For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
If there's one politician who I'm confident will somehow grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, it's AOC
She will do a 
outside Gaza last minute blaming Hamas.
I really hate that it's women who keep doing this consistently, but let's face it. Trump never won a election, Hillary and Kamala threw elections.
She is fundamentally the front runner for 2028. The republicans will lose in a landslide unless they do some crazy electoral fuckery that it’s seeming they don’t have the juice for, and no other dems have any motion at all.
She’s consistently one of the most popular politicians in the country, especially on the Dem side. She’s positioned as a party outsider (whether that’s justified or not) and the base hates the party establishment. The median Democrat wants Chuck Schumer to commit sepuku on CNN.
Who are her opponents even? Gruesome Gavin is the Dem Ron DeSantis, and is completely dead in the water outside of California. Pete Buttigieg has never received a single vote from a black person. Ro Khanna only appeals to people that prefer AOC. Josh Shapiro is a mega zionist who personally covered up a murder, both things that will end is campaign on day 1 (it’s honestly hilarious he even thinks it’s a remote possibility).
Is there anyone I’m missing?
I think the Dems will ratfuck her because:
she has stood within a mile of a principle at some point in her life
she's not from one of the anointed political families
they just love to lose
Why would the dems ratfuck latinx Obama? She's betrayed every value she ever pretended to have and will do their bidding. They will run her so they can sell fascism to socdems, who will call us ultras or tankies or campists for pointing out her complicity in the genocidal colonial mass-murder of Palestinians.
Would re-running the Obama strategy even work now? The conditions are a lot different, it's not a sure thing. Although it might still be their best option.
Unpopular war in West Asia
Crumbling economic conditions
Financial catastrophe looming
What wakmrow said. I call herObama because she's an unprincipled opportunist like him, but tbh he has far better political instincts and charisma than she. The strategy isn't hope and change, the strategy is stabbing the left in the back in order to advance fascism
Ya, I think he's way better at switching between the aesthetics of progressivism and "reasonable centrism" than she is. She always does each switch at the worst time, except for her initial run that got her the seat. That game also plays a lot better during the conditions of 2008-2012 than it does now.
Oh yeah in no way am I ruling out a ratfucking, but still she is the front runner and they’ll need to ratfuck her if they want someone else.
Her opponent is herself. I can fully imagine AOC being convinced that she should settle for vice and run for president in 2036.
And honestly, despite my many issues with her, it would be the best thing to happen in this country in half a century. It would be the first President since WW2 who thought we should improve things somewhat, so fuck it I’ll take it. Someone who doesn’t think everything should and must get worse for everyone forever is a huge improvement over anything I’ve seen in my life.
IDK having someone like AOCIA in office is a great way to do something unpopular with little backlash, since most in that coalition just shut up instead mounting any opposition. Happens every time we have a succdem/green coalition in Germany. Something something only Nixon could go to China.
Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but isn't Obama an example of a president who thought (or at least said he thought) we should improve things somewhat? I definitely remember thinking "oh maybe things will improve once he's in office!". They didn't, of course, and I was a sucker for ever thinking they would. But still, it seems to me that Obama did exactly what AOC would do: promise that things will improve slightly if she's elected and then be unable (or unwilling) to actually change anything
And honestly, despite my many issues with her, it would be the best thing to happen in this country in half a century
If she were to win, it would be because the bourgeoisie would be engaging in an embracing and subsequent extinguishing of the nascent Socialist movement in the US.
Large swathes of DSA hate AOC at this point, and for good reason, but if the right opportunists get their way, and AOC wins, I think DSA and co. go belly up. It's not a mature enough org to mobilize to influence a president and AOC is too embedded in centrist liberal hegemony to be the bull in the imperial china shop that a truly left wing president would need to be.
CIA vs 
CIA vs 
CIA.
What wonderful menu selection
If AOC against odds actually came into office in '29, and at best dems win a simple majority in Congress because the electoral map deck is so stacked, they still have to contend with a 6-3 conservative supreme court plus thousands of conservative justices in the system, a gigantic fully funded immigration terror apparatus, completely stripped to the bone non-functional institutions, and countless EOs and bills to overturn or replace.
In the most rosy scenario a progressive wing works with the moderates to rollback or fix, what... 25% of all of this?
The ratchet effect is an easy go to and I almost referred to it myself, but its a very non materialist framing. I think a better explainer is how the contradictions of liberalism cannot hold and eventually come undone.
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
The materialist understanding of this is that both the democratic and republican party are the same class and simply use this strategy for optics and manufacturing consent.
A ratchet cannot move the other direction, so I do not believe that this implies that the parties are active players in politics and that the democrats could move left even if they wanted to.
If only we had any historical examples of what happens after a reformist social democratic movement attempts to resolve the contradictions and is stopped by reactionary forces
fix, what... 25% of all of this?
My best case scenario is 8%. During the first half of AOC's term she and the dems do a half-assed ~5%. By design a lot of what they do requires something unrealistic: a dem house and senate for 4 years for them to finish the job. But the norm is that the president's party does poorly in midterms. But we'll assume the dems are strong for four years. They do 10% but GOP SCOTUS throws a lot of sand in the gears so only 8% can be accomplished.
A more realistic situation 5+%. During AOC's entire term - GOP SCOTUS does it sand in the gears gag. The dems lose the house or the senate (both?) in the midterms. They do 3% more in AOC's last two years. The math is 8% minus GOP SCOTUS' sand.
In either case the immigration terror apparatus maybe gets a 10% cut in funding from $250B to $225B. And the dems and AOC didn't pack the court. A GOP president in 2032 has those tools right at hand the day after their inauguration.
they won’t fix anything, they will just say they fixed 8%