938

Democrats were ‘horrifically cruel’ to me, says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (www.thetimes.com)

submitted 5 days ago by velma@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

380 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] Malica@lemmy.zip 24 points 4 days ago

We need to harass our reps until they lose the will to live. Be loud, be annoying and most of all be persistent. Tell them what you want clearly, for example, i don't want schumer and jeffires in leadership positions, so I'm focusing on that. Also give them an alternate path to vote for, like instead of voting for schumer, please vote for Chris Van Hollen. Then do it again the next day. Phone calls preferably.

[-] Triasha@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Just shouting out Joe Neguse as an alternative to Jeffries. He stopped taking aipac money, he's generally progressive, already in leadership in the house, and he is black, so it keeps the implicit promise to the congressional black caucus to elect a black speaker.

It's not about race, it's about Jeffries.

[-] Malica@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago

I'll look into him, he sounds promising

[-] decolo@piefed.social 1 points 4 days ago

I fully agree that the next speaker should be Black, but I don't trust the leadership of the CBC. Jim Clyburn has a lot of bad politics once you look deeper than his civil rights history, and their unwillingness to see the problems with Jeffries are plenty of reason to be concerned with their organization

[-] Triasha@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

If you are concerned about Neguse, Ayana Pressley is an alternative. She is progressive and capable. As a spokesperson for 'the squad' I worry that pushing for her would polarise the left right divide and take the focus off the corruption that Jeffries represents.

But by all means. Presley would be far superior to Jeffries. Call her office and urge her to run for speaker against him.

[-] decolo@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I love Ayanna Pressley and would support her for anything

I'll do that when my time zone syncs up

[-] Triasha@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Youtube tells me we are thanking her for standing up.

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:

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

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

Example:

Articles must be relevant to 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.
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.
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.
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.
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