• Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    We should be so lucky to have a party she represents in this country. The only reason she has that seat is by defying the DNC as a spoiler. They only elevate politicians to the Federal level on the basis of how good they’ve proven they are at collecting that sweet, sweet corpo bribe money.

    The DNC and democratic leadership would rather dissappear her Than Trump by a mile.

    The pendulum is the point. Both parties are well bribed to maintain the capitalist’s murderous control. Good cop and bad cop are both just fine with mass homelessness and entire murder for profit confidence scheme market sectors. One laughs at you when the capitalists cause you harm, the other just shrugs and says “golly gee market forces nothing we can do! But I affirm your right to die horribly as who you are here in this cardboard box under a freeway! Pronouns are free so whatever I still get bribed 😁” (edit to be clear, respecting others identity is the right thing to do and basic decency, but there’s a hierarchy of needs, self-actualization only matters if you have your basic needs met. You cannot live in an affirmation ribbon, you cannot eat a preferred pronoun, priorities.)

    If the Democrats were led by someone talking about redistribution, that bribe gravy train would stop. If by some miracle AOC manages to steal the party out from under them as Trump did the RNC, the DNC would be fighting her every move and comment the way we wish they were countering Trump right now. In fact, here’s how Democrat leadership spent the months leading to Trump’s inauguration:

    https://www.axios.com/2024/12/12/aoc-pelosi-oversight-committee-connolly-raskin

    Defending the country from one of the only slightly left Reps in the entire federal government.

    Democrats like Schumer and Pelosi are far closer to Trump than AOC.

    https://apnews.com/article/business-nancy-pelosi-congress-8685e82eb6d6e5b42413417f3d5d6775

  • AreaKode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    302
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Weird. The party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge. We’re ready for someone who is actually for the people!

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Conservatives, they are putting conservatives in charge. Don’t be fooled by how republicans label themselves. They haven’t been conservative since before the turn of the century.

      It’s DNC leadership that has taken up that mantle.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      202
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        152
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.

        • Psycoder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m a European born American. Obama would be right wing politician in my country of birth.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The dinosaurs know they’re marching right, that’s where all the money is (for them).

        • WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It’s the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it’s hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn’t mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              32
              ·
              2 months ago

              Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.

            • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.

              I’d say she’s a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.

            • WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn’t really care then it wouldn’t have taken much to change them.

              • Redditsux@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 months ago

                Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren’t so MAGA. She’s on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.

                • Womble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I’m not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo’d her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris bribes donations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.

          • Flames5123@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sadly I don’t think it’s possible to have a party “for the people” with only two parties. There’s too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.

        • SippyCup@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN

        • tburkhol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to ‘establishment’ candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.

          The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.

          • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re blaming the DNC for something that is controlled by each individual state.

            • tburkhol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Not really. I’m saying that the system discourages change. If there’s blame for the DNC, it’s that their message has constantly been something along the lines of “be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change” which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been “More guns! More babies! No brown people!” which tends to attract passionate radicals.

              • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Okay, but the states decide if there are open primaries or not. The State is to blame for that, but it can be changed if made a state ballot measure.

                That’s not really up for debate. It’s literally state law and dependent on the state. The DNC and GOP don’t decide that.

        • gobbles_turkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.

          Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we’re the same, but proving we have “democracy” by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider “people.”

    • rational_lib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The party The people that vote in the primaries for the party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge.

      Most people don’t vote in the Democratic primaries. Did you?

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I still have to lol about how the stupid qons tried to use her dancing in university as some kind of BAD thing.

    Back when Denver Post still had a comment section and they’d allow gifs, and if the topic was AOC, I’d post her dancing. A few of the local wingnuts would try to get me banned/my posts removed over it, esp. if one of the qanon mods was on-duty…

    She’s the best. Why the buzzkills in the unhinged right tried to paint a beautiful intelligent rep like AOC dancing during college as a bad thing is anyone’s guess, but that sure as fuck blew up in their faces…

    • Sillyglow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 months ago

      So let me get this straight: somehow just dancing is somehow worse than drinking beers in fraternities and raping?

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        She’s a woman and a POC to boot, so…it’s rather self-evident that anything she does is going to be worse.

        I think even for the most idiotic of maga, they realized that trying to trash her for dancing was not really getting much traction. Especially among cishet men with eyes? Just sayin’. XD

        I think the same thing for trashing her for things like being working class - they were trying that on for a while and that seems to backfire, too. Same goes for some big mic drop attempt they try when they call her “Sandy” in some kind of qnut point about how she had a nickname during high school and/or university? ZOMG! /clutches pearls You are saying she went by the name of Sandy, danced, and worked as a bartender? QED, then, I guess. 🤣

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        She’s a woman with a will of her own, that’s enough for anyone on the Right to hate her.

        What I really can’t stand though is when they try to pretend she’s dumb. I mean when we on the Left call Trump a moron, we can actually point to things he did and said. When they try to paint AOC as an airhead, they mostly just repurpose old blonde jokes to be about AOC, there’s never anything she actually did or said that they bring up.

        Ever notice that?

        God I’m glad I don’t use facebook anymore

    • Ronno@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t get it neither, let’s turn it the other way: why would anyone want to vote for someone/something that doesn’t show basic human emotions and doesn’t have fun?

        • King_Bob_IV@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          I disagree. He doesn’t love money. He covets the respect and power that he believes money brings with it and if forever angry that even with the presidency he can’t get the true respect he believes he is entitled to.

          • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yea that too but I feel like if someone told him “you would be the most respected person in the world and very powerful if you agree to live an economically average life (think Merkel but more modest even)”, I don’t think he would agree. Maybe because he thinks if he has money he can anyway buy the others but still money is not just a tool for him he is hooked on the luxuries it brings too.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I was going to point out how most of them embrace donnie, who never seems to legitimately laugh at something normal. He does that weird grimace and thumbs-up for photo ops. He does that weird grimace after telling “jokes” that are all about punching down on someone or some group.

          Well, TBF, I guess he does do that weird double-dick jerkoff dance that he does to his favorite gay anthem. Maybe he’s really trying to tell the world something there? All that talk about being hawt for his own daughter was some kind of weird compensation?

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I still laugh to myself when I think of them legitimately hoping they had the bombshell of the century when the “mic drop” of her dancing from college days was released.

        I think most people just saw that and thought it was completely normal and it just highlighted how fucking weird and awful people like Tucker were. I think many normies saw it and thought that the qnuts were just sending this to everyone and effectively saying - “holy shit, do you see how HAWT this woman is?” - because whatever message they were attempting by sending this to everyone and trying to make it go viral for some other reason was probably lost on all but the most uptight puritans in the xtian Taliban.

        I think normal Americans probably thought something along the lines of - wow, she’s incredibly articulate, delivers a message really well, is obviously well-versed in issues that matter to her constituency, AND is also incredibly attractive, knows how to dance and obviously was having fun making this video? What’s the problem these weirdo qnuts have with that?

        BTW, we need to go back to a concerted campaign of calling conservatives and Republicans WEIRD. Because they fucking are.

    • underline960@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Why the buzzkills in the unhinged right tried to paint a beautiful intelligent rep like AOC dancing during college as a bad thing

      Because she’s leading moral and dignified Christian men into sin!

      It’s not my fault / I’m not to blame / It is the gypsy girl / The witch who sent this flame / It’s not my fault / If in God’s plan / He made the devil so much / Stronger than a man

  • anachrohack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’d describe myself as a liberal more than a progressive, but it’s obvious that she’s become the most recognizable Democrat at the federal level. Other democrats simply have not been pushing back on the Republicans in the way that she has, and it’s fucking baffling. My theory is that most politicians are really skilled at fundraising rather than building groundswell political movements and so they’re just completely out of their element in this environment. I don’t agree with all of the progressive platform, but we need more politicians with character like hers and fewer geriatrics who refuse to release their grip on power

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Other democrats simply have not been pushing back on the Republicans in the way that she has, and it’s fucking baffling.

      It’s a lot less baffling if you consider the possibility that they never believed any of the shit they said about Trump being a threat to democracy, or if they did that part doesn’t bother them. It was Theater Time during the election and now it’s Cooperation Time, and actually you’re the extreme one for not just seamlessly switching modes!

  • TheFonz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    2 months ago

    Are they… Still considering Harris for 2028??? What? Please god. Make it stop. Please.

    • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      She’s just the most recent candidate. The most recent candidates, and most recent Presidents and Vice Presidents are almost always in these sorts of lists, especially in the weeks and months following an election, before the next campaign starts.

      Joe Biden was a favorite in these sorts of polls in 2015/16, despite saying he wouldn’t run, because he was just VP.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        “It’s my turn.” was everything wrong with Hillary’s campaign in a nut shell.

        How the fuck are you able to make yourself look like an unhinged ego-maniac who just wants to be President for the sake of being President, when you’re running against Trump? That shouldn’t be possible.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          How the fuck are you able to make yourself look like an unhinged ego-maniac who just wants to be President for the sake of being President, when you’re running against Trump?

          This isn’t a problem of Trumpism, it’s a naturally occurring brainworm in Americans broadly speaking. Trump’s a nasty dim-witted freak, so watching him climb to the top of the pile we’ve been raised to believe was a meritocracy causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. But everyone running for President (except maybe Mike Gravel) ends up looking like this. The thing that separates the Obamas and Trumps from the Hillarys and McCains is whether cheering for the unhinged ego-maniac feels fun or not.

    • pleasegoaway@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      The US is simply too misogynistic to elect a woman as president, especially a woman of color.

      The unfortunate reality is that our best bet for the White House is a progressive white man with AOC as VP.

      I believe that even AOC knows this.

      • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think that’s true tbh. The Dems have never managed to nominate a popular woman as their presidential candidate before. Clinton was almost universally disliked by the public (for lots of good reasons other than her gender), and ex-prosecutor Harris’s campaign was hamstrung by Biden, as well as being seen as an other pro-corporate Democrat stooge. AOC might actually have a fighting chance compared to her predecessors. But she’ll never be able to be the Democratic candidate until the old guard of leadership is replaced, let’s face facts.

      • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can’t say that because there is no reliable data to go off of. Kamala and Clinton were terrible candidates.

        • cmbabul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Hey now there will for sure be “elections”, they’ll just be 100% kayfabe instead of just 50-75% kayfabe

            • cmbabul@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              When we get the real-life political equivalent of Stone Cold… Ironically the most popular wrestler per event in history who’s whole gimmick was fighting the authority of the wrestling promoter who didn’t believe he was an acceptable face of the company and constantly wanted to push their own handpicked corporate champions. It’s actually a lot more spot on than I meant it to be…

  • JustAThought@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I feel like this is actually what republicans want. Feels like they want another minority woman to run right into them again. She’s wonderful but it feels like political sabotage.

  • zebidiah@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s funny, because the dnc does not share any of her ideology, and it’s not even close

    • Mustakrakish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah she needs to spilt and be the face of an actual workers party, not the mask for the failed democrats.

      • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        AOC and Bernie should break off, start a new party and call it the Social Democrats … if for no other reason than that is what they espouse – a socially-conscious mandate that the government is to be there for the people, not the other way around.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          If they do that the corporate Dems would buy up all of DC’s champagne. There is nothing they want more than to evict the left wing elements of the party and force them into electoral irrelevance, why would AOC et al do that for them?

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Much as Bernie will definitely continue to be the face of the movement, I have doubts he has many years left for politics. We’re in need of new faces for that same initiative.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The voters keep voting for the same corporate fellatio enthusiasts, so I guess they are representing their voters. The core Dem voters are as bad as, and walk hand-in-hand with, the DNC.

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ocasio-Cortez was far ahead of other listed Democrats. Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.

    Why did they list the percentage for all of these people, but not for Bernie’s second place position?

    That is a rhetorical question.

    I was going to calculate his percentage but 26 + 26 + 22 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 2 is 98%. Did they lump Bernie in with ‘other’?

    • hope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      The survey they cite has Bernie at 12%, so I’m not sure what method they did to allow for more than 100% - maybe you could choose more than one answer?

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh, the link underlining was subtle enough that I didn’t see it.

        Yeah, they must have allowed for more than one for the numbers to add up.

    • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      For the same reason they DIDN’T EVEN MENTION he was a candidate half the time the media mentioned the primaries were happening despite him being in 1st or second at those times.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 months ago

      and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.

      Looks like Newsom will be the candidate for 2028 then…

  • ExPLiCiT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    My concern is that now that Trump is in office and project 2025 is in full swing, that we will never see another fair election again.

    • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      The crimson lining is that we might get to build a new United States, free of the GOP and DNC. The problem is the nature of that crimson.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Is it really easier to imagine the end of the United States of America compared to voting outside the two party system?

        • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It certainly feels that way. I simply have no faith in the DNC, let alone the likes of the GOP. I am of the opinion that our political system simply lacks the flexibility needed to reflect the interests of ordinary people. Just look at how medical benefits, SNAP, NOAA, our sciences, federal workers, due process, and so much more are being deconstructed. All for the sake of a small group of people to see their numbers go up.

          It would be good to be wrong about this feeling. Unfortunately, hope is rarely a good companion of prudence.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you aren’t a die hard democrat or republican, you have never in your lifetime had a fair election because of the artificial limitations imposed by First-past-the-post voting

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s his obvious intention, yes.

      There’s still some things that can go wrong for the fascists, but we’re certainly on a trajectory towards eternal leader supreme chancellor Trump.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I promise you the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to keep her away from leadership roles because she actually wants to change things.

    That’s the one thing the Democratic Party is consistent on: rejecting progressives, even if it means letting the conservatives win.