938

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused establishment Democrats of treating her “like shit” as progressive activists urged her to run for president in 2028.

In a 100-minute long video posted on Instagram, the 37-year-old congresswoman from New York said that the party had a “remarkable opportunity” to pass left-wing policies after the midterm elections. She also accused the party’s leadership of starving funds from left-wing candidates during the campaign.

“There’s this huge conversation about candidates that were under invested in,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She cited Angie Nixon, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who came within 240,000 votes of flipping Florida from red to blue, but ultimately lost to the Republican candidate Ashley Moody.

“If Angie Nixon had just had a little bit of that support, that outcome could have changed. But that money has to come from somewhere and it comes from these people,” Ocasio-Cortez said in reference to the party’s Senate leadership.

Reflecting on the period after she was first elected to Congress in 2018 at the age of 29, Ocasio-Cortez accused senior Democrats of being “horrifically cruel” to her. “I mean I was treated like shit,” she said. “Everybody took a swing at me.”

The Bronx congresswoman is seen as the likeliest progressive candidate to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] skibidi@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

I'd personally rather see her jump to the Senate for a term, or NY Governor, before trying for the presidency. I'd say the same for any House rep. Governors and Senators have the clearest parallels to the office, as executive and foreign-policy roles themselves.

I think AOC is a high-variance candidate - much the same way Trump was in 2016 - and she will either get much more or much less support than expected in the general election.

I think her biggest electoral baggage will be her statements over the years on the 'Woke 1.0' items that the electorate soured on. She has moderated her past statements here more recently, which leaves a lot of doubt as to her actual beliefs and policy goals. She'll be attacked for that from the left and the right, and it will take oxygen away from a progressive economic agenda that would likely be broadly popular if explained well.

Whoever the dem candidate ends up being, I doubt they can rely on the same level of support as the party received in the midterms. 2 years is an eternity in politics and 2028 will likely be defined by some new crisis that isn't even on our radar right now. If she runs, I'll likely vote for her (at least, based on who else seems to be running as of now).

[-] Malica@lemmy.zip 12 points 4 days ago

We simply don't have time, we're in need of that once in a generation leader right now and she's the best we've got.

[-] protist@retrofed.com 1 points 4 days ago

There are plenty candidates who could jump in and do a great job. The campaign hasn't even started yet. I genuinely don't think jumping from the House to President is a good move, someone needs to hold a higher office first to demonstrate their ability to manage a much larger organization than a House office.

The only person ever elected directly from the House was James Garfield in 1880. Most presidents were previously senators or governors. The only person ever elected without holding any prior office was Donald Trump in 2016.

[-] leadore@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)
[-] someone@lemmy.today 7 points 4 days ago

I have little idea who this is mostly, but I know he came sort of out of nowhere and has been pushed relentlessly in the media, and that make me suspicious. Why him? Why now? Does he have more corporate-friendly moderate-conservative Democratic views that people with money prefer as the alternative? I genuinely don't know. I really wonder if conservative money interests are scared of AOC and so they are pushing a more moderate Democrat. I don't know his policies at all though, so maybe I am wrong?

[-] decolo@piefed.social 0 points 4 days ago

He's kind of a Sheldon whitehouse type progressive corpo dem. I don't think he has principles but he's at least better than schumer/Jeffries/pelosi.

[-] criscodisco@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago
[-] decolo@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago

Fully agree!! I was just trying to give the most factual description I could.

[-] leadore@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago

Definitely check him out, he got elected the same time as Warnock. Look at his record, watch some of his speeches. He's great.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago

Jon Ossof isn't a progressive; he's a spicy centrist. He voted for the Laken Riley Act and his record on Israel while not wholly bad is way too mixed.

[-] Malica@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 days ago

I don't know as much about him but everything I have seen/heard is promising.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I'd personally rather see her jump to the Senate for a term, or NY Governor, before trying for the presidency. I'd say the same for any House rep. Governors and Senators have the clearest parallels to the office, as executive and foreign-policy roles themselves

only one sitting house rep has been elected president. ONE. garfield, in 1880. a 9-term rep, and at that time he was already chosen by his state legislature to be a senator.. so like a 'senator elect' today.. which he declined when he won his presidential campaign.

[-] criscodisco@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Might I remind you, we elected a twice-impeached, pedophilic reality show star. I think we are well past historical precedents, here.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah I like AOC and would vote for her, but I don't think 2028 is her year. She has a lot of qualities that each individually could lose support: she's a woman, non-white, vocally progressive, relatively young, only a Rep, and has a long history of demonization by the right.

None of those traits is particularly damning alone (to the general population, I don't have a problem with any of it personally), but taken together that's a lot of hill to climb.

I'd like to see her go for a couple terms in the Senate, which would take care of the "relatively young" and "only a Rep". Plus, hopefully the landscape shifts more progressive which would make her less of an outlier.

I think 47 year old Senator Cortez is a much better bet than 39 year old Representative Cortez, and I'd rather not spoil the former by pushing the latter.

[-] someone@lemmy.today 5 points 4 days ago

I feel like she could win anyway. She's just a natural star politician. It's a mix of things: the model looks, the clear explanation of policy, the fact that she is relatable in a way so many are not. I think she'd easily win. I think she'd even do okay with the racists... she's just that likable. Why not have 2028 be her year? If not 2028, when? There's always a reason among corporate elite conservative Democrats to avoid someone too helpful to the poor and middle class, isn't there?

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I don't disagree with her positives, I just think she's on the young side to win in 2028.

I think she'd even do okay with the racists... she's just that likable.

I think you underestimate how much the right wing media has demonized her. I like her, you like her, but a lot of people think she's a dumb waitress.

Why not have 2028 be her year? If not 2028, when?

2036, after a stint in the Senate. She'll be older, she'll have experience in the Upper House, it's just a much better position for a win.

There's always a reason among corporate elite conservative Democrats to avoid someone too helpful to the poor and middle class, isn't there?

This isn't about corporate Democrats, this is about progressives acting strategically. I think it would be much better to run an established progressive Senator or Governor in 2028.

[-] someone@lemmy.today 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think you underestimate how much the right wing media has demonized her. I like her, you like her, but a lot of people think she’s a dumb waitress.

Give her the podium to debate a Republican on national TV. No one will think that anymore. It's easily dealt with, even an advantage. They don't know her yet, so Republicans think many USA Americans hate her. But she is great, middle America just doesn't know yet.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I disagree. Yes, I like her, but you're extremely optimistic about how middle America will react. I fear that your perception is biased by surrounding yourself with progressives, not that I blame you. I implore you to spend more time talking to "average" Americans. A very large number don't respect her, and think she's not even qualified for the House. Never mind her credentials, they think she's a dumb commie waitress.

Many people are going to think that no matter what. I wish it were otherwise, but people talk to me about their political views. She is a very controversial figure. This isn't speculation, this is talking to actual people about what they believe.

I want her to run, and I want her to win. And the last thing I want is for her to jump the gun on an early run and ruin her future chances. I would've liked to see Walz run, but the Harris campaign is an albatross around his neck. I do not want her to suffer the same fate, I want her to actually win when she runs.

Again, she would be 39 in '28. That's four years younger than JFK, the youngest person ever elected President. That's going to be too young for a lot of people.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago

She has a lot of qualities that each individually could lose support: she's a woman, non-white, vocally progressive, relatively young, only a Rep, and has a long history of demonization by the right.

There's simply no evidence that the plausibly Democratic electorate has a problem with any of these. Capturing swing voters is nice but it's not how elections are won.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

The primary two I'm focused on are her age and highest office. She is a 37 year old House Representative.

As others have pointed out, only one other President (Garfield) was just a House Representative, and even he was elected to the Senate. And the youngest president ever elected was JFK at 43.

I'm not betting on the youngest, first female, first House Rep. becoming President. I'll bet on the first female president when she's not the youngest and has been Senator or Governor.

Maybe the political landscape will radically change over the next year, I'm not opposed to the idea and that would be awesome honestly. But that's a lot of firsts to tackle, especially when fascism is so pungent in the air.

Put out a 45+ white male progressive for a term or two, lay some groundwork, and then hit'em with Senator Cortez's campaign.

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2026
938 points (98.4% liked)

politics

31898 readers
3988 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS