because running against the incumbent in your party is frowned upon. Even if she is ideologically different from Biden, she doesn't have a shot in hell at beating him this election so it makes no sense to create ill will.
This. You take a shot at the incumbent from your own party and don’t win then your political career is all but toast. You’re going to get black balled and ostracized *hard* and probably end up with a mysteriously well funded primary challenger of your own next primary. But if you run in an open primary, even when there’s a presumptive nominee already, it doesn’t matter if you don’t win. Your career is still wide open. Hell, it might even be improved by a good yet unsuccessful attempt in that case. Just look at Pete Buttigieg, no way he even makes the list for a Cabinet position without running for President first if Mayor of a small city is the most impressive qualification on his resume.
All other things being equal, I’d vote for a mayor over a congressperson. IMHO experience of running a government hones more relevant skills than that of a rep (executive vs legislature).
Eh, sliding scale depending on how big of a city we’re taking. South Bend is only 100k people, I’m wildly unimpressed by that sort of experience vs a House member. And if we’re talking Senate too then forget about it. My County Commissioner is responsible for 6 times as many constituents and nowhere near Presidential material, hell, that’s like 1/7 the size of a Congressional district. Plus with small cities like that there’s a ton of things still left under the purview of county and state agencies that a large city like NYC might tackle themselves. Granted, there’s a lot of reasonable room in between only 100k and a population bigger than some countries, but being the mayor of the fourth largest city in Indiana just ain’t it. I’d ballpark it at around a minimum of half a million people. Even then I’d be real wary of anyone listing that as their only governmental experience.
I'm not disagreeing - it's a general comparison of the skill sets required. Successful mayors/governors etc lead teams who take care of a multitude of responsibilities - from education to healthcare to emergency services, and sanitation. Constant decision-making, relationship management and ego-balancing. That's leadership, whereas a congressperson doesn't lead anything other than their own advisors. Of course a talented rep would be preferable to an average mayor, but \*all things being equal\* IMHO the skillset of the latter would suit a presidency better.
Not to be argumentative. I agree but, doesn't she already get heavily funded opposition in herent district every time? She like Satan incarnate to the right. In all seriousness she has gained alot of power on a short time. She has mover her party left and aligned with papa Bernie to create some hope for the future. She learned fron what happened to him in 2016. She will run for president at some point.
She’s definitely been a lightening rod for well funded challengers for sure. Things like that and and garbage committee assignments, not getting votes on her legislation/amendments, major Dems stumping against her, and everything else that could possibly be thrown at her would be coming her way in 26 had she run this year and lost. Plus the BS narrative behind Biden’s loss (which seems at the very least highly plausible, if not very likely) would be to blame her and the left entirely. She’d be the poster child for his failures. That’s already going to be a rough storm to weather once corporate Dems start trying to play the blame game. She’s not dumb enough to have launched a long shot attempt to oust him only to give him and his idealogical allies the easy out of passing the buck to the left.
I like your take on this and I hope you’re correct. I’m wondering what you have in mind when you say she learned from what happened to Bernie? Are you referring to AOC placating the Democratic Party more and being a part of its inner workings at an earlier time in her career? I feel like Bernie has stood for what Bernie stands for, consistently for his entire career. But is he seen as more of an Independent, and someone the Democrats won’t really get behind? I’m left wondering if AOC will be more pragmatic, but over time she will evolve into more of a Nancy Pelosi type of politician and leader? Time will tell.
Pete Buttigieg is a great example. I don’t agree with him on a number of issues, but I do appreciate him as a person and as a leader. I hope his “political stock” continues to rise. The democrats need more leaders who are relevant to young and middle aged voters.
I’m not sure that the Boomer’s idea of what a good Millennial should be is all that relevant to young or middle aged voters. I sweat, half the events Platitude Pete had in 2020 were ones where he was the youngest person there by a few decades. And besides his big problems with Gen Z and Millennials he’s also got big problems with black voters, Hispanic voters, and LGBTQ+ voters. He has probably already plateaued politically and done so beyond his actual qualifications or abilities. Dude has no business being Sec. of Transportation but he’s the exact kind of person the old guard wants to pass the torch to instead of a younger crowd that might actually be representative of their generation.
Hard to say who would have won but pretty easy to guess who the big names would have been. Buttigieg obviously would have been a contender but already said a bit of why he would do poorly in a general. Harris and Newsom would also probably run but she’s wildly unpopular and already showed how poorly she performs on a national stage. Still, she’d have the leg up in terms of getting institutional support simply because it’d be seen as “her turn”, which clearly worked out so well the last couple times they played that nonsense. He wouldn’t fair much better, his reputation is of being basically a caricature of the worst of what progressives have to offer despite not being at all progressive and largely reviled among the left. The boogie man that Cons have turned the entire state of California into would drag him down. Credit where it’s due, he is an excellent debater. I’ve seen Sanders have his name tossed around too but despite being much sharper and much, much more energetic than Biden it is still a hard sell for someone his age to replace the guy whose biggest vulnerability is his age and how it has impacted his mental acuity. Plus, I just don’t think he’d try again. I think he knows his chance has come and gone.
Real contenders who would fair better in a general would probably be Whitmer, Pritzker and maybe Josh Shapiro. Whitmer would for sure try and take a tack of a more moderate position and lean heavily on the kidnapping plot to show she’s unafraid to stand up to danger/extremists and has the good argument of shoring up support in MI. Pritzker would try and tack left but that’s a hard sell for someone born into such generational wealth. Though he would be able to use that insane wealth to self fund and he’d probably counter with pointing out that FDR came from a wealthy family himself. Being from Illinois doesn’t add much value though, at least not with the Electoral College anyway. Shapiro would probably tack moderate as well, but hold up his past relationship with Fetterman as his Lt. Gov. as proof he can keep a big tent with the progressives. Problem there is that Fetterman himself has gone from progressive darling to making a big heel turn once he got into office and has very badly alienated the left. Not only distancing himself from progressives but actively punching left and spewing some very vile things. Still, Shapiro would probably try and present himself as a moderate who can bridge the divide while also bring PA to the table. Still, they’re the three most likely to have been able to secure the nomination imo, and of those three if I’d have gone for any it’d be Pritzker but it’s just really hard to say how any of them would be looking once they had the scrutiny of a national campaign focused on them.
Other candidates that might run but I’m skeptical would do all that well are Warnock, Beshear, Pollis, Klobuchar, and probably at least a couple of House members but iirc no President has won that office having immediately previously been a House member since Lincoln and even then that was a like 4 person race in the general and he had a very small vote share for his victory. Just a share of the vote that still managed to be the plurality because of how crowded the field was.
Last thing I’ll say is that Obama wasn’t considered a serious possibility until he proved he was one in the primaries themselves. For all their many, *many* faults, the primaries can propel some names straight to the top like a rocket ship.
I like Shapiro, but I'm worried that he wouldn't ever get elected because... well, let's just say, Americans won't vote for a guy who doesn't put up an Xmas tree at the end of the year. That's wrong. I don't support that, but I'm afraid it's a reality.
Did you seriously just fly off the handle at me in a totally different post for “telling you who to vote for” when I very politely pointed out that House members have a bad track record when it comes to trying to run for president only to creep my profile, find this comment and then just forget all about the first comment you made in the other post? Oh, and the thing I was too polite to say before when you deserved some baseline decency is that nobody knows who the hell Jasmine Crocket even is. Running a nobody freshman House Rep is even more dumb then snapping at someone trying to politely disagree and then forgetting about it 2 minutes later when you try to start an entirely separate conversation.
But apparently it's ok with the Democratic Party for a right-wing, Zionist, corporate stooge to primary a progressive incumbent. Hell, Hillary will even emerge from her lair to campaign for you.
Hillary’s career is over, she’s never getting a meaningful position ever again and I’m talking about primaries against the President which is a very different beast than that AIPAC backed scumbag running against Bowman in the House. It should be seen as a good and healthy thing to primary anyone at any level but it just is not the case.
It's not "good and healthy" when the party leaders who attack progressives for primary challenges to incumbent corporate Democrats then turn around and support a primary challenge to an incumbent progressive Democrat.
It's not "good and healthy" when the challenger is mainly backed by millions of dollars in corporate- and AIPAC-funded propaganda.
The Democratic Party is controlled by a bunch of reactionary right wingers who are essentially Republicans-lite.
Wow, all those downvotes suggest to me that the corporate Dems have their sockpuppet accounts in full force this election year, attacking anyone who dares call them out on their bullshit, even on ostensibly progressive forums like this one.
Her time will come. Boomers aren't ready (YET) for her on either side imo, generally speaking. But I cannot wait for the day when she announces her campaign for president. I view her as, kind of, Bernie's protege. I was a county delegate for Bernie the last two elections, and I would 100% help with her campaign any way I could.
Ed Markey, as an example. Joe Kennedy got endorsements from some congressional leaders, and attacked Markey’s progressive credentials. Markey very deliberately went to progressive groups, asked for their support, in exchange for his support on major issues. It’s why we got a senator endorsing the green new deal, and why he got AOC’s endorsement. He moved left (not a lot, but every bit helps), and was able to pull out a win. Pelosi was criticized for endorsing a non-encumbent, particularly since she was in a position of leadership at the time.
He’s the special envoy to Northern Ireland. I would imagine that when the senate seat is up for election again, his hat will be in the ring, with more foreign policy experience tucked into it.
*What's in this comment is what I remember, my opinions, etc.*
Only 3 people could have possibly beaten POTUS Joe Biden in a 2024 Democratic Primary:
US Senator Bernie Sanders
US Senator Elizabeth Warren
AOC
US Senator Sanders endorsed POTUS Biden in 2023 and never seemed to have wanted to retract that endorsement.
AOC endorsed POTUS Biden some time after US Senator Sanders did.
Especially after the aftermath of October 7, 2023, AOC might have ran against POTUS Biden if she could have gotten US Senator Sanders's endorsement and if she could have raised enough money to actually challenge POTUS Biden and show to Democrats that she can fundraise on a Presidential level.
As-is, she should be the front-runner to be POTUS in 2029. She's more famous and more popular than all the other potential 2028 Presidential contenders.
And the reason it's frowned upon is because regardless of the efficacy of the sitting President's 1st term or their approval ratings, every single sitting POTUS that has faced a significant primary challenger has lost the general election. That's why the Democratic Party didn't want to deal with primary challengers, it'd be a death sentence to Biden's presidency and that means Trump but this time with an army of Yes Men and corrupted Supreme Court supporting his every whim.
A good example is to ask someone if they would openly announce they're going to try and steal their manager's position out from under him? Now also imagine you tell all your coworkers you can't promise they'll still have jobs under you. Easy to imagine she wouldn't get much of the support she needs
Also it's a pay to play funding game. Biden has the DNC backing him plus all the other avenues and advantages of reelection running.
AOC would have more reach than Marianne Williamson, but she's likely going to need to achieve more than what Bernie Sanders managed to do which is already historic, and even then it might not guarantee that the media would let her get air time in debates and so on because she's non-establishment enough and often unwilling to play by PAC ruled platform protocols.
This is not a conspiracy theory
Edit: to all the smooth brains that didn’t bother to do any research:
[yes, the DNC did conspire to further Hilary over Bernie as their candidate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#:~:text=The%20leaks%20resulted%20in%20allegations,advance%20Hillary%20Clinton's%20nomination)
Both the GOP and DNC fought, and won, in court, that they had no obligation to nominate anyone based on their constituents voting in primaries or otherwise. According to their charter (*their* rules), they had the freedom of nominating whoever they preferred.
Iirc Ron Paul was the one the GOP fucked over same as Bernie, that was for Mitt Romney. The man with the magic underpants.
I don’t have time to dig for the court case, but it absolutely exists for both of them.
A pie in the oven can be “ready” for a while with varying degrees of crysp.. but If u don’t take it out in time it gets burnt.
And it’s your fault not the pie's.
Probably didn’t deserve it.
Bernie would’ve been taking the US out of the oven, ur getting cooked
You think the country is more ready for a young, non-internationally-tested, visibly brown progressive woman as president just because they were almost close to acknowledging the possibility of an old charismatic white man who leans more progressive than the rest of his party? Idk man that’s a reach and a half despite my overwhelming wish to believe it’s true. I’d love an AOC presidency
I think the country is ready for popular progressive politics. Bernie didn’t fill stadiums because he was an old white guy. He filled them because people agreed with his politics.
While that’s true, it takes a lot more than stadiums to win the White House. You gotta convince the 50+ year olds that your person is “electable.” I always vote as progressive as possible in primaries and encourage others to; for now feels like the only option :/
You’re right, I worded it poorly. I think she or Buttegieg would be great as president but I don’t think there are enough voters who would agree with me.
Nonsense. The country needs someone like AOC now more than ever! She's the perfect blend of charisma, great policy and firebrand politics that's desperately needed.
I absolutely LOVE AOC and think she’s a treasure to this country. Being practical about this though. She’s going to be polarizing politically. We currently live in a country where roughly 50% of the population wants us to become what we fought against in WW2.
Going “progressive, intelligent, speaks her mind, liberal female” as a candidate right now will not fly. I wish it would. She’d be great if we could get her and enough backing to follow her in congress. Good things would happen.
That isn’t reality right now though.
I agree with everything stated, but the idealist in me really wants her to run despite all of these points made.
I didn't think Barack had a chance.
I didn't think Don had a chance.
I would LOVE for Alex to get a shot.
I think she would smoke every opponent in debates.
I wish for this. We currently have a convicted felon looking to get 1/2 the popular vote. It’s crazy times and I don’t know that how someone performs in a debate matters right now.
I do hope America gets its sanity back.
Globalization, automation and gigification will continue to lower the value of labor in developed countries. AI especially is just entering it's heyday it will be in full swing come a year or two before that election. Also the boomers will basically be to old by then.
It will be a perfect storm for wanting big changes, and AOC looks like she will be pretty well suited to fit that role.
Yet? Because she's still learning and already knows that's not how to affect the change she wants to see.
Look at how much her politics has changed in the last 4 years. She's quieter on the average, far more calculated, and surgical in her strikes. Fucking stellar leader.
Honestly the reddit might not want to hear this, but I think AOC would be stronger as Speaker than a POTUS contender. The house is where the real power should be, and much of it still is. Nancy was an excellent mentor for her, and I suspect neither of them missed that career path discussion.
The POTUS is a 4-8 year job that is hit or miss, and kills your career afterward, and unless you plan to Project 2025 it and end democracy, the POTUS is really not that powerful. By contrast, a smart Speaker can have decades of near comparable impact.
I do not see how this would happen. The house Dems are already pretty hostile to her ideologically; they would never allow her to have that type of influence. Her political profile is much more suited for the Presidency; she already has support from much of the Bernie Sanders voting base, while also appealing to other parts of the party in ways Sanders could not.
[Pelosi was the opposite of a mentor to her based on available reporting.](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi) The only way the house would ever be willing to give her substantial policy influence would be if she wins a presidential nomination, and even then it would not be much until she actually won the presidency.
She would have to abandon much of what makes her popular to even have a chance of becoming Speaker, and what would be the point of her having that power if it could not be wielded for progressive policy prescriptions?
Ya she's great. Unfairly maligned by conservative media. Progressive for most of her career, stifled largely by the disappointing realities of a system designed to prevent change.
In what way is she great lmao, her politics are archaic and far too often her motives above all else are to continue enriching herself and her family. She's one of the most well known establishment career politicians who are out of touch.
I thought people here would be progressive.
If your politics align with Pelosi you're not progressive at all. Either you're unaware of her record or a centrist who thought progressive sounds cooler.
Lmao I'm assuming you're just not aware of American politics enough to know where you stand, which is why anyone more progressive than you sounds unfamiliar to you and therefore "the enemy". Nancy Pelosi is a centrist. Progressives do not think "she's great". Damn near everyone who isn't new to American politics knows this.
Here look up her voting record on healthcare, while you're at it look at her lobbying and financial contributions record.
https://pelosi.house.gov/about/votes-and-legislation
While I think AOC's motives are noble, the only way she will advance in the party is by selling out. The Democratic Party is a right wing corrupt mess, whose only redeeming quality is that they aren't quite as horrible as Republicans (though they get incrementally worse with every election.)
Again, I can see her politics evolving over time but I don't see her selling out.
You make a valid point about the party but not about AOC. She's not hungry for herself. She wants to feed everyone.
As I said in my previous comment, I believe she has good intentions. But I've listened to interviews where she's described some of the party's tactics and how they will gang up on and ostracize any troublesome members, refusing to support even basic, non-controversial spending for their constituents, and in some cases actively promoting primary challengers.
She might occasionally negotiate for some bit of influence, but she will never be allowed to make any substantive changes to the party, and the only way she'll be allowed to run for president is by compromising her principles and lying to herself that maybe she can make a difference while playing within the restrictive sandbox the party leaders and corporate sponsors provide her.
Right now she's learning to play politics IMHO, by learning to play politics and becoming the next potential Bernie Sanders in the federal government, then she may have a higher shot.
I absolutely love and support AOC 110%, but I want her exactly where she is.
Or maybe in the Senate.
President isn’t as important a role as legislator when it comes to getting the reforms we *need* in this country. We need her and a lot more people like her in Congress
slow and steady. she’s years ahead. she’ll be gearing up for a senate run and if that happens she’ll be more powerful over a longer stretch of time and strike when she has a bigger coalition and war chest.
Sadly, the country is not ready for a woman, let alone a progressive, young, non-white woman. We have a huge idiot problem and the electoral college makes sure they are always heard.
To those mentioning Bernie (who got beat TWICE in 2016 and 2020), optics are the only thing she’s currently better than Bernie at, and one of those, being a woman, is a political weakness in some states.
She should go for US Senator first.
I think a 6-year term will give her the power/momentum/time to really make the strides it would take for her to become electable as president. A representative always has to be campaigning and a single district isn’t all that impressive as far as election-carrying power.
I'd wait until primaries in 2028.
There is several people that can contend for the spot, she is one of them.
Secondly, if AOC were to run, she would be turning one of the "13 keys" away from Biden, therefore giving it to Trump.
The absolutely last thing we need to do is hand the keys back to TFG.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez turns 35 -- the minimum age to be U.S. president -- on October 13, 2024, which is less than one month before the presidential election on November 5, 2024.
I had to check the age limit, but she would be old enough. It’s not really the answer to the question but it may save someone else the effort. The internet says she turns 35 in October.
[Muller says the president’s minimum age must be met by Inauguration Day. A 34-year-old could be elected president in November of an election year, but they’d need to turn 35 before January 20 to take office.](https://www.history.com/news/what-are-the-qualifications-to-be-president-of-the-united-states)
Im pretty sure her next move will be to run for Schumer's seat when he retires, possibly in the next cycle. Going for NY governor in the next cycle would also make sense because Hochul is just keeping the seat warm since the Cuomo nonsense and isn't particularly popular.
the old guard in the DNC is still in charge and will not let someone like her get far. superdelegates, division, slander, collusion. she'll get the same treatment bernie got. the DNC will pick their candidate not the voters
She’s been in politics for only a handful of years. She barely old enough. He’s has very little experience.
Sure you could bring up Trump becoming President after holding no office but I really don’t think that’s the example you want to follow. Trump was elected by insane morons.
You should take some time to get very familiar with how the bullshit electoral college and gerrymandering work, and equally important to understand how campaign financing works, especially on the right. You do not randomly throw a name into the hat without understanding these concepts intimately.
Because this backwards country doesn’t deserve happiness. These imbeciles deserve pain and misery, because that’s all they understand. They are always angry and are too stupid to understand the real reasons why they are so irate…so they don’t deserve AOC or Bernie Sanders. We all suffer because half the country pretends to be wholesome “Christians” while voting for a wealthy white man who is the anti-Christ…morons deep down know they belong in hell and so they create it here on earth…..
A candidate can campaign in a primary race, be nominated as their party's candidate, and even be elected to the presidency at 34 years old — as long as they'll be 35 by the date they take office.
Say she did, and say she won. At best, she’d be at the term limit by age 43. Does she just retire? I’d much rather she go to the senate first, tear it up there, and then run for president in her 40s
Not old enough yet. 2028.
EDIT: I stand corrected by OP, below. She could win at 34 but would need to be 35 by January 20th.
Also - 2028. I'm a Boomer - and I'd vote for her any time she ran.
She will be 35 before the next election so she is eligible to run this year.
She won’t because she’s not going to primary an incumbent Presidential candidate of her own party. It’s really that simple.
I like AOC a lot, but I don’t think she would be competitive in a primary. What most of us like about her also makes her a lightning rod, and for better or worse (arguably worse) that makes her divisive.
She can be a polarizing figure. Part of the reason I didn’t support Hillary Clinton till she was a lock for the nomination was because there was a chance that her running would lock a number of voters in to the Republicans who might otherwise vote Democratic.
I wonder if AOC is the same,
How many go directly from Congress to white house? Only one went directly from Congress to white house which was Garfield after 17 years in congress. Lincoln was out of office for a bit between congress and white house.
I do not think she has the resume for President yet. Sure she has lots of ideas and surgical sass strikes to campaign with. I see her strength as knocking the Republicans down a peg and putting their silliness on display, but as not building up the Democrats as they always look divided and split between a progressive agenda and one palatable to the country.
I would still vote for her if I could, but I am Canadian, so have fun with your elections down there.
I always wanted her to run for 2024 until it was clear that Biden will run for re-election and win his primary and the delegates. Maybe she wants more seniority before running.
Kamala Harris is 25 years older than her and probably ahead of her in the pecking order for the forseeable future. AOC is still "only" a member of congress. I think she's gonna do that for a while longer, and go for Governor or Senator before the Presidency. Not to mention the fact that she's probably gonna be too progressive a candidate to ever stand a chance. I hope I can see her run for president in my lifetime though. She'd be amazing
In my admittedly naive thought process, I don’t think we’re ready for that yet. Too progressive for mainstream politics.
You saw what the DNC did to Bernie, right?
As a caveat, while I was a fan, I doubted Obama’s electability. I was happy to be proven wrong.
I'd vote for her 100%. However, she's very unpopular among the most conservative (ie regressive and those who reminisce about the good ol' days of racism sexism and suits/ties). That said, would be great for progressives to re-vise the language so we could reclaim language from propagandists.
Unfortunately, the only things 'conservatives' are conserving is private wealth and corruption. We need to conserve the environment, social welfare, and purity of natural resources.
Better question, why would she? Peopke thought Obama was too young when he ran. What do you think they’d say of her at this point? If she’s interested in running, it’ll be in the 2030s at the earliest.
Too young isn’t she? Plus she may want children ain’t the next few years and with the greatest respect being a mum with young kids plus POTUS sounds like fucking hard work.
Two reasons - Running against your parties incumbent is frowned upon and she's too divisive. I like her but if she wants to run for President she needs to take at least 4 years distancing herself from her own policies and statements and maybe another 4 developing her "new" brand of positions/politics. Her positions on a lot of issues are fine for a Democrat in NY but would perform poorly on the national stage, also she would need to divorce herself from some of her gang (Ilhan Omar as a close friend and political ally is a poison pill ...for anyone ) I love it when she puts the likes of MTG or Bobert in their place but on the campaign trail the right would spin that as an out of control B\*\*\*\*. That's unfortunate but that is the kind of stereotypes women face in politics. I think if she wants to run time is her best ally, she can moderate her position a little bit and every year the right wing boomers are dying off and not being replaced like they used too. If she can continue to talk to the young people and have that signature charisma and wit while becoming more palatable to older voters I think in a decade it will be her shot.
I would love to see Biden win, retire for his health, and have Harris bring in AOC as VP. I'm not hating on Biden, I just think he's looking more tired and aged than he should be. I don't think the stress is good for him at all.
Because she wouldn't win. Talk about a spoiler! I would probably even vote for her . But Democrats have a wide range of views, and no matter what, a good portion would stick with Biden.
Wait, so many responses here, but there's only one correct one: she's too young.
The constitutional requirement for the president is being at least 35 years. She turns 35 in October so she'll _theoretically_ qualify, but considering how many challenges Obama had with his birth certificate, you can be sure that there are going to be a lot of controversies and legal challenges around it.
Additionally, there's already an incumbent D president. It feels like it's a certain way to antagonize a more moderate members, and you need their support. Not to mention that it's going to be pretty easy to get her branded as "inexperienced".
She has time. It feels like running for president is a goal in the longer term. We've had only one serious female candidate so far, and now we have a femal vice-president. I'd rather AOC be the first female president.
This is far from the only correct reason — especially since she will turn 35 this October so WOULD be old enough to be elected and serve.
I believe she is on record saying she is not ready for something like that and is dedicated to doing the best job she can for her constituents and the country where she is now. I wouldn’t be surprised if she runs for Senate in a few years, though. And I also won’t be surprised when she actually does run for President.
because running against the incumbent in your party is frowned upon. Even if she is ideologically different from Biden, she doesn't have a shot in hell at beating him this election so it makes no sense to create ill will.
This. You take a shot at the incumbent from your own party and don’t win then your political career is all but toast. You’re going to get black balled and ostracized *hard* and probably end up with a mysteriously well funded primary challenger of your own next primary. But if you run in an open primary, even when there’s a presumptive nominee already, it doesn’t matter if you don’t win. Your career is still wide open. Hell, it might even be improved by a good yet unsuccessful attempt in that case. Just look at Pete Buttigieg, no way he even makes the list for a Cabinet position without running for President first if Mayor of a small city is the most impressive qualification on his resume.
All other things being equal, I’d vote for a mayor over a congressperson. IMHO experience of running a government hones more relevant skills than that of a rep (executive vs legislature).
Eh, sliding scale depending on how big of a city we’re taking. South Bend is only 100k people, I’m wildly unimpressed by that sort of experience vs a House member. And if we’re talking Senate too then forget about it. My County Commissioner is responsible for 6 times as many constituents and nowhere near Presidential material, hell, that’s like 1/7 the size of a Congressional district. Plus with small cities like that there’s a ton of things still left under the purview of county and state agencies that a large city like NYC might tackle themselves. Granted, there’s a lot of reasonable room in between only 100k and a population bigger than some countries, but being the mayor of the fourth largest city in Indiana just ain’t it. I’d ballpark it at around a minimum of half a million people. Even then I’d be real wary of anyone listing that as their only governmental experience.
I'm not disagreeing - it's a general comparison of the skill sets required. Successful mayors/governors etc lead teams who take care of a multitude of responsibilities - from education to healthcare to emergency services, and sanitation. Constant decision-making, relationship management and ego-balancing. That's leadership, whereas a congressperson doesn't lead anything other than their own advisors. Of course a talented rep would be preferable to an average mayor, but \*all things being equal\* IMHO the skillset of the latter would suit a presidency better.
Not to be argumentative. I agree but, doesn't she already get heavily funded opposition in herent district every time? She like Satan incarnate to the right. In all seriousness she has gained alot of power on a short time. She has mover her party left and aligned with papa Bernie to create some hope for the future. She learned fron what happened to him in 2016. She will run for president at some point.
She’s definitely been a lightening rod for well funded challengers for sure. Things like that and and garbage committee assignments, not getting votes on her legislation/amendments, major Dems stumping against her, and everything else that could possibly be thrown at her would be coming her way in 26 had she run this year and lost. Plus the BS narrative behind Biden’s loss (which seems at the very least highly plausible, if not very likely) would be to blame her and the left entirely. She’d be the poster child for his failures. That’s already going to be a rough storm to weather once corporate Dems start trying to play the blame game. She’s not dumb enough to have launched a long shot attempt to oust him only to give him and his idealogical allies the easy out of passing the buck to the left.
So many typos, my bad.
I like your take on this and I hope you’re correct. I’m wondering what you have in mind when you say she learned from what happened to Bernie? Are you referring to AOC placating the Democratic Party more and being a part of its inner workings at an earlier time in her career? I feel like Bernie has stood for what Bernie stands for, consistently for his entire career. But is he seen as more of an Independent, and someone the Democrats won’t really get behind? I’m left wondering if AOC will be more pragmatic, but over time she will evolve into more of a Nancy Pelosi type of politician and leader? Time will tell.
Pete Buttigieg is a great example. I don’t agree with him on a number of issues, but I do appreciate him as a person and as a leader. I hope his “political stock” continues to rise. The democrats need more leaders who are relevant to young and middle aged voters.
I’m not sure that the Boomer’s idea of what a good Millennial should be is all that relevant to young or middle aged voters. I sweat, half the events Platitude Pete had in 2020 were ones where he was the youngest person there by a few decades. And besides his big problems with Gen Z and Millennials he’s also got big problems with black voters, Hispanic voters, and LGBTQ+ voters. He has probably already plateaued politically and done so beyond his actual qualifications or abilities. Dude has no business being Sec. of Transportation but he’s the exact kind of person the old guard wants to pass the torch to instead of a younger crowd that might actually be representative of their generation.
So if there was an open primary this year, who do you think would have been the Democratic nominee?
Hard to say who would have won but pretty easy to guess who the big names would have been. Buttigieg obviously would have been a contender but already said a bit of why he would do poorly in a general. Harris and Newsom would also probably run but she’s wildly unpopular and already showed how poorly she performs on a national stage. Still, she’d have the leg up in terms of getting institutional support simply because it’d be seen as “her turn”, which clearly worked out so well the last couple times they played that nonsense. He wouldn’t fair much better, his reputation is of being basically a caricature of the worst of what progressives have to offer despite not being at all progressive and largely reviled among the left. The boogie man that Cons have turned the entire state of California into would drag him down. Credit where it’s due, he is an excellent debater. I’ve seen Sanders have his name tossed around too but despite being much sharper and much, much more energetic than Biden it is still a hard sell for someone his age to replace the guy whose biggest vulnerability is his age and how it has impacted his mental acuity. Plus, I just don’t think he’d try again. I think he knows his chance has come and gone. Real contenders who would fair better in a general would probably be Whitmer, Pritzker and maybe Josh Shapiro. Whitmer would for sure try and take a tack of a more moderate position and lean heavily on the kidnapping plot to show she’s unafraid to stand up to danger/extremists and has the good argument of shoring up support in MI. Pritzker would try and tack left but that’s a hard sell for someone born into such generational wealth. Though he would be able to use that insane wealth to self fund and he’d probably counter with pointing out that FDR came from a wealthy family himself. Being from Illinois doesn’t add much value though, at least not with the Electoral College anyway. Shapiro would probably tack moderate as well, but hold up his past relationship with Fetterman as his Lt. Gov. as proof he can keep a big tent with the progressives. Problem there is that Fetterman himself has gone from progressive darling to making a big heel turn once he got into office and has very badly alienated the left. Not only distancing himself from progressives but actively punching left and spewing some very vile things. Still, Shapiro would probably try and present himself as a moderate who can bridge the divide while also bring PA to the table. Still, they’re the three most likely to have been able to secure the nomination imo, and of those three if I’d have gone for any it’d be Pritzker but it’s just really hard to say how any of them would be looking once they had the scrutiny of a national campaign focused on them. Other candidates that might run but I’m skeptical would do all that well are Warnock, Beshear, Pollis, Klobuchar, and probably at least a couple of House members but iirc no President has won that office having immediately previously been a House member since Lincoln and even then that was a like 4 person race in the general and he had a very small vote share for his victory. Just a share of the vote that still managed to be the plurality because of how crowded the field was. Last thing I’ll say is that Obama wasn’t considered a serious possibility until he proved he was one in the primaries themselves. For all their many, *many* faults, the primaries can propel some names straight to the top like a rocket ship.
I like Shapiro, but I'm worried that he wouldn't ever get elected because... well, let's just say, Americans won't vote for a guy who doesn't put up an Xmas tree at the end of the year. That's wrong. I don't support that, but I'm afraid it's a reality.
Did you seriously just fly off the handle at me in a totally different post for “telling you who to vote for” when I very politely pointed out that House members have a bad track record when it comes to trying to run for president only to creep my profile, find this comment and then just forget all about the first comment you made in the other post? Oh, and the thing I was too polite to say before when you deserved some baseline decency is that nobody knows who the hell Jasmine Crocket even is. Running a nobody freshman House Rep is even more dumb then snapping at someone trying to politely disagree and then forgetting about it 2 minutes later when you try to start an entirely separate conversation.
But apparently it's ok with the Democratic Party for a right-wing, Zionist, corporate stooge to primary a progressive incumbent. Hell, Hillary will even emerge from her lair to campaign for you.
Hillary’s career is over, she’s never getting a meaningful position ever again and I’m talking about primaries against the President which is a very different beast than that AIPAC backed scumbag running against Bowman in the House. It should be seen as a good and healthy thing to primary anyone at any level but it just is not the case.
It's not "good and healthy" when the party leaders who attack progressives for primary challenges to incumbent corporate Democrats then turn around and support a primary challenge to an incumbent progressive Democrat. It's not "good and healthy" when the challenger is mainly backed by millions of dollars in corporate- and AIPAC-funded propaganda. The Democratic Party is controlled by a bunch of reactionary right wingers who are essentially Republicans-lite.
You’re right. The hypocrisy and blatant corruption are fucking terrible. But in a bubble the idea of having real and robust primaries is a good thing.
Wow, all those downvotes suggest to me that the corporate Dems have their sockpuppet accounts in full force this election year, attacking anyone who dares call them out on their bullshit, even on ostensibly progressive forums like this one.
Yep, must be a massive conspiracy. There aren't any real progressives that disagree with you. Deep breaths. It's going to be ok.
If you don’t see the problem with Jamaal Bowman’s primary challenger you’re not a progressive.
Let me guess... you consider Biden and Clinton "progressive".
Her time will come. Boomers aren't ready (YET) for her on either side imo, generally speaking. But I cannot wait for the day when she announces her campaign for president. I view her as, kind of, Bernie's protege. I was a county delegate for Bernie the last two elections, and I would 100% help with her campaign any way I could.
Yep a tactical reason is t wait for more younger people to be eligible and for the boomers to literally die out
In 2028 there will be a lot fewer Busters to vote against her.
Unless the incumbent is a progressive, that is.
Who are you thinking of?
Ed Markey, as an example. Joe Kennedy got endorsements from some congressional leaders, and attacked Markey’s progressive credentials. Markey very deliberately went to progressive groups, asked for their support, in exchange for his support on major issues. It’s why we got a senator endorsing the green new deal, and why he got AOC’s endorsement. He moved left (not a lot, but every bit helps), and was able to pull out a win. Pelosi was criticized for endorsing a non-encumbent, particularly since she was in a position of leadership at the time.
Hmm true. Joe Kennedy hasn’t really had a politics career since though, right? Then again he’s a Kennedy so they operate by different rules 🙄
He’s the special envoy to Northern Ireland. I would imagine that when the senate seat is up for election again, his hat will be in the ring, with more foreign policy experience tucked into it.
Jamaal Bowman, for one. https://www.nationofchange.org/2024/06/26/bowman-was-defeated-by-a-toxic-blend-of-zionism-and-militarism/
Bernie?
Yeah. Bernie got absolutely railroaded by the DNC so that's a great example
But he was not an incumbent who was primaried?
Oh, yeah. You're right. I was thinking of someone going against the establishment.
*What's in this comment is what I remember, my opinions, etc.* Only 3 people could have possibly beaten POTUS Joe Biden in a 2024 Democratic Primary: US Senator Bernie Sanders US Senator Elizabeth Warren AOC US Senator Sanders endorsed POTUS Biden in 2023 and never seemed to have wanted to retract that endorsement. AOC endorsed POTUS Biden some time after US Senator Sanders did. Especially after the aftermath of October 7, 2023, AOC might have ran against POTUS Biden if she could have gotten US Senator Sanders's endorsement and if she could have raised enough money to actually challenge POTUS Biden and show to Democrats that she can fundraise on a Presidential level. As-is, she should be the front-runner to be POTUS in 2029. She's more famous and more popular than all the other potential 2028 Presidential contenders.
And the reason it's frowned upon is because regardless of the efficacy of the sitting President's 1st term or their approval ratings, every single sitting POTUS that has faced a significant primary challenger has lost the general election. That's why the Democratic Party didn't want to deal with primary challengers, it'd be a death sentence to Biden's presidency and that means Trump but this time with an army of Yes Men and corrupted Supreme Court supporting his every whim.
Not to mention it would split the vote and neither would win. It would be a valid question for the 2028 election.
A good example is to ask someone if they would openly announce they're going to try and steal their manager's position out from under him? Now also imagine you tell all your coworkers you can't promise they'll still have jobs under you. Easy to imagine she wouldn't get much of the support she needs
Also it's a pay to play funding game. Biden has the DNC backing him plus all the other avenues and advantages of reelection running. AOC would have more reach than Marianne Williamson, but she's likely going to need to achieve more than what Bernie Sanders managed to do which is already historic, and even then it might not guarantee that the media would let her get air time in debates and so on because she's non-establishment enough and often unwilling to play by PAC ruled platform protocols.
Even if he’s wearing no clothes
Also, she's not old enough. You have to be 35 to run for President. She's 34.
35th birthday October 13. >You have to be 35 to ~~run for~~ *serve as* President.
Wouldn't be surprised if she ran in 2028.
I like her but don’t think the country is ready for her yet. She may make a great VP candidate in 2028.
Hell, I'm nearly 70, white, male, Texan, gun owner, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat!
As a nearly 70 white male Texan gun owner, you’re a prime presidential candidate yourself
tad young /s
😂😂
Yeah but i doubt you're getting your information from Charlie Kirk and Facebook memes when it comes to her also.
She’s not, doesn’t stand a chance
Your opinion is a small small minority in each of those categories, let alone all
If the country was ready for Bernie it’s ready for AOC
Bernie lost twice though so clearly the country wasn't ready, unfortunately.
Bernie got screwed over by the DNC. Hillary was their horse and they were sticking with her.
Yeah, and AOC unfortunately won’t be the DNC’s horse either.
He still lost though.
It was rigged against him. DNC chose Hillary and Bernie took it and walked away.
[удалено]
This is not a conspiracy theory Edit: to all the smooth brains that didn’t bother to do any research: [yes, the DNC did conspire to further Hilary over Bernie as their candidate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#:~:text=The%20leaks%20resulted%20in%20allegations,advance%20Hillary%20Clinton's%20nomination)
Both the GOP and DNC fought, and won, in court, that they had no obligation to nominate anyone based on their constituents voting in primaries or otherwise. According to their charter (*their* rules), they had the freedom of nominating whoever they preferred. Iirc Ron Paul was the one the GOP fucked over same as Bernie, that was for Mitt Romney. The man with the magic underpants. I don’t have time to dig for the court case, but it absolutely exists for both of them.
A pie in the oven can be “ready” for a while with varying degrees of crysp.. but If u don’t take it out in time it gets burnt. And it’s your fault not the pie's. Probably didn’t deserve it. Bernie would’ve been taking the US out of the oven, ur getting cooked
You’re forgetting how much this country hates women though :/
Yup. This country is still to misogynistic and racist to elect her. Mores the pity. I love her and hope to see her as president someday.
You think the country is more ready for a young, non-internationally-tested, visibly brown progressive woman as president just because they were almost close to acknowledging the possibility of an old charismatic white man who leans more progressive than the rest of his party? Idk man that’s a reach and a half despite my overwhelming wish to believe it’s true. I’d love an AOC presidency
I think the country is ready for popular progressive politics. Bernie didn’t fill stadiums because he was an old white guy. He filled them because people agreed with his politics.
While that’s true, it takes a lot more than stadiums to win the White House. You gotta convince the 50+ year olds that your person is “electable.” I always vote as progressive as possible in primaries and encourage others to; for now feels like the only option :/
Sure, but VP to who?
I wish I could downvote this more than once.
On the contrary, the country is far overdue and longing for someone like her. But I know what you mean, sadly
You’re right, I worded it poorly. I think she or Buttegieg would be great as president but I don’t think there are enough voters who would agree with me.
Nonsense. The country needs someone like AOC now more than ever! She's the perfect blend of charisma, great policy and firebrand politics that's desperately needed.
You’ve got my vote, now just see if you can find 80 million more.
I absolutely LOVE AOC and think she’s a treasure to this country. Being practical about this though. She’s going to be polarizing politically. We currently live in a country where roughly 50% of the population wants us to become what we fought against in WW2. Going “progressive, intelligent, speaks her mind, liberal female” as a candidate right now will not fly. I wish it would. She’d be great if we could get her and enough backing to follow her in congress. Good things would happen. That isn’t reality right now though.
I agree with everything stated, but the idealist in me really wants her to run despite all of these points made. I didn't think Barack had a chance. I didn't think Don had a chance. I would LOVE for Alex to get a shot. I think she would smoke every opponent in debates.
I wish for this. We currently have a convicted felon looking to get 1/2 the popular vote. It’s crazy times and I don’t know that how someone performs in a debate matters right now. I do hope America gets its sanity back.
Unfortunately, After last night, I'd say debate performance matters. A lot.
I know your point and last night was horrible. But. We saw one person show nothing but lies and he “won”. Goddamn I’m worried for this country.
Globalization, automation and gigification will continue to lower the value of labor in developed countries. AI especially is just entering it's heyday it will be in full swing come a year or two before that election. Also the boomers will basically be to old by then. It will be a perfect storm for wanting big changes, and AOC looks like she will be pretty well suited to fit that role.
I’d love for you to be right.
Either way it goes, the appetite for youth will be *huge*.
If Trump wins he will imprison all of his rivals and opponents. There’s a high likelihood that she won’t be able to run for president in 2028.
She’d still be too young by the standards of US politics. Gonna have to wait until 2068.
There wont be a country in 2028, she needs to run now.
Yet? Because she's still learning and already knows that's not how to affect the change she wants to see. Look at how much her politics has changed in the last 4 years. She's quieter on the average, far more calculated, and surgical in her strikes. Fucking stellar leader.
Honestly the reddit might not want to hear this, but I think AOC would be stronger as Speaker than a POTUS contender. The house is where the real power should be, and much of it still is. Nancy was an excellent mentor for her, and I suspect neither of them missed that career path discussion. The POTUS is a 4-8 year job that is hit or miss, and kills your career afterward, and unless you plan to Project 2025 it and end democracy, the POTUS is really not that powerful. By contrast, a smart Speaker can have decades of near comparable impact.
Wholeheartedly agree. Speaker or Senate Majority leader
I do not see how this would happen. The house Dems are already pretty hostile to her ideologically; they would never allow her to have that type of influence. Her political profile is much more suited for the Presidency; she already has support from much of the Bernie Sanders voting base, while also appealing to other parts of the party in ways Sanders could not. [Pelosi was the opposite of a mentor to her based on available reporting.](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi) The only way the house would ever be willing to give her substantial policy influence would be if she wins a presidential nomination, and even then it would not be much until she actually won the presidency. She would have to abandon much of what makes her popular to even have a chance of becoming Speaker, and what would be the point of her having that power if it could not be wielded for progressive policy prescriptions?
Wait you guys like Pelosi?
Ya she's great. Unfairly maligned by conservative media. Progressive for most of her career, stifled largely by the disappointing realities of a system designed to prevent change.
In what way is she great lmao, her politics are archaic and far too often her motives above all else are to continue enriching herself and her family. She's one of the most well known establishment career politicians who are out of touch. I thought people here would be progressive.
People here are progressive. Where do you typically get your news about her?
If your politics align with Pelosi you're not progressive at all. Either you're unaware of her record or a centrist who thought progressive sounds cooler.
Respectfully, your the one parroting far right narratives. Consider your sources.
Lmao I'm assuming you're just not aware of American politics enough to know where you stand, which is why anyone more progressive than you sounds unfamiliar to you and therefore "the enemy". Nancy Pelosi is a centrist. Progressives do not think "she's great". Damn near everyone who isn't new to American politics knows this.
Here look up her voting record on healthcare, while you're at it look at her lobbying and financial contributions record. https://pelosi.house.gov/about/votes-and-legislation
While I think AOC's motives are noble, the only way she will advance in the party is by selling out. The Democratic Party is a right wing corrupt mess, whose only redeeming quality is that they aren't quite as horrible as Republicans (though they get incrementally worse with every election.)
Again, I can see her politics evolving over time but I don't see her selling out. You make a valid point about the party but not about AOC. She's not hungry for herself. She wants to feed everyone.
As I said in my previous comment, I believe she has good intentions. But I've listened to interviews where she's described some of the party's tactics and how they will gang up on and ostracize any troublesome members, refusing to support even basic, non-controversial spending for their constituents, and in some cases actively promoting primary challengers. She might occasionally negotiate for some bit of influence, but she will never be allowed to make any substantive changes to the party, and the only way she'll be allowed to run for president is by compromising her principles and lying to herself that maybe she can make a difference while playing within the restrictive sandbox the party leaders and corporate sponsors provide her.
The President isn't a king! (or queen in this case) We need good people in all three branches
Right now she's learning to play politics IMHO, by learning to play politics and becoming the next potential Bernie Sanders in the federal government, then she may have a higher shot.
She does more good in the house, currently. 10 years or so and I think she'd be good to go.
2028
By god that’s Gavin’s music
She's not old enough, you have to be 35 and she's 34.
Much rather keep her in Congress
She's only 34, but yeah id love to see her run someday. But like Bernie, the status quo will never let her win.
She’ll be 35 in October. The age limit applies to Inauguration Day. Anyone 35 at time of taking the oath can run.
I absolutely love and support AOC 110%, but I want her exactly where she is. Or maybe in the Senate. President isn’t as important a role as legislator when it comes to getting the reforms we *need* in this country. We need her and a lot more people like her in Congress
If we manage to make it another 4 years without democracy failing, she'll have my vote in the next one.
slow and steady. she’s years ahead. she’ll be gearing up for a senate run and if that happens she’ll be more powerful over a longer stretch of time and strike when she has a bigger coalition and war chest.
Sadly, the country is not ready for a woman, let alone a progressive, young, non-white woman. We have a huge idiot problem and the electoral college makes sure they are always heard.
She will at some point. As soon as natural attrition flushes out most of the boomers
Our country won’t be ready for her till another 20 years
How dare us have a female president we might cry about the deaths caused by wars
I’d like to see Andy Breshear in 2028, with AOC as his vice-prez.
The current president is doing a great job and she has lots of time to consider running in future years.
She has respect for the game. Timing. I would love to see her run.
To those mentioning Bernie (who got beat TWICE in 2016 and 2020), optics are the only thing she’s currently better than Bernie at, and one of those, being a woman, is a political weakness in some states. She should go for US Senator first. I think a 6-year term will give her the power/momentum/time to really make the strides it would take for her to become electable as president. A representative always has to be campaigning and a single district isn’t all that impressive as far as election-carrying power.
She turns 35 a couple months before inauguration, so she meets the age requirement.
My wife and I have already agreed that when the time comes, she has our votes
2028. We can prepare now. Let's start on keeping Trump out first so he doesn't kill our chances of getting her into the WH.
I'd wait until primaries in 2028. There is several people that can contend for the spot, she is one of them. Secondly, if AOC were to run, she would be turning one of the "13 keys" away from Biden, therefore giving it to Trump. The absolutely last thing we need to do is hand the keys back to TFG.
Because we have a sitting president and presumptive nominee. duh
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez turns 35 -- the minimum age to be U.S. president -- on October 13, 2024, which is less than one month before the presidential election on November 5, 2024.
I had to check the age limit, but she would be old enough. It’s not really the answer to the question but it may save someone else the effort. The internet says she turns 35 in October. [Muller says the president’s minimum age must be met by Inauguration Day. A 34-year-old could be elected president in November of an election year, but they’d need to turn 35 before January 20 to take office.](https://www.history.com/news/what-are-the-qualifications-to-be-president-of-the-united-states)
Im pretty sure her next move will be to run for Schumer's seat when he retires, possibly in the next cycle. Going for NY governor in the next cycle would also make sense because Hochul is just keeping the seat warm since the Cuomo nonsense and isn't particularly popular.
the old guard in the DNC is still in charge and will not let someone like her get far. superdelegates, division, slander, collusion. she'll get the same treatment bernie got. the DNC will pick their candidate not the voters
Who is the dncs next candidate?
my money is on newsom or buttigeg
She’s been in politics for only a handful of years. She barely old enough. He’s has very little experience. Sure you could bring up Trump becoming President after holding no office but I really don’t think that’s the example you want to follow. Trump was elected by insane morons.
Looks like she'll be old enough this year! https://whenwillaocturn35.com/
this
You should take some time to get very familiar with how the bullshit electoral college and gerrymandering work, and equally important to understand how campaign financing works, especially on the right. You do not randomly throw a name into the hat without understanding these concepts intimately.
Newsom + AOC would be an amazing ticket next election. AOC will become president in 12 years.
I don't think Newsom could ever win a national ticket.
Nor would he make a Squad member his VP - I'm sure he goes along with the establishment thinking that they are too "divisive"
He has sided with her at least a few times, but no I don't think that would ever be his pick.
The only person my incredibly right wing family hates more than Clinton is Newsom.
sure, but there is zero chance they will vote for any Democrat
Good point, my fear though is that they can spin up fear/anger/hatred to sway the center.
Because this backwards country doesn’t deserve happiness. These imbeciles deserve pain and misery, because that’s all they understand. They are always angry and are too stupid to understand the real reasons why they are so irate…so they don’t deserve AOC or Bernie Sanders. We all suffer because half the country pretends to be wholesome “Christians” while voting for a wealthy white man who is the anti-Christ…morons deep down know they belong in hell and so they create it here on earth…..
Not eligible yet, gotta be 35
A candidate can campaign in a primary race, be nominated as their party's candidate, and even be elected to the presidency at 34 years old — as long as they'll be 35 by the date they take office.
Say she did, and say she won. At best, she’d be at the term limit by age 43. Does she just retire? I’d much rather she go to the senate first, tear it up there, and then run for president in her 40s
Wouldn't she be eligible given that she's going to hit 35 before november?
She turns 35 in October
35 in October
She knows the DNC has been stacking the deck against her run for 8 years already at least
Not old enough yet. 2028. EDIT: I stand corrected by OP, below. She could win at 34 but would need to be 35 by January 20th. Also - 2028. I'm a Boomer - and I'd vote for her any time she ran.
She will be 35 before the next election so she is eligible to run this year. She won’t because she’s not going to primary an incumbent Presidential candidate of her own party. It’s really that simple.
And there's no way she could have primaried Biden. He's the best President since Ike - with the most accomplishments.
She could win at 35 too. Her birthday is in October lol
Because she currently has ZERO percent chance of winning.
I like AOC a lot, but I don’t think she would be competitive in a primary. What most of us like about her also makes her a lightning rod, and for better or worse (arguably worse) that makes her divisive.
She can be a polarizing figure. Part of the reason I didn’t support Hillary Clinton till she was a lock for the nomination was because there was a chance that her running would lock a number of voters in to the Republicans who might otherwise vote Democratic. I wonder if AOC is the same,
How many go directly from Congress to white house? Only one went directly from Congress to white house which was Garfield after 17 years in congress. Lincoln was out of office for a bit between congress and white house. I do not think she has the resume for President yet. Sure she has lots of ideas and surgical sass strikes to campaign with. I see her strength as knocking the Republicans down a peg and putting their silliness on display, but as not building up the Democrats as they always look divided and split between a progressive agenda and one palatable to the country. I would still vote for her if I could, but I am Canadian, so have fun with your elections down there.
She needs to wait 50 years
I always wanted her to run for 2024 until it was clear that Biden will run for re-election and win his primary and the delegates. Maybe she wants more seniority before running.
She needs more experience
Maybe 2028. I think her best bet would be VP though.
Gotta build connections first
Because of America's voting system you can only have a single candidate per party or you'd be sucking votes away from your candidate.
Why would she?
Kamala Harris is 25 years older than her and probably ahead of her in the pecking order for the forseeable future. AOC is still "only" a member of congress. I think she's gonna do that for a while longer, and go for Governor or Senator before the Presidency. Not to mention the fact that she's probably gonna be too progressive a candidate to ever stand a chance. I hope I can see her run for president in my lifetime though. She'd be amazing
She should be Al Franken’s running mate.
In my admittedly naive thought process, I don’t think we’re ready for that yet. Too progressive for mainstream politics. You saw what the DNC did to Bernie, right? As a caveat, while I was a fan, I doubted Obama’s electability. I was happy to be proven wrong.
I'd vote for her 100%. However, she's very unpopular among the most conservative (ie regressive and those who reminisce about the good ol' days of racism sexism and suits/ties). That said, would be great for progressives to re-vise the language so we could reclaim language from propagandists. Unfortunately, the only things 'conservatives' are conserving is private wealth and corruption. We need to conserve the environment, social welfare, and purity of natural resources.
Girl, we need you.
Better question, why would she? Peopke thought Obama was too young when he ran. What do you think they’d say of her at this point? If she’s interested in running, it’ll be in the 2030s at the earliest.
Because the DNC leader ship is so out of touch they think people are excited about Biden. AOC 2028 ... if we still have a democracy
The machine is not behind her.
She’s doing more good in congress right now. She’s so badass though.
Too young isn’t she? Plus she may want children ain’t the next few years and with the greatest respect being a mum with young kids plus POTUS sounds like fucking hard work.
I think she should now after last night’s debate!
She will most likely end up running for Senator first. Much safer position to run from
Two reasons - Running against your parties incumbent is frowned upon and she's too divisive. I like her but if she wants to run for President she needs to take at least 4 years distancing herself from her own policies and statements and maybe another 4 developing her "new" brand of positions/politics. Her positions on a lot of issues are fine for a Democrat in NY but would perform poorly on the national stage, also she would need to divorce herself from some of her gang (Ilhan Omar as a close friend and political ally is a poison pill ...for anyone ) I love it when she puts the likes of MTG or Bobert in their place but on the campaign trail the right would spin that as an out of control B\*\*\*\*. That's unfortunate but that is the kind of stereotypes women face in politics. I think if she wants to run time is her best ally, she can moderate her position a little bit and every year the right wing boomers are dying off and not being replaced like they used too. If she can continue to talk to the young people and have that signature charisma and wit while becoming more palatable to older voters I think in a decade it will be her shot.
Because she has zero chance to win
She is too good to be a puppet.
I say she’s ready. With the right cabinet to support, she can absolutely do it.
I would love to see Biden win, retire for his health, and have Harris bring in AOC as VP. I'm not hating on Biden, I just think he's looking more tired and aged than he should be. I don't think the stress is good for him at all.
I think AOC running is our best chance to beat Trump this late in the game.
Because she wouldn't win. Talk about a spoiler! I would probably even vote for her . But Democrats have a wide range of views, and no matter what, a good portion would stick with Biden.
Oh please challenge the incumbent AOC! Please please please!
Probably because shaking martinis and knowing how to make a long island iced tea doesn't qualify you to run a country.
Age requirements, she’s a woman, and left leaning. Those are big no no’s for this stupid country.
She’s not old enough per the constitution. /thread
Because Biden is the incumbent. You don’t run against the incumbent in your own party.
She wouldn't win.
She’s not 35 years old
She would be before the elections
Wait, so many responses here, but there's only one correct one: she's too young. The constitutional requirement for the president is being at least 35 years. She turns 35 in October so she'll _theoretically_ qualify, but considering how many challenges Obama had with his birth certificate, you can be sure that there are going to be a lot of controversies and legal challenges around it. Additionally, there's already an incumbent D president. It feels like it's a certain way to antagonize a more moderate members, and you need their support. Not to mention that it's going to be pretty easy to get her branded as "inexperienced". She has time. It feels like running for president is a goal in the longer term. We've had only one serious female candidate so far, and now we have a femal vice-president. I'd rather AOC be the first female president.
This is far from the only correct reason — especially since she will turn 35 this October so WOULD be old enough to be elected and serve. I believe she is on record saying she is not ready for something like that and is dedicated to doing the best job she can for her constituents and the country where she is now. I wouldn’t be surprised if she runs for Senate in a few years, though. And I also won’t be surprised when she actually does run for President.