I think it’s at least partially because everyone else sucks so bad. She’s not a great speaker but she gets a lot of coverage from left-wing influencers because there’s no one else to promote. She also positions herself just far enough on the left to get their support but she’s also close enough to the center to still get coverage in the mainstream media. So she’s the face of progressive movent and gets attacked by Fox a lot. So she’s everywhere even though she’s kind of bland in my opinion (compared with European left at least).
A point about this is it’s a specific long-term strategy used by conservative media that worked on Hillary. It doesn’t matter what AOC says or does, they’ll give her negative coverage. They’ll spend years doing this so when she finally does make a run for president their viewers will already have AOC=BAD baked in.
Hillary shot herself in the foot by holding repellent policies and abhorrent views even within her own party. She was pro-war well into the 2010s. She was Tough On Crime in the middle of BLM protest waves. She was chintzy and hyper-bureaucratic on public health care and education while she freely opened her wallet to mass surveillance and corporate bailouts. She demonstrated naked hostility to the LGBTQ community time and time again. She flaunted her wealth, constantly lied about her own historical record, surrounded herself with sycophants and scammers, and was the worst kind of sore loser.
That’s why Obama kicked the knees out from under her in 2008. And that’s why Donald Trump could casually outflank her on the left in 2016, by mouthing a few anti-war slogans, bullshitting about popular economic reforms, and hugging the Pride Flag. Hillary made the same stupid mistakes as Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and Harris in 2024. She desperately pandered to the Republican Establishment while expecting everyone to the left of John McCain to reflexively bend the knee.
I’m glad Hillary lost. I’m just sad she had to lose in the general, rather than scrubbing out in the primary a second time.
Exactly. I would say Mamdani is “European kind of left” and he’s also really good at delivering his message. I totally get why he’s so popular. OAC is only OK but she really doesn’t have a lot of competition in Congress.
The thing that’s been striking me about Mamdani is that he’s reminding me of FDR, in that he’s so frequently talking to his constituents. The only other American politician I can think of that does that so much is trump. And the difference is Mamdani and Roosevelt maintain professionalism and focus on how they’re helping and acknowledging shared experience. Trump by contrast is totally unprofessional and has an incoherent message generally revolving around him being the best and people who dislike him being the worst.
I really think that Mamdani’s communication game is a vital lesson to learn for the dems. The policies are also important, you actually do have to help people. But you need to take credit, you need to keep them in the loop, and you need to give frequent updates.
I really think that Mamdani’s communication game is a vital lesson to learn for the dems.
The problem is dems don’t want to learn anything. They just want to play the role of controlled opposition, not actually do anything. If they win they will have to come up with excuses why they can’t do anything. A long as they are losing they just have to keep promising that they will fix things and keep asking for donations. Mamdani makes it all more difficult for them.
Were I live, Portugal, the policies of the Democrat Party are closest to those of a local party called Iniciativa Liberal (Liberal Initiative) who are considered Far-Right ultra Neoliberal (and were started by people with A LOT of money rather than being a naturally growing movement).
In most of Europe the mainstream parties (whether they used to be center-left or center-right) nowadays are Neoliberal, but the version of that ideology of the US Democract Party is harder than even the old center-right mainstream in Europe (which is how even an EU under a majority of the EPP - which are the EU level group of such parties - is still a lot more pro-consumer than the Democrats, though things have been getting worse).
She’s not a great speaker but she gets a lot of coverage from left-wing influencers because there’s no one else to promote.
She’s fine. There are definitely better orators. But she stays on message, advances popular policies, and is generally well-received by her constituents. There are plenty of other aspiring AOCs that don’t perform half as well. And you won’t be able to name them because they don’t win elected office - much less survive multiple hostile intra-party primary bids and smear campaigns - or fundraise effectively or get promoted via social media so aggressively.
There are definitely other people to promote. We just watched Graham Platner’s star rise largely on his personal charisma and ability to build a crowd. We’ve seen Al Franken and Anthony Weiner and John Edwards all come and go along similar trajectories. AOC might demonstrate better staying power simply because she’s not a giant sex pest.
So she’s everywhere even though she’s kind of bland in my opinion (compared with European left at least).
Compared to Corbyn or Mélenchon or Reichinnek? I’d say she’s par for the course.
Absolutely. She’s a capable politician and party member. I just don’t think she deserved to get the kind of attention she’s getting. For example many people talk about presidency and I think she’s not even close to this level. There’s simply no one else out there.
Are you aware the current president is a child raping slob of an anti-intellectual?? Like nobody’s saying AOC is the new FDR but yeah she’s infinitely better than the current president.
I just don’t think she deserved to get the kind of attention she’s getting.
A lot of it boils down to her fundraising numbers. Among all the members of The Squad, she outperforms to the point that the rest of the party needs to periodically come to her with hands out for a cup of money. That extends her influence within party leadership and allows her to effectively lobby for legislative amendments and rally support in her caucus to vote against certain other bills.
For example many people talk about presidency and I think she’s not even close to this level.
I think she’s better positioned to work on her bid in 2026 than Obama was twenty years earlier.
Of course, I also think she’d function better as a candidate for NY Governor. Building a hard base of DSA-aligned Democrats inside New York and advancing progressive policy at the state level sounds much more appealing than taking a stab at the White House, only to get the entire country’s problems dumped in your lap.
There’s simply no one else out there.
There’s Pritzker in Illinois and Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Mark Kelly of Arizona are also strong contenders. But, again, anyone taking the Presidency in 2028 is going to inherit an absolute shitshow. I wouldn’t want the job and I think you kinda have to be crazy if you do. I also don’t think AOC would do well under the degree of pressure the office will apply. You really need someone coming in there with a crowbar and an eye for kneecaps. That’s not her style of politics.
I could almost stomach four years of Gavin Newsom if I believed he’d spend his time running down Trump Admin hacks and bankrupting them. Where’s Elliot Spitzer when you need him? But I know Newsom would sell out twice as hard as Trump just to prove he’s better at it, so that’s a no-go.
I don’t think there are any good candidates for President in 2028, AOC included. But that’s more thanks to the deep endemic corruption of the office and the spinelessness of the Dem Party as a whole. If the only thing you care about is winning a popularity contest, though? AOC’s a top contender.
I also don’t think AOC would do well under the degree of pressure the office will apply.
I don’t even think she would do well under the pressure of the presidential campaign.
Of course, I also think she’d function better as a candidate for NY Governor. Building a hard base of DSA-aligned Democrats inside New York and advancing progressive policy at the state level
100% agree. Ideally they would the couple of strong contenders for presidency and bunch of AOCs advancing things at a local level. The fact that people propose AOC for presidents shows how bad the state of the party is.
I don’t even think she would do well under the pressure of the presidential campaign.
Why? She’s survived several republican smear campaigns that tried to make her the face of the party so they could beat the whole party, and she’s still going strong.
There’s nothing about AOC that makes me question her ability to handle pressure, especially in the face of sustained political smear campaigns.
It’s just my opinion but I don’t think she’s not a very good speaker and she’s not good at confronting people. In the hearings I’ve seen she’s usually very soft, can’t drive her message through and is unconvincing. Her nice, soft persona works great at local level where what she actually stands for matters more than theatrics but I don’t think that would be effective in a presidential debate.
It definitely shows how bad the state of the national news media is. We’re watching The Trump Show 24/7/365. I doubt one American in twenty could even name a Dem contender for President who hasn’t run already. One reason why Kamala Harris remains a front-runner on paper. Hell, you’ll see people talk about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama running again, purely because these are the only people whose names register.
But come primary season, that will change as contenders put more money and social pressure on boosting their own name recognition. This time next year, you’ll have a dozen different Dem contenders doing their warm-up laps around the field. If AOC isn’t running, I doubt she’ll be seriously missed.
I think it’s at least partially because everyone else sucks so bad. She’s not a great speaker but she gets a lot of coverage from left-wing influencers because there’s no one else to promote. She also positions herself just far enough on the left to get their support but she’s also close enough to the center to still get coverage in the mainstream media. So she’s the face of progressive movent and gets attacked by Fox a lot. So she’s everywhere even though she’s kind of bland in my opinion (compared with European left at least).
A point about this is it’s a specific long-term strategy used by conservative media that worked on Hillary. It doesn’t matter what AOC says or does, they’ll give her negative coverage. They’ll spend years doing this so when she finally does make a run for president their viewers will already have AOC=BAD baked in.
Hillary shot herself in the foot by holding repellent policies and abhorrent views even within her own party. She was pro-war well into the 2010s. She was Tough On Crime in the middle of BLM protest waves. She was chintzy and hyper-bureaucratic on public health care and education while she freely opened her wallet to mass surveillance and corporate bailouts. She demonstrated naked hostility to the LGBTQ community time and time again. She flaunted her wealth, constantly lied about her own historical record, surrounded herself with sycophants and scammers, and was the worst kind of sore loser.
That’s why Obama kicked the knees out from under her in 2008. And that’s why Donald Trump could casually outflank her on the left in 2016, by mouthing a few anti-war slogans, bullshitting about popular economic reforms, and hugging the Pride Flag. Hillary made the same stupid mistakes as Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and Harris in 2024. She desperately pandered to the Republican Establishment while expecting everyone to the left of John McCain to reflexively bend the knee.
I’m glad Hillary lost. I’m just sad she had to lose in the general, rather than scrubbing out in the primary a second time.
Compared to European politics, the USA doesn’t really have any “left”.
Most Democrats would be considered center-right in a lot of other countries.
Exactly. I would say Mamdani is “European kind of left” and he’s also really good at delivering his message. I totally get why he’s so popular. OAC is only OK but she really doesn’t have a lot of competition in Congress.
The thing that’s been striking me about Mamdani is that he’s reminding me of FDR, in that he’s so frequently talking to his constituents. The only other American politician I can think of that does that so much is trump. And the difference is Mamdani and Roosevelt maintain professionalism and focus on how they’re helping and acknowledging shared experience. Trump by contrast is totally unprofessional and has an incoherent message generally revolving around him being the best and people who dislike him being the worst.
I really think that Mamdani’s communication game is a vital lesson to learn for the dems. The policies are also important, you actually do have to help people. But you need to take credit, you need to keep them in the loop, and you need to give frequent updates.
The problem is dems don’t want to learn anything. They just want to play the role of controlled opposition, not actually do anything. If they win they will have to come up with excuses why they can’t do anything. A long as they are losing they just have to keep promising that they will fix things and keep asking for donations. Mamdani makes it all more difficult for them.
Hard-right even.
Were I live, Portugal, the policies of the Democrat Party are closest to those of a local party called Iniciativa Liberal (Liberal Initiative) who are considered Far-Right ultra Neoliberal (and were started by people with A LOT of money rather than being a naturally growing movement).
In most of Europe the mainstream parties (whether they used to be center-left or center-right) nowadays are Neoliberal, but the version of that ideology of the US Democract Party is harder than even the old center-right mainstream in Europe (which is how even an EU under a majority of the EPP - which are the EU level group of such parties - is still a lot more pro-consumer than the Democrats, though things have been getting worse).
She’s fine. There are definitely better orators. But she stays on message, advances popular policies, and is generally well-received by her constituents. There are plenty of other aspiring AOCs that don’t perform half as well. And you won’t be able to name them because they don’t win elected office - much less survive multiple hostile intra-party primary bids and smear campaigns - or fundraise effectively or get promoted via social media so aggressively.
There are definitely other people to promote. We just watched Graham Platner’s star rise largely on his personal charisma and ability to build a crowd. We’ve seen Al Franken and Anthony Weiner and John Edwards all come and go along similar trajectories. AOC might demonstrate better staying power simply because she’s not a giant sex pest.
Compared to Corbyn or Mélenchon or Reichinnek? I’d say she’s par for the course.
Absolutely. She’s a capable politician and party member. I just don’t think she deserved to get the kind of attention she’s getting. For example many people talk about presidency and I think she’s not even close to this level. There’s simply no one else out there.
Are you aware the current president is a child raping slob of an anti-intellectual?? Like nobody’s saying AOC is the new FDR but yeah she’s infinitely better than the current president.
A lot of it boils down to her fundraising numbers. Among all the members of The Squad, she outperforms to the point that the rest of the party needs to periodically come to her with hands out for a cup of money. That extends her influence within party leadership and allows her to effectively lobby for legislative amendments and rally support in her caucus to vote against certain other bills.
I think she’s better positioned to work on her bid in 2026 than Obama was twenty years earlier.
Of course, I also think she’d function better as a candidate for NY Governor. Building a hard base of DSA-aligned Democrats inside New York and advancing progressive policy at the state level sounds much more appealing than taking a stab at the White House, only to get the entire country’s problems dumped in your lap.
There’s Pritzker in Illinois and Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Mark Kelly of Arizona are also strong contenders. But, again, anyone taking the Presidency in 2028 is going to inherit an absolute shitshow. I wouldn’t want the job and I think you kinda have to be crazy if you do. I also don’t think AOC would do well under the degree of pressure the office will apply. You really need someone coming in there with a crowbar and an eye for kneecaps. That’s not her style of politics.
I could almost stomach four years of Gavin Newsom if I believed he’d spend his time running down Trump Admin hacks and bankrupting them. Where’s Elliot Spitzer when you need him? But I know Newsom would sell out twice as hard as Trump just to prove he’s better at it, so that’s a no-go.
I don’t think there are any good candidates for President in 2028, AOC included. But that’s more thanks to the deep endemic corruption of the office and the spinelessness of the Dem Party as a whole. If the only thing you care about is winning a popularity contest, though? AOC’s a top contender.
I don’t even think she would do well under the pressure of the presidential campaign.
100% agree. Ideally they would the couple of strong contenders for presidency and bunch of AOCs advancing things at a local level. The fact that people propose AOC for presidents shows how bad the state of the party is.
Why? She’s survived several republican smear campaigns that tried to make her the face of the party so they could beat the whole party, and she’s still going strong.
There’s nothing about AOC that makes me question her ability to handle pressure, especially in the face of sustained political smear campaigns.
It’s just my opinion but I don’t think she’s not a very good speaker and she’s not good at confronting people. In the hearings I’ve seen she’s usually very soft, can’t drive her message through and is unconvincing. Her nice, soft persona works great at local level where what she actually stands for matters more than theatrics but I don’t think that would be effective in a presidential debate.
It definitely shows how bad the state of the national news media is. We’re watching The Trump Show 24/7/365. I doubt one American in twenty could even name a Dem contender for President who hasn’t run already. One reason why Kamala Harris remains a front-runner on paper. Hell, you’ll see people talk about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama running again, purely because these are the only people whose names register.
But come primary season, that will change as contenders put more money and social pressure on boosting their own name recognition. This time next year, you’ll have a dozen different Dem contenders doing their warm-up laps around the field. If AOC isn’t running, I doubt she’ll be seriously missed.