1163
Bernie Sanders floats AOC as potential 2028 presidential contender: ‘Very good politician’
(www.latintimes.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
1163 points (98.6% liked)
politics
26209 readers
2604 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure she has the thunder she had in 2018. BUT If she calls for a general strike in the next 6 weeks, and then starts to be the lead organizer of said strike, she's my gal. I really hope she learns from Bernie in specifically how he's organized his national campaigns.
2018 was different I don't blame her for being more outspoken then. I agree with the other commentor that she should run for senate. She' make an excellent senate majority leader. If there's still no female president by 2036 she'd probably be a layup at that point.
I don't share the view that sexism is what is blocking a female president in the US; I think being an inauthentic corporate sellout is what has, so far, blocked a female president in the US. So that doesn't factor in for me.
2028, should there be an election, is 100% in play for AOC.
And that actually is my biggest concern with AOC. Pelosi worked hard, from 2018-2020 to ice the FUCK out of AOC. And AOC stayed strong and outspoken. In fact, AOC in some ways was representing real leadership. When AOC ran again, won again, Pelosi instead of resisting, worked to bring her into the fold. And the strength of AOC's rhetoric has diminished substantially. And AOC has become less and less outspoken and willing to target Democrats with criticism and become more and more of a "team player". Now I'm not saying AOC is cooked, but she's definitely on the stove.
She'll be a career politician no matter what. We'll see what that means for her over time.
Me neither. 2036 is 3 elections away. Not exactly a long shot that the next 2 will be won by men. All I'm saying is that she'd probably be more effective in the senate (especially as leader) for the next decade and she's young enough for a presidential run later.
She'd be empowered as SML and given her aptitude that's why I think she'd be a layup for first female president afterwards.
Seems like the core argument is that AOC should wait a few cycles.
I question the strength of that argument given the nature of her approach to politics and our current/ ongoing political moment. She doesn't get stronger as a candidate with time she gets weaker, more associated with the establishment.
The outsider lane is the strongest right now and it's hers to take in 2028. Neither Pritzker or Newsom can take that lane. Why wait?
The core of my argument is that the senate needs AOC more than the executive branch. America needs functional legislatures more than the ideal commander and chief. Americans have fixated on the presidency for generations at the expense of functional house/senate/courts.
Because the senate is the real bottleneck; as we saw during Obama/Biden. Meanwhile 2028's presidential race is a referendum on democracy regardless of who the DNC puts forward.
The core of your argument seems to place a higher priority on AOC winning the presidency than the actual outcomes. I'm arguing for what I see as best for USA, not AOC.
Given her aptitude I think she could win in the senate and would be an excellent majority leader. AOC would also not be required to resign as senate majority leader to run for president. IMO she's one of the few people that could effectively campaign while maintaining her senate duties.
The higher priority is in winning the presidency, and regardless of what the constitution once said it was interpreted to mean, having an executive with the same political and ethical priorities as myself is of the highest priority. This is coupled with them being of the kind of person, like FDR, who be willing to assert the kind of executive authority established under Trumpism.
It is now established in the US that both the Congress and the judiciary are secondary authorities to the executive branch.
A meek, milquetoast Democrat, or a greasy centrist, or yet another billionaire, taking office and just trying to glaze over and return to a neo liberal business as usual would be disastrous for this country. We need bold reforms and it's not going to come through the legislative when the scope of executive powers have been expanded as such There are plenty of adequate Democrats to fill this Senate seat, it's not one that the DNC is at risk of losing. Democrats, however, have not been effective at winning the presidency.
AOC being effective 20 years from now is of almost no value because timing is everything. Also, it's clear to me that Bernie has been grooming her for a Presidential run now for several years. He's handing off the reigns to the movement he built. AOC has been tossed around as a potential presidential candidate since her first upset. She the obvious progressive pick.
Right now in the mix for 2028 the three names available to you are Newsom, Pritzker, and AOC. There are boomers and Jefferies and Buttegiegs of the world that might throw their names in, but they are way lower down the tier list.
Your perspective seems to be based largely out of parochial thinking that you know best where AOCs skills and aptitudes should be deployed, and that the"true power" of the government lay in the Senate. I don't think your opinions are with soit because you are ignoring the entirety of the context of the current political landscape and the entire redefinition of the structure of power which has happened under Trump. Thankfully though, like I'll be doing, opinions like yours will be recognized as the anachronism that they are by the politically savvy, this be dutifully ignored.
lmao k
sorry for having a different opinion than you. jfc buddy wtf.
Its important to be dismissive of things which should be dismissed.
Indeed which is why I'm going to ignore your shitty attitude, your dishonest framing and strawmanning of my arguments, and the pathetic ad hominims that you likely practiced in the shower living alone cuz you're insufferable.
Digging past your terrible communication style...
I think the root of our disagreement isn't so much the candidates as much as which direction the government needs to go. Cuz I completely agree with what you've said about everyone except Prizker cuz I don't know who that is (I'm Canadian FYI)
I think spending a decade restoring the balance between the executive and other branches is the best path forward.
You seem to have the perspective that given the consolidation of executive branch power the path forward is to use that immediately to affect change.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Because if AOC ran, and I could vote for her, I would 100% support her over anyone else.
But strategically speaking, given what I believe is the best path forward, it makes sense to consider a strategy where she unclogs the shitty senate.
So it makes sense if your solution to senate gridlock is the reduce their power, you would advocate AOC run for president no matter what.
....
See we can have this conversation without you being a cunt about it.
Yes, because you have a terrible read of politics and this political moment. Your view is an anachronism and its incredibly important that people learn to ignore and dismiss views like yours. Its this exact kind of trepidation that leads to candidates like Hillary 16, Biden 24, Schumer, Jeffries: Its a failed approach to electoralism, and while it was the dominant paradigm for several decades (77-2008), its now a knife that cuts against a party or candidates or political movements ability to win.
And, the most important thing we can be doing right now is shuttting down people who approach politics from this angle. They are incredibly dangerous to the ability for the Democratic party to win. They get to split the difference between "caution" which always comes across as being more reflective, yet never having to show the receipts for their approach.
I can tell you this, that its not on accident, and if you want to have a conversation on the effectiveness of approach we can, but I consider it an aside to this current topic. I consider your approach to be the most significantly harmful thing to American politics, in existence, after it handed the presidency to Trump in 2016. Trump and other fascists are some of the most beatable candidates in the history of elections, but this anachronistic perspective, its literally the only thing they can beat. So its not just a matter of how well discourse follows the polities of the past; its that an approach to politics which continues to fuel fascism is incredibly dangerous, and needs to be pushed back on with the most extreme dialectic possible. Gloves are off.
You don't know Pritzker so you obviously only have a superficial understanding of the political landscape (genuinely surprising because he's in the news constantly right now). Its also clear that you are operating under an understanding of politics and electorism that loses elections. Its a species level threat to continue operating under that perspective. Expect incredible push-back when your viewpoint inadvertently sponsors fascism.
To the matter at hand:
You don't/ won't have the time. You are talking about a kind of long-term political project that takes decades. And the powers that be which you are advocating for, have already had decades to do so and have done nothing. So your argument is effectively the same as every other liberal, which is "use the system, trust the process, give it time". However, it is now clear that time is working against us. And this is an example of the exact kind of anachronism I'm talking about. Its an assumption about mechanisms and abilities a party might have had in the US system 30-40 years ago, but which simply isn't present in the current moment.
No I'm acknowledging the reality of the political moment and the total restructuring of power which happened from 2000- now. The fact is that both the judiciary and the legislative have handed the executive basically unlimited power. There is no power in the senate or the house at this point. You want to make changes? You need the executive and not much more.
Bold move cotton.
That's for you and your much needed therapist to discuss.
I just can't take you seriously because all of your assertions are just appeals to authority with no arguments or evidence to back them up. Never mind your laughably incorrect assertions about me and my perspective.
Like explain how doubling down on the consolidation of executive power mitigates the rise of fascism?
Jfc you are not only insufferable with a utterly terrible political read, you also lack reading comprehension.
I'm not making a judgement about the consolidation of executive power: I'm accepting where things actually are instead of the fantastic world you wish existed. The fact is the US government in the previous 20 years has transformed such that there is an exceptional consolidation of power in the executive. That simply is.
Then you try and misrepresent it as advocacy.
AND THIS is why I approach these conversations these ways, because it gets you to put yourself on display. You've got nothing when it comes to the merits and when your bag of tricks trying to fool people is empty, you go back to personal attacks.
Its exactly why people need to dismiss you.
I sort of agree, but there is definitely enough sexism to knock off a couple percentage points. It's possible to win and AOC has the right populist appeal that might actually get her elected, but both her gender and her latine name will give her more work than a cishet white man.
These aren't barriers, but the are hurdles.
Our greatest recent win was with a black man with a Muslim name. Charisma and idealistic policy are way more important factors than all these excuses the centrists are throwing around now that the female nominee might not be a neoliberal. The same "but whatabout vagina" hand wringing surged when Warren was briefly leading the primary. And the same deferral to whatever prejudices are convenient to the end goal were brought out against Obama.
The same people promoting moderate Republican sensitivities as our guiding light are the ones who keep running shitty candidates and losing. They don't know how to win elections.
I agree. That's why AOC should focus on policies instead of identity politics. Because what I said is also true
Edit: I'm not saying she's doing that, but dems have a history of trying and failing to fight cons on those terms
Who else would you vote for? Or are you employing you won't vote for the DNC in the general?
Right now I'm still trying to find someone to primary this fucking cunt, Ed Case. I had a line on someone in the first, but they're now moving to Portugal. I've put out feelers to Tyler Dos-santos, but like, I'm pretty sure Tyler thinks he's going to be governor and isn't willing to fight Case. I've reached out to some a kanaka lawyer only to find out that her family is close family friends with Case.
Then there is this shit-bird: https://ballotpedia.org/Samantha_DeCorte
I'm trying to figure out if Desire Desoto is running. She came close but fell short and we ended up with a MAGA rep. Kanaka maoli are very pro-Trump.
You interpreting anything I said through that lens means your brain is fucking broken and need to step back from politics. Fuck off with any even fucking hinting of blue-maga bullshit that handed Trump the election.
I had a bit of a typo there, idk why midterms was on my mind.
There are just so damn many psyop bastards trying to convince leftists not to vote for the DNC that I have to be suspicious of everyone.