you like most, it's about voting for who is most likely to accomplish the goals you align with.
Everyone should have just learned that from what happened in November. But this site constantly reminds me that many people did not learn that lesson.
I feel like shit typing this but I'm afraid America will not vote for a woman, each time it's resulted in disaster.
Sure I'll vote for her, but frankly we need a sure thing, we got a lot of mess to fix, starting with shoring up our constitution against bad faith actors and arresting and prosecuting fascist criminals.
Disbanding the heritage foundation, impeach and remove supreme court justices, reverse citizens United, and remove voting rights of all those pardoned for J6.
Fox news should be made an example of with laws preventing their type of misinformation and propaganda and they should be destroyed.
Scientific fact will be the rule and the standard. Education and our core of government will be free from all religion. Any church or religious organizations in politics will be taxed and disqualified from government.
So many people need to face consequences and I hope you all have a list and are keeping score.
The gloves are fucking off.
She won't run, the DNC needs to keep her as the official party sheepdog, replacing Bernie.


top 97 comments