The DNC will absolutely shit all over her efforts. They'd rather lose the elections than have a progressive win.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
886 points (98.7% liked)
politics
25773 readers
2722 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
load more comments
(10 replies)
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.
I like AOC a lot. She started as any other member of The Squad but has actually learned how politics work and is doing a, mostly, spectacular job of balancing ideology, the will of her constituents, and generation of political capital. In so many ways, she is what Sanders would have been if he got his head out of his ass twenty some odd years ago.
If she runs for POTUS in 2028, she is a god damned idiot. I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS. But she is also still quite young but has almost an entire Hilary Clinton worth of chud-hate and attacks. Whereas Senate makes perfect sense for her.
That said? I could see a world where AOC could... once again be the anti-Bernie. Run for POTUS in the primary. Energize basically the entire youth of the nation. Then lose and immediately endorse the winner while leveraging her influence to get important action items on the ticket. But... I want AOC as a leader and not just as the bait and switch.
I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS.
I'm not sure that's a reasonable takeaway from the last two times a woman was a major party nominee.
Hillary Clinton was not especially charismatic, which is arguably what wins general elections in most cases. She was also unpopular with progressive Democrats, and widely seen as having secured the nomination unfairly when Sanders might have been both more popular with the party and a stronger general election candidate.
Kamala Harris was severely handicapped by the combination of being nominated without a primary process, starting her campaign very late, and positioning herself as a continuation of Biden at a time when Biden's popularity was very low.
If AOC were to win the nomination, she would be in a much stronger position for the general election than either Clinton or Harris.
Yeah, thank you. The problem with Hillary and Kamala is nobody liked them. Now sure you can argue " maybe people didn't like them because they're women and they have a bias against women". I never heard anybody online saying " wow! I would sure love to have Kamala as president but I just don't think other people will vote for her". I see lots of people saying that about AOC. At some point you have to look around and be like oh wait...lots of people are saying they'd vote for her.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(26 replies)
Worth noting as I almost missed it myself from not RTFA, but: AOC is "gearing up for a big campaign for a bigger office in 2028 -- they're just not sure which."
I align with your view that I really thought AOC would be better to primary against Schumer. Not only is it arguably more attainable, it addresses our problem with stagnant Congressional AIPAC-representing leadership.
That said, I part ways in the belief that a female president is not capable of being elected for a couple of reasons which I'll try to lay out point-by-point:
- There is no actual evidence that a gender-bias led to Kamala's loss that I have seen.
- The Venn Diagram join of sexist misogynistic bigots and Never-Dem deep-red maga is a circle; in other words, we were never going to get these people no matter if we put Trump fused with Reagan in and mirrored their platform word-for-word.
- Willingness to vote for a female President has been historically tracked:
Public willingness to vote for a woman
In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.
In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970's and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.
Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.
I think there were many contributing factors to Kamala's loss, but I I think this is pretty low if non-existent among them, and it risks gatekeeping qualified, charismatic candidates like AOC out of fear of past milquetoast candidates that were unpopular from the outset and deeply lacking in charisma.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(23 replies)
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
Joe Biden returning with his hair dyed black like Creed in that one episode of The Office.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Schumer better just retire
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think the bigger problem isn't that she's a young talented woman and America isn't ready for that, I think the DNC is too stupid to ever let it happen even if it means winning because she likely won't play as much ball with them as they'd want. My money is still on the DNC pushing Buttigieg. I believe they will offer any major opponents the same kind of offer I believe he got when he was crushing Biden in the early states. Drop out, make way for the anointed one, and we'll give you a cabinet position and a shot down the line (maybe). The DNC will absolutely go younger, but I do not believe they'll ever go progressive, which is why they will never get my vote again until they do.
Should have done it in the last election.
She was barely old enough to run then.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Its too bad nobody will be allowed to vote freely by 2028 and she will lose. Too little too late.
load more comments
(7 replies)
don't usually pay attention 3 years out. VP pick could be key.
There are two ways this can go
- AOC is sabotaged in the primary like Bernie, she loses
- AOC somehow wins the primary, shes than sabotaged by her own party during the general election and loses.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(14 replies)
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›