AOC For President 2028

[SSJVegeta]

She's on FIRE!!!!!

LIVE in Tucson
https://www.youtube.com/live/2novTivLL84?si=-l6IfhEocj05GKbI


Should AOC run for President?

202 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	64 (32%)
	No
	129 (64%)
	Unsure
	9 (4%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[RubyRose]

1. Too soon. She's young and needs to win at least

One state-wide race to be ready.

[SSJVegeta]

10. I disagree. I think the main qualification for electability is whether they get elected

She can run and fail, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't run. She can also run and win -and for somebody with her character, values and integrity, definitely means she should have run.

All of preconceived understandings of how politics should be over th last 50 years has been turned on its head.

We also have had a handful of presidents who have been elected never having held statewide offices.

[Ars Longa]

74. "We also have had a handful of presidents who have been elected never having held statewide offices".

"We also have had a handful of presidents who have been elected never having held statewide offices."

>Trump

[SSJVegeta]

91. . ...HW, Ford, Eisenhower, Arthur, Garfield, Grant, AND wait for it...

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

[NoRethugFriends]

54. Why in the world does she need to do that?

[SSJVegeta]

89. 💯

[displacedvermoter]

2. Not yet.

Speaker AOC has a wonderful ring, though.

[CincyDem]

3. I love AOC. She's gonna dare the shit outta many west of the Hudson.

I also love pelosi and I would like to see AOC become the most influential successful house speaker we’ve ever seen.

I love AOC but I worry she won’t garner a broad enough national coalition. I’d like to see her shift the post Trump nexus of power from the Oval to the speaker’s office. I think she could do that and change the country (for the better).

[Tribetime]

4. Yes Yes snd Yes

We need a strong voice now more than ever. Someone that can go on Fox and kick their ass.

[Celerity]

5. Too soon. She should be Speaker of the House or Minority Leader first.

She would be far better in leading the fight against Trump than 'God Is Still On The Throne' Jeffries.

[SSJVegeta]

14. Those roles would be wasted on her as shes way too charismatic

IMHO

[bif]

6. Absolutely not!

Unfortunately, the country will never elect a female president. Ever.

[serbbral]

81. I disagree

Like the saying goes, never is such a long time. I don't think we will have a female President any time soon, not in my lifetime, but I would not say NEVER or EVER.

[mvd]

7. I'm saying yes but we'll see

Perhaps she’ll run for Senator from NY first. Lot of time.

[Chasstev365]

8. Problematic

I personally love the style and fearlessness of AOC. She has more guts than most male Democrats in Congress and her "radical leftness" would have be considered mainstream Democratic Party views in the 1960's.

However, the only reason Trump won in 2024 is due to racism and sexism. Harris ran a great campaign, but the media held get to a higher standard and people were willing to put the treasonous convicted rapist back in office over a minority woman.

Why would it be any different with AOC? In fact, she would be treated far worse than Harris.

[H2O Man]

30. You raise an

important point per racism and sexism. But even if we run a white man, we will not get the votes of the racist and sexist shitheads.

I think the real question is if we run a candidate who appeals to independents (there are more of them than Democrats), or if for the third time since 2016, the campaign attempts to appeal to republicans (there are less of them than Democrats). I know some think bringing the pre-corpse of war criminal Dick Cheney was inspirational in the 2024 campaign. And still others think that AOC -- even more than Cheney -- could appeal to independents/ young voters.

[leftstreet]

49. That's not why Trump won

He won because Harris lost

Harris lost because several million reliably Democratic voters failed to show up

Any Democratic candidate hoping to win will need POLICIES that draw those voters back

[serbbral]

85. And why didn't they show up?

I think the reason why they didn't show up was because they did not want to vote for Trump, nor the democratic candidate because she was a woman AND a woman of color. I think so many do not want to admit that racism and sexism played a BIG part in the election. This is why I practically stopped watching the news, particularly, cable news after the election. I got so sick of everyone saying it was because of the economy, because in Trump's previous presidency, the economy was so good (which by the way was Obama's economy which Trump seems to have received the credit). If they were not saying that, it was the Democrats should have done this or should have done that or they did not do this enough or that enough. Many of us think it would not have mattered what the Dems would have done because many had already made up their minds once the candidate was chosen.

[skylucy]

88. Sadly, I agree with you. There is a reason why there has never been a woman president and it is not because there

weren't smart, capable women who could do the job. I fervently hope that someday it will happen, but it won't be in 2028. The misogyny runs deep in our country, as does the racism.

[Walleye]

102. I agree completely. I have voted every chance I got for a woman for president. If we nominate a woman , we will lose

[Ping Tung]

9. Yes. We need to resist Trump&Thugs with a strong opponent. Politics As Usual is over.

[red dog 1]

12. Absolutely!

[zappaman]

13. Love her!

She's great but would lose if she got the nomination.
Sorry, but it's true.
She's been painted as a radical leftist and even worse, she's a *GASP* woman.
I'd like to see her run for Senate though. I have a feeling she could beat Schumer

[SSJVegeta]

15. Believe it or not, she has incredible crossover appeal with her message

Polls indicated she had a ton of Trump voters vote for her in 2024. It was confusing to her, so she asked many why: the answer (more or less)? Those labels as a "radical leftist" haven't exactly stuck beyond a relatively small core group of extreme Trump loyalists.

https://newrepublic.com/post/188248/2024-election-voters-democrat-trump-aoc-split-ticket

[yellow dahlia]

34. She also needs to expand her profile and increase her creds.

Being a strong communicator is only one of the many skills needed in the repertoire of a president of any merit.

Right now the first priority is trying to save this Democracy, And then figure out how to have a fair and unrigged election. And then to run a candidate that can't be explained away by possible excuses for a loss...a true mandate.

And then we need to shore up the election system so the RepugliCONS can't gerry mander, voter purge, interfere, or rig again.

Right now - we need to play to everyone's strengths...not put people on a pedestal because they have charm or mystique. This is an all hands on deck moment. It requires levels of strategy that won't be easy.

[NoRethugFriends]

55. " She also needs to expand her profile and increase her creds." What in the world does that mean?

[yellow dahlia]

75. Expand her profile: become well versed in a variety of topics.

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2025, 10:55 PM - Edit history (2)

Increase her credentials = get experience in things she needs to learn more about.

Here are a few examples:

Chair some committees.

Serve on more committees and expand her knowledge, about things she is unfamiliar with such as foreign affairs.

Spend more time in Congress.

Get some executive experience.

Prove herself through solving problems, not just being a good communicator.

She has a lane right now, and she is good at it. That does not mean she can hold her own with complicated matters of state. We have had plenty of presidents who were lacking in this area - we don't need any more, right now.

Right now, we need to save our Democracy, and I believe she has the energy and presence to be a great messenger in that effort. If we have a (close to) free and fair election in 2028, the Dems cannot take any chances - they need to run a shoe-in. It has the be an obvious mandate, or it is easier to "steal".

[NoRethugFriends]

84. You are making a hell of a lot of judgements about her current capabilities without any justification.

[yellow dahlia]

86. I am calling it like I see it.

AOC has never chaired a committee.

She has never been Governor, or held any position of executive power.

She has no foreign relations experience. It has been a short-coming of other previous presidents and we (and others) have paid a price. Eg: Crimea

Just because AOC is a good communicator, does not automatically mean she has other completely different skill sets, grown of completely different experiences.

I repeat myself - "If we have a (close to) free and fair election in 2028, the Dems cannot take any chances - they need to run a shoe-in. It has the be an obvious mandate, or it is easier to steal".

This is not a reality tv show. This is reality, and we are on a precipice. People need to pay attention. Respectfully, you are misguided. I do not criticize others on this platform - I offer facts and observations and well considered commentary. I consider it inappropriate to call me judgmental, as a pejorative, just because you don't like my observations.

I don't offer observations without analysis and background, to back it up.

Every Dem needs to bring their A game. Right now we have to focus on the emergency at hand. Bernie and AOC and Chris Murphy and Jamie Raskin and a few others are doing just that. This has to be a team effort.

There is not a beautiful Barbarian Queen on a unicorn who is going to save this party, and our Democracy, and our asses right now.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

48. Biden and Harris and every Dem ever is painted a radical leftist.

And the leftists know that's bullshit, of course, but the Republican always bite. We need someone to bring in the young vote.

[Bettie]

16. I love AOC

she would be a great president. She's smart, she's willing to learn, but, she's still a woman and our country overall hates women far too much for there to ever be a woman as president.

Not in my lifetime anyway and I'm not even 60 yet.

[PBC_Democrat]

17. She needs to prove that she can win outside of her safe district

Her district is dark blue and she can be a bomb-thrower and worry about any meaningful opposition.

I'll need to see some evidence that she can work with the entire Democratic party and show some leadership.

Once she does that - she'll have matured into an excellent candidate.

Remember, except for the electoral college Sec Clinton won the election. 80,000 votes in different states and her >7 million vote margin would have been plenty. I don't believe that misogyny is a major barrier.

[soldierant]

18. It isn't too soon for her - but it's way too soon for the country.

Unfortunately, misogyny rules. Ans at 79 I am SO, SO tried of seeing talented, competent, professional, extraordinary women get sacrificed on the altar of - whatever altar is i that gives democrats thw illusion that this time we can overcome it..

If you keep walking down the same street and keep falling into the same hole, it's time to walk down a different street - preferably one which doesn't have holes.

I hope she will be President some day. But I will not see it. There is a lot of work to be done before it can possibly happen. And considering we are apparently losing the Education Department, that work will be harder than ever to do. It cannot wait until people are grown=ass adults with ingrained biases.

[Hekate]

26. You and me both, and I'm getting closer to your age every year...

We’ve already got DUers tearing down potential candidates who actually stand a chance of winning. All Democrats, by the way.

And what are they proposing instead? A man of almost 90 who has been clear his whole life that he is not a Democrat and that he is above all that, and/or a charismatic young liberal Dem who is both female and brown.

This is a strategy? For what end?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

66. I'll guess...

...a strategy that ensures another Republican/MAGAt victory.

[soldierant]

72. It's probably a strategy

for giving the finger to MAGA. Which is a futile goal because they will not learn a thing from it, and instead will rejoice in drinking liberal tears.

[yellow dahlia]

35. Yup.

The definition of insanity...blah blah blah.

[SSJVegeta]

50. Its never too soon

But it could be too late.

[Oopsie Daisy]

19. Absolutely not! What value she does have is best used in Congress.

She's "popular" in a very blue district and when speaking to friendly self-selecting crowds. Her brand could never carry a flat or square or "flyover" state. What plays well in her home district (or even in Vermont) would not win over voters in Peoria. She's adored by those who are furthest left, but there aren't enough of those folks to even give her the nomination, much less to win a national election. I say leave well enough alone and let her "do her thing".

[AZProgressive]

21. Over 15,000 came out to see her in a swing state

It was a very multi-generational and multi-ethnic working class crowd. They also drew over 30,000 in the square state of Colorado and I would say the reason why they are drawing big crowds is because she is a star attraction.

Also she has advantages Mitt Romney wishes he had when he ran.

[Oopsie Daisy]

22. Self-selecting crowds. Bernie had crowds like that in the past, but he still failed to secure the party's nomination.

>> Over 15,000 came out to see her in a swing state
That's nice, but crowd size is not an indication of anyone's electability. There were many more who DID NOT show up.

[AZProgressive]

23. The crowds Bernie is drawing are larger than the crowds he drew when he actually ran for President

I almost did not show up myself because of parking availability but luckily I was able to find parking. There were many thousands that wanted to go but there wasn't enough room for them or they knew there would be overflow crowds.

His Las Vegas crowd was the largest he ever drew in Nevada and he won that state by a lot. The crowd he drew in Greg Stanton's district was impressive. I have never seen anything like that except for ASU football gamedays.

[Oopsie Daisy]

24. I have no way to confirm if that's true. Unless he's running again, I do not see the relevance of that comparison.

He won Nevada by "a lot" but still failed to secure the party's nomination. Also, Nevada is a caucus state. He performs poorly in states where the vote is secret and can vote throughout the day rather than only at a certain time. Caucus states are rather disenfranchising to many voters (ie: people who work, or need to arrange child care, or cannot attend the caucus events for obvious reasons.)

[AZProgressive]

29. There was one point where Bernie Sanders was favored to win all 50 states

He won the popular vote in the first 3 states but Biden won South Carolina which was a 3-way race with Steyer but Biden attacked him over his investments in private prisons which helped him win the state and when the party saw he had the best chance of beating Bernie the rest of the party coalesced behind Biden by Super Tuesday. Sanders still won states like California and Colorado on Super Tuesday but I always felt like winning a primary was more difficult than winning a general election because primary voters care about winning rather than policy. In 2020 the exit polls in the first 4 states showed that medicare for all was winning the primary but people preferred Biden because he felt like he had the best chance of beating Trump so I do agree winning the primary is the bigger obstacle.

[Oopsie Daisy]

33. No he wasn't. The early caucus states were advantageous.

And that's all. There was no way he was ever going to win the nomination. He failed to do so twice, and there is no reason to believe that he would succeed in a third try.

[Nixie]

42. California was split because the businessman Bloomberg

was in the primary. Biden and Bloomberg combined beat Bernie in California, so his California win was a fluke.

[yellow dahlia]

37. Exactly. We need to play to peoples' strengths.

She is great in Congress...and great in committee.

[lapucelle]

43. A good next step would be to run for and win a Congressional Democratic Caucus-wide secret ballot vote

for ranking member or (hopefully in 2026) chair of a committee or subcommittee.

[Oopsie Daisy]

44. A very reasonable reply, indeed.

Unfortunately it seems that many enthusiasts want to just skip right to the end and hand over the presidency, as if it's her turn, because she's most like Bernie, or something. I can't see her winning a national race, or even a statewide race outside of her very blue and very friendly district. She's fine where she is.

[yellowdogintexas]

59. that in fact is the logical first step and that will inevitably happen. The same thing goes for Jasmine Crockett

and a few other of these young firebrand House members.

It all really depends on her own ambitions. Maybe the Executive branch is not what she wants.

[uponit7771]

20. Hell no, show she can win a state wide race first ...BIR NO DOUBT she should be DNC face person

[ForgedCrank]

25. That would

be an excellent way to lose even more spectacularly than last time.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. No thank you

[H2O Man]

28. Recommended.

I'd love to campaign and vote for her. But I don't think she will run yet.

[LoisB]

31. 2028 is too soon.

[pinkstarburst]

32. Yes. I think 2028

will be a change election. I think democrats want to feel like they have a voice. Right now, she and Bernie are resonating because they are fighting back and they are giving people hope.

[Meadowoak]

36. Nope, unfortunately, in this country, we can't get a woman

Elected POTUS. We've tried twice, had excellent candidates both times, all the media could talk about, "was her cackle". Nope, fool me once, it means you can't get fooled again. I'll be voting for a white man, that's the only way we can win.

[calguy]

80. That's the way I see it, too

The two women we ran were more highly qualified than most male candidates, and they were both beaten by the the worst, least-qualified candidate in history, but still, trump eeked out narrow victories both times. What that tells me is that voters don’t want a woman president, no matter how smart she is, and no matter how dumb their opponent was. I’m 74 years old, and I would have hoped that by now the country could accept a female in the White House, but I don’t think it’s even possible in my lifetime.
That is why, no matter how much I might like her, I cannot vote for a woman presidential candidate. Nothing at all against women. It’s a matter of winning and losing.

[Bluestocking]

106. A man

I believe a non white man can win. Obama did it twice. Doesn’t matter what kind of man as long as not a woman. We already know a convicted felon, rapist, pedophile man can be elected twice. Both Harris and Clinton did exceptional in the debates but still lost to a convicted felon, rapist, pedophile man. Women are held to a higher standard and when they meet that standard they still lose. US voters are fucked in the head.

[TheProle]

38. Many hats in the ring in primary season

Stimulates dialogue and exposes voters to a broader range of viewpoints.

If she wants to give it a go, I’m all for it.

[Frasier Balzov]

39. She will make every other candidate better if she runs.

[Renew Deal]

40. No, but she should run for senate

Whether Schumer runs or doesn't.

[Xolodno]

41. The GOP will have a field day with her.

Democratic Socialist - and they will drop the Democratic part out and focus on the S word. Fox and right wing media will whip the fear into everyone and compare her to Lenin and Mao (granted they were communists and not socialists)

Female - Que dog whistle that a woman belongs in the kitchen and should be barefoot and pregnant. Oh and giving their husband breakfast in bed.

Hispanic - Que a ton of dog whistles of racism.

Add to that, she needs to have a state wide race under her belt or have some major role in the House of Rep.

However, I can tell she has bigger aspirations and she should continue on those goals. Once all the GOP Boomers die off, who knows.

[Emile]

62. Sounds like Chuck Schumer would be your perfect candidate.

[Xolodno]

65. Don't get me wrong.

I like the idea. Bernie Sanders run in the primaries in the past proves we can go left....if the right things are said. She will be ready eventually. But I don't know about you, I want to make sure we beat the shit out them the next time.

I'm leaning towards Newsom. He knows how to navigate the crazy and as much to the angst of people here about giving air time to right wingers, its a smart move. He's hitting them now, right in their face and pounding them. He won't get that chance during a campaign mode and try to falsely define him. They are afraid of him. I don't think his podcast will last much longer as they will eventually boycott him. They are on there now because they think they can beat him and discovering, they can't. We've had two Republican Governors from California, I think we are overdue for a Democratic one.

Often many here complain we don't take it to the GOP and fight. And then someone does and we complain that we give them air time. Which is it?

[Nanjeanne]

45. I love her. She's going to be great for the Party. But 2028 isnt the right year for her.

[Rob H.]

46. I'd vote for her

but there’s a cohort of Democrats who don’t trust anyone born after the invention of the hula hoop who’d do their level best to ensure she doesn’t get the nomination should she decide to run. And if she says anything even mildly critical of Israel’s policies, her primary opponents would find themselves suddenly buried up to their eyebrows in campaign funds courtesy of AIPAC; there are also Democrats who would have no problem with that.

[SSJVegeta]

47. It's a tough battle but a necessary one

For whoever is willing to take it on. Frankly somebody must

[J_William_Ryan]

51. What's truly sad and tragic

is that Democrats can’t nominate for president a woman of color because of the fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, misogyny, and hate of far too many voters.

[DonCoquixote]

57. nods

"because of the fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, misogyny, and hate of far too many voters."

Many of whom are sadly democrats who should KNOW BETTER

[Baron2024]

52. AOC Is Great

But she is too young I think. I would like to see her as the Senator from New York first. She has a long career ahead of her.

[Bonx]

53. She'll have the opportunity.

[NoRethugFriends]

56. The results are in.

Liberal Youtubers all say no.

[synni]

58. I love her, HOWEVER....

We can't risk losing again because of the inherent sexism and racism in America. Let's run one more white guy, and then run another woman.

[proud patriot]

60. I voted Pass

I love AOC , She may be who I support in the primary .

I will wholeheartedly Support who ever wins the Primary .

I have a list of many who I may support in the primary .

I feel AOC needs to go to the Senate .

[Raine]

61. Absolutely NO! nt

[The Third Doctor]

63. Im afraid not.

We've had two great female candidates lose against a narcissist clown. This just isn't a progressive or even well informed country.

[the_liberal_grandpa]

64. VP perhaps

She could be a VP candidate for whomever the Dems select for 2028.

We have so many great presidential candidates.

Let's hope we make it that far.

[LexVegas]

67. No thanks. nt

[dsp3000]

68. repeat after me, everyone on DU. WHITE , MALE , CHRISTIAN, STRAIGHT.

[SSJVegeta]

69. I mean. Not EVERYone

[Kaleva]

92. Like Biden in 2024

[SunSeeker]

94. No. Harris ran in 2024.

[Kaleva]

98. Biden ran for much of it.

He was the presumptive nominee and essentially ran unopposed in the primary

[SunSeeker]

105. The primary ain't the general election. He was out before the convention. nt

[LymphocyteLover]

70. kick

[lindysalsagal]

71. In a fictional USA, but not his one right now.

[Ars Longa]

73. I put yes to AOC for President, but,

due to the crazy-ass misogyny in this country, I kind-of foresee her
as VP or SOTH alternately.

I would LOVE, LOVE to be wrong about that, tho....

[uponit7771]

77. Same, after hearing her during the big rallies I think she can be a great president but she should win state level first

... if Sanders is going to be leader maker she's not a bad choice.

[Buttoneer]

78. Yep!

[RoeVWade]

79. Let her compete with other candidates when the time comes, and if she can beat them, why not?

nt^

[SSJVegeta]

90. Concurred

[Xavier Breath]

82. No, but that's entirely due to the racist/misogynistic voters of this country and is no way a reflection on her.

Besides, she first needs to replace Chuck.

[madaboutharry]

83. Nope.

[Emile]

87. Yep, call it the piss off centrists campaign.

[SunSeeker]

93. No. We need to win. nt

[Emile]

95. Yes, we need to win for a change.

[betsuni]

96. No, I have the feeling she wants a life.

[In It to Win It]

97. If she can win the primaries, sure.

[GP6971]

100. Remarkable feat.

[Turbineguy]

101. She would make a wonderful President.

Like Hilary Clinton and Kamala Harris.

But right now we are going in the opposite direction. Tim Walz is a more realistic candidate.

[piddyprints]

103. We will not

Elect a woman president in my lifetime. Did we learn nothing from 2016 and 2024? Even a huge number of women in this country will not vote for a woman president. As much as I like AOC, it’s a risk we can’t afford to take.

[Torchlight]

104. I'll look at the terrain post mid-terms prior to making any judgement calls

With Kaptain Kaos wreaking havoc, no one really knows where we'll be in 2026. Meanwhile, the Democrats remain stuck in internal finger-pointing, preventing any real progress. The GOP’s relentless Whack-a-mole attacks on just about every facet of government have left Democratic leadership scattered and reactive, exposing deep party divisions.

However, despite the Democrats' struggles after 2024, opposition to Trump’s policies—such as high tariffs and deep spending cuts (and his general nastiness and cruelty)—is likely to grow.

For now, there's a strong talent pool to choose from, and I see no need to commit to a single candidate just yet.

[krawhitham]

107. Not in 2028, but someday

[TBF]

108. Voted yes because I love her -

but realistically taking Schumer's seat would be enough for now.

There are many who are stronger possibilities right now - think of all the vp candidates there were for Kamala.