1156
Bernie Sanders floats AOC as potential 2028 presidential contender: ‘Very good politician’
(www.latintimes.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
1156 points (98.6% liked)
politics
26179 readers
2554 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 saw this coming a mile away and I hope she does win the Presidential Election to break barriers and to end the nonsense going on currently.
Problem is the conservatives will argue/debate no woman should be in power followed by countless historical references to prove their point. Then someone will show even more historical references of conservatives causing twice to three times the issues. This will turn into one giant circle jerk of why they (conservative) won't listen to a woman when they don't even listen to their own parents.
The greater risk isn't misogynist republicans IMO, it's misogynist liberals who will cynically use her gender and ethnic background as examples of her unelectability instead of addressing their opposition to her populist agenda.
"I don't take issue wither her being a woman, but dumb rural americans will, so we can't nominate her"
Every time a populist candidate gains momentum in the democratic party, democrats suddenly become greatly concerned about electability. See: Obama, Sanders, Mamdani, Fatah, ect.
Maybe if democrats placed as much emphasis on a popular policy agenda as they do on identity, they wouldn't have as much of an electability problem.
Spot on.
See: This comment section. Same thing happened with Obama, same thing happened when Warren was briefly leading the 2020 primary. Demographic fretting always seems to go hand in hand with whether the candidate is talking about change.
It was wild seeing the libs blame lower turnout among black people for Hillary's loss.
At no point did they question what policies lowered turnout, or address that white people, including women, voted Trump.
It's wild until you realize just how fucked american electoral politics are.
Yep. I would love AOC to win but there's no chance in America for that to happen. Our populace is deranged.
The people who would especially hate her would never vote for a non-republican anyway so ya’ll just need to get over it and just go for all-in.
Utterly boring "safe" candidates on the supposed left is how we got here in the first place. Give me a straight-up Marxist, just not with that messaging. And who would they be running against, Vance? Ha
Tons of liberals would never vote for a Marxist
No. Liberals are all cowards and will just have to suck it up and vote D.
Catering to liberal cowardice does nothing to expand the electorate.
They're here on Lemmy saying they will only vote for a Marxist dream candidate. If the choice is MAGA fascism or an American neoliberal, they'll sit out.
Not what I said at all
Third female candidate in four election cycles. I dunno, feels like we are asking to lose. And again, I would love to vote for her. Just don't think the populace can muster it. I have lost all faith in Americans. The hope from Obama's terms is completely gone.
Yea, it wasn’t the support for genocide or the fact that she was running around with Liz Cheney for a lot of the campaign. Nope, it was all because she was a woman.
Be serious.
Trump was the alternative. Be serious.
It’s true, but we aren’t talking about that now are we? I imagine you’re trying to get at the fact that Trump is worse for Gaza and Liz Cheney is a “better” Republican?
There are/were a lot of people in the US who were/are getting incredibly fucking tired of the right-wingedneas of the Democratic primary. This party did not give them a primary to get to choose their candidate and then they ran a full-blown conservative who alienated their voter base to try to entice people out of a fucking cult. The Dems spat in the face of the people who wanted to vote for them while sucking off the people who would come to assassinate one of their reps and not give a shit about it.
It had nothing to do with her being a woman. Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton were conservatives and people are tired of handing over “wins by default” to those people. I mean, look at how both of them who “totally cared so much about the US” just immediately faded into the background except for a book deal and you can see immediately why no one was buying their garbage.
If you think that any kind of intellectual examination was part of people's decision making process last election, you are sorely mistaken. It really surprises me that on Lemmy, people think that 90% of voters even think about these things. They don't. And they won't. Look at the polling leading up to 2024. Harris was ahead for quite a bit. As the day got closer and Trump started running tabloid ads about trans and immigrants, the polls shifted.
The shift in polling had nothing to do with these nuanced takes about centrists and war hawks and corporate Democrats. Nothing. The masses voted based on last minute bigoted propaganda and claimed it was about the economy.
Your reasoning may apply in small, isolated circles. We are talking about the masses and no, I don't buy it. I've talked to too many people.
Ok so this still doesn’t say anything about her being a woman, though?
And you also seem to have missed that the start of her campaign was the whole “brat” thing and calling Republicans weird, a good debate, and a bunch of other great stuff and then as the months went on then she started hanging around with Cheney more than her own, well-liked, running mate, dodging Gaza questions, telling people that “the economy is good actually”, and dropping all the things she had been doing that really energized her voter base. She was building momentum and then it was so jarring how quickly she suddenly completely turned around on everything that was bringing her success.
No matter what she said about Gaza, it was going to be divisive for the Dems. The only part of American politics that view Gaza as a genocide are leftists. And leftists alone can't win a national election. We aren't there yet. What was she supposed to say? And on the economy, yes, she should have talked more about how the economy was good. How they had solved Trump's inflation. How their plans were bringing stability and growth to America. Because Trump had no plan. He had gibberish answers. Attack soundbites. Trump relied on his surrogates making his points for him. Still does.
I don't like it that she brought Cheney in. But anyone that saw that and decided not to vote for her has ensured whatever comes to pass. Up to and including absolute fascism and federal control of daily life.
If the left really wants a shot at changing things, the presidential election isn't where to do it. That would be the absolute last place for change. We need system reform to allow viable third party candidates. The two party system is the flaw. It is eroding our ability to vote for real candidates.
If the goalposts move any more then there isn’t gunna be a square inch of field left that’s not full of holes, holy hell, dude. Why are you so desperate for the problem to be that Harris was a woman? That was your original point, after all.
I don't think it's the singular issue but there are many, many people, male and female, that will not even consider a female candidate for president. With the social regression of MAGA, my concern is that the Overton window is moving too far to the right. I will happily vote for a female. I worry the populace won't. Hillary won the popular vote and lost in the electoral college thanks to swing districts going to Trump.
The fun thing about intersectionality is that you could also look at her as the first latina candidate
But looking at what her politics are is somehow never the consideration. In terms of platform, she could hardly be more distinct from either Clinton or Kamala. I like the odds of popular socialist policies much, much better than focus-group tested middling capitalist policies.
Most lemmings do. But it's about who can finish. I'll vote for the candidate furthest to the left for as long as I can.
Obama was charismatic. Clinton and Harris were not. That's the killer difference between them, not that "black/Muslim" was somehow an easier demographic to sell than "woman".
It literally was easier to sell. I dunno how much evidence Americans need to see before they understand that there is a strong bias against female leaders. Especially for president.. wild that so many on here think these are principled decisions people are making rofl.
She’d face the exact same misogyny that Harris did, the difference though would be she’d have a strong enthusiastic volunteer base behind her. I think if the election is fair she’d have very good odds.
We tried Clinton. We tried Harris. I know the conditions are different, but do we really want to risk it when abject fascism is the consequence?
We tried neoliberal. We tried neoliberal. Can we really risk it when fascism is the consequence?
Notice how you only focus on a single one of their shared characteristics to say it's too risky?
Acting like the average American even knows what a neoliberal is. Lol!
They didn't know terminology. They know it's boring and doesn't help them.
You're making my point for me while trying to be contrarian.
Running a milqtoast centrist is just fascism with extra steps. They will do nothing of substance and then people will vote for fascists to enact change.
I agree but the issue isn't what is right. It's about getting the candidate over the finish line.
I'm not going to go for fascism with extra steps when there is even the slightest chance of something better.
So when the primary is done and the candidates are a centrist vs fascist, you're going to sit out?
Not at all, but in the primary I'm going to vote for a social Democrat over a centrist.
Same. And I've said the same several times. I'll vote leftist as far as I can. But in the end, we need a leftist coalition around whoever the candidate is. We have to stop the GOP. People that think this will be some chance to make a wild swing to the left really need to curb their expectations.
My expectations could not be lower. I'll be eatatic if nobody has tried to put me in a camp by 2035.
I think having an authentic populist voice is more important than any race or gender considerations. We simply don’t have another candidate that can do this as credibly as AOC. I think if she runs, in the primary, she’ll handily beat out Newsom, Pritzker or any other white guys in the party who are in a position to run.
Yes!? Clinton was the worst possible candidate for that election and Harris just isn't a good politician and was utterly sabotaged from Biden among other things waiting waaaaay too long to drop out.
Quit with this shit. Hillary won the popular vote, America will vote for a woman.
Hillary won the popular vote and still lost in a system where the popular vote doesn't matter. We have a rigged system. I voted for Hillary. It's not that I don't have faith in our candidates. I don't have faith in the system and my fellow Americans.
Hillary won the popular vote as a bland corporate candidate.
Seriously. A bland corporate candidate who gave the opposition two decades of lead time to build up an opposition strategy. One of the worst candidates to have run of all time.
Hillary won the popular vote and people fucking hated her.
Not where it counts.