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” 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.
AOC concocts DEVIOUS scheme to repossess burger from McDonalds using PRIVATE bank account funding
AOC buy lunch at McDonalds.
AOC funds animal murder with her own monies.
" 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.
Also: “plotting”? What the fuck is this? Has running for president suddenly become illegal??
it’s subconscious conservatism sneaking into the headline.
Good! I hope she comes with some fire, sound policy ideas, and a tight campaign
“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?
I’m picturing that family guy skin shade card, but the top says “decisive executive leadership” while the bottom says “plotting/conspiring.”
Yes, such dastardly plans.
Conspicuous in their, uh, inconspicuity
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.
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.
I think she’d have a great shot at the primary.
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
They want to be proven right when things go poorly, increasing the odds of that happening in the process.
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?
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.
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 think it’s like when people use “scheme”. In the US it has heavy tones of nefarious intent, but it’s still used a lot because some people just don’t think of it that way. (Be it from UK influence or whatever.)
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.
Since the article is about her considering multiple options - Senate or President - that she’ll have to narrow down to a single path, the navigation implication seems relevant.
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…
I don’t think you know what fascist means
More likely she’s running for senate.
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.
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”
She needs to go for Chuck’s seat instead
100% agree - maybe that’s the plan.
Yeah Schmucker has got to go.
Schumer writing a strongly worded letter to AOC this very instant.
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.
She is one of only two people I would be excited to vote for.
The other person is Jon Stewart.
I want Dolly Parton.
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.
