this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026

65 points (94.5% liked)

Progressive Politics

4589 readers

1299 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

AOC wrestles with left-wing Dems as 2028 decision looms (www.axios.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is hustling to win over left-wing critics who say the progressive leader cares too much about mainstream approval and is too cozy with senior Democrats.

Between the lines: If Ocasio-Cortez's diplomacy is successful, it could be more difficult for any potential 2028 presidential candidate to run to her left — but moderate Democrats argue it also could make it tougher for her to win a general election.

Despite her recent efforts, some loud voices on the left — including people who have worked closely with her — have gotten under her skin by continuing to question her progressive bona fides.

Zoom in: In recent weeks, Ocasio-Cortez has tried to repair her relationship with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Many members of the group opposed her support for giving Israel defensive weapons, including the Iron Dome missile system, during the war in Gaza — which she has called a "genocide."

In July 2024, national DSA leaders withdrew their endorsement of her for the elections that year, arguing that she'd conflated "anti-Zionism with antisemitism and condemned boycotting Zionist institutions," which the group considered a "deep betrayal."

The intrigue: AOC also has had a fraught relationship with some progressives who helped launch her political career.

Her first chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, co-founded Justice Democrats, a group that helped Ocasio-Cortez with her insurgent House campaign in 2018. Chakrabarti is running for Congress in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco, but Ocasio-Cortez pointedly hasn't endorsed him in the June 2 primary.

She's indicated she believes that some of her early allies on the left have taken too much credit for her upset House victory eight years ago, and she's distanced herself from them over the years, people familiar with the dynamic told Axios.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 54 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (10 children)

— but moderate Democrats argue it also could make it tougher for her to win a general election.

JFC. These people are the definition of stupid.

Obama only won because people thought he was more progressive than he actually was.

While Hillary and Kamala both lost because they weren't progressive enough.

And Biden only won because people wanted to get rid of Trump, and would have voted for a pumpkin on a stick if that's who was running against him.

Running right-wing Democrats against right-wing Republicans doesn't win over Republican voters. They need to stop trying this pointless strategy.

[–] forrgott@lemmy.zip 12 points 4 weeks ago

I'm afraid there's a rather unpleasant point to their strategy: controlled opposition.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 weeks ago

Running right-wing Democrats against right-wing Republicans doesn't win over Republican voters. They need to stop trying this pointless strategy.

This is the only "safe" strategy the party leaders will accept thanks to all the money they get from billionaires and lobbying groups like AIPAC.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And Biden only won because people wanted to get rid of Trump, and would have voted for a pumpkin on a stick if that’s who was running against him.

Well, that and he promised the left a bunch of stuff that he never intended to deliver.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What did he "promise the left"? As far as I recall, he promised that "nothing would fundamentally change". No?

And still, he managed to govern to the left of basically every other President in the last 40 years. That's still not even close to where we should be...but it's still better than what Obama did. And it was a total 180 from Clinton.

I'm not a fan of Biden. But, his domestic policy was at least not moving things farther right. His foreign policy however, was absolute shit. Only Trump could have made things worse...and he has. A lot.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What did he “promise the left”?

Raising the minimum wage. Family leave. Childcare. Revisiting the public option. Rescheduling cannabis at the federal level.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh, man. So, you're one of those people who just doesn't understand how laws get passed?

Biden can promise all kinds of stuff with the full intention of getting it all done...but the president themselves, has very little authority to actually do any of it, without Congress. That doesn't mean he lied to you. It just means that not all of it made it through Congress.

That's why you have to use some critical thinking when you listen to what any presidential candidate is saying. These "promises" all demonstrate the direction a president wants to take things...but in the end, it is always up to Congress to get it done. Anyone who genuinely thinks the president has the authority to just "do stuff", doesn't understand basic civics.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Biden can promise all kinds of stuff with the full intention of getting it all done…but the president themselves, has very little authority to actually do any of it, without Congress. That doesn’t mean he lied to you. It just means that not all of it made it through Congress.

Funny how he didn't need congress when he wanted to sell weapons for genocide.

He didn't need congress to reschedule cannabis. He just chose not to. He didn't even pursue revisiting the public option. Didn't even mention it while in office.

Oh, man. So, you’re one of those people who just doesn’t understand how laws get passed?

Oh man. You just buy every excuse as long as you get what you want. Which is genocide and nothing the fuck else.

Anyone who genuinely thinks the president has the authority to just “do stuff”, doesn’t understand basic civics.

It's neat how conveniently selective his power to just do stuff also lines up with the only things centrists want: blocking progressive legislation and selling weapons for genocide.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Funny how he didn't need congress when he wanted to sell weapons for genocide.

He didn't need Congress to send aid to Israel, because Congress already passed the laws that allowed him to do it. It's hardly "bypassing Congress" when they're the ones that gave him the authority to expedite military aid to US allies. He also used it many times to send aid to Ukraine.

He didn't need congress to reschedule cannabis. He just chose not to.

That's not true either. There is a process for rescheduling drugs, and it goes through both the DoJ and the DEA. He did start the process, but they weren't exactly rushing things. But technically, it isn't up to the president to make that decision. It's up to the agencies that enforce those laws.

He didn't even pursue revisiting the public option. Didn't even mention it while in office.

That's true. But again, that would also take an act of Congress to get done...and there are nowhere near enough votes to make it happen. Not one Republican would ever agree to it, and not even half of Democrats have signalled approval. It's a "dead-on-arrival" proposal.

Oh man. You just buy every excuse as long as you get what you want. Which is genocide and nothing the fuck else.

Are you speaking to me, personally? Because that's pretty offensive, if you are. Just because I know how legislation gets passed and you don't, doesn't mean I support genocide. That's just ridiculous.

It's neat how conveniently selective his power to just do stuff also lines up with the only things centrists want: blocking progressive legislation and selling weapons for genocide.

Again, if you think Biden was just being "conveniently selective" about what he could and could not do, as president...then you do not actually understand how US law works. If you want to get any of those things done, then you need a majority of votes in both the House and Senate. The president simply provides leadership and direction...but it's up to Congress to pass legislation in order to make those changes.

Or, you could just try actually bypassing Congress like what Donald Trump keeps doing, and get shot down in the court over every little action you try and take, all while opening yourself up to potential criminal charges for violating the law in the process.

Are you saying that Trump is right for doing things the way he's doing them? I mean, if you care more about results, than following the law...then you're no different than the average Trump supporter. They don't care about any of that shit, either.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

He didn’t need Congress to send aid to Israel, because Congress already passed the laws that allowed him to do it.

Along with a law that prohibited the sale of weapons for genocide, which Biden ignored. When Biden sold weapons for genocide, he lost the benefit of the doubt.

That’s not true either. There is a process for rescheduling drugs, and it goes through both the DoJ and the DEA. He did start the process, but they weren’t exactly rushing things.

Neither was he. He started it late on purpose so they wouldn't be done by the end of his first term. And it sure is neat how the head of the executive branch has to ask every federal employee before he does anything. Or until he gets the no he wants.

That’s true. But again, that would also take an act of Congress to get done…and there are nowhere near enough votes to make it happen. Not one Republican would ever agree to it, and not even half of Democrats have signalled approval. It’s a “dead-on-arrival” proposal.

If it was that hopeless, he shouldn't have promised it in the first place. It was a lie when he said it.

Are you speaking to me, personally? Because that’s pretty offensive, if you are. Just because I know how legislation gets passed and you don’t, doesn’t mean I support genocide.

You're carrying water for a genocidal president. You're making excuses for his successfully broken campaign promises and his lawbreaking for netanyahu.

Again, if you think Biden was just being “conveniently selective” about what he could and could not do, as president…then you do not actually understand how US law works.

I know he could sell weapons for genocide. I know he broke the law to do it. I know that smaller obstacles stopped him when it was his campaign promises.

If you want to get any of those things done, then you need a majority of votes in both the House and Senate.

Because they're not genocide, so Biden didn't want to do any of them.

The president simply provides leadership and direction…but it’s up to Congress to pass legislation in order to make those changes.

Biden ran on being able to work with congress to accomplish his promises. He worked with congress to make sure they didn't pass.

I do not accept any excuses offered on his behalf. Like I said up top, when he supported genocide, he lost the benefit of the doubt. And gained you as a supporter.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're carrying water for a genocidal president. You're making excuses for his successfully broken campaign promises and his lawbreaking for netanyahu.

Ok. I think this statement accurately outlines the extent of your misunderstanding. I'm not "carrying water for a genocidal president". I'm trying to explain to you how the Constitution works, because you seem to be one of those people who thinks the president has, or should have, unlimited power to just wave a magic wand around, and spontaneously create whole Federal programs or agencies instantly and without Congressional oversight.

As for his actions with Israel...I do not agree with any of his decisions there. I do however, still understand that in order to do anything about it...Congress would need to change the laws. That's how it works. If Congress has given the president the power to do something, and you don't like what they're doing with that power...Congress needs to change things. The same thing goes for what the president can't do.

This entire premise...that the president simultaneously has too much power for the things you don't want, while also not having enough power to do all the things you do want, is utterly ridiculous. It shows that you do not even understand the fundamental problem with your own worldview.

The same thing that will fix the "Israel problem" will also make it harder to fix everything else you think the president should have the unilateral authority to do. Congress needs to restrict the president's authority to do things without their approval...right? That's exactly what stops any president from fulfilling all their campaign promises.

You are blaming the wrong person. The president shouldn't have that much power. That's why things are the way they are. If you want someone to blame for ALL of this...blame Congress. They are the ones who are actually responsible for everything you're complaining about. And if you want things to change...stop focusing on what the president is doing or not doing...and start voting in the midterm elections instead. You need to flip Congress if you want anything to change. The president should never have the power to do what you're asking for.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This entire premise…that the president simultaneously has too much power for the things you don’t want, while also not having enough power to do all the things you do want, is utterly ridiculous

He ignored the law to sell weapons for genocide, but was unwilling to do so to help US citizens. And it comes down to what he wanted to do.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And so is Trump, right now. And so will the next guy.

Nothing is going to change unless we address the source of the problem, instead of just complaining about the symptoms.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Nothing is going to change if everyone pretends that the symptoms go away when a democrat is in office.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh. So, you really didn't understand anything I said, huh?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not buying that the president is only useless when he's not selling weapons to your favorite person for your favorite activity.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah. You really don't understand what I've been saying. Whatever, buddy. Stay ignorant. I don't care.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

And since it's not pro-genocide, you've been ignoring what I've been saying. Biden broke the law when it suited him. It only suited him to sell weapons for genocide.

Which is why you're carrying water for him and acting like anyone who isn't head over heels ecstatic about how BIDEN. BROKE. THE. LAW. TO. SUPPORT. GENOCIDE. never watched Schoolhouse Rock as a kid, as though that has any bearing on what biden considered enough of a priority to break the law over, versus what he was willing to be bound by the law over.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

That wasn't even what we were talking about. You just keep making it about that, because you have no idea what you're actually arguing about.

I have repeatedly told you that I am not a Biden supporter and don't agree with his policies on Israel...at all. You just keep ignoring that, and continue to accuse me of holding positions that I don't. That is the definition of a strawman argument, and it shows a lack of intellectual integrity on your part.

What I am telling you...that you also don't seem capable of understanding...is that if you want any of that to get dealt with, you will need to address Congress. Not the president. Even if you want Biden to be held accountable for his actions over Israel...you need Congress to do that. Everything you are complaining about is Congress's job to fix.

Me saying that, over and over again, is NOT "carrying water for Biden". It is not being "head over heels for Biden". That is the stupidest, most lazy take you could possibly have. You aren't even trying to use your brain. You're just saying shit that you think sounds principled, but really just comes off as hopelessly ignorant.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

What I am telling you…that you also don’t seem capable of understanding…is that if you want any of that to get dealt with, you will need to address Congress. Not the president. Even if you want Biden to be held accountable for his actions over Israel…you need Congress to do that. Everything you are complaining about is Congress’s job to fix.

If you would like to talk about the successes of Democrats in Congress in working with biden to block his campaign promises, we can. If you would like to talk about how many times they approved weapons for genocide, we can do that too. But in the context of biden, the fact remains that biden broke the law for netanyahu and not for the American people. That shows where his greatest priority lies.

He was perfectly happy to accept the limitations imposed by HoW gOvErNmEnT wOrKs when he chose to not fire the parliamentarian so that the poor could have higher wages. He was happy to accept limitations when he decided to wait out the clock before starting the process to reschedule cannabis. He was endlessly diplomatic with Manchin while he killed Build Back Better. But he spent a year and three months breaking the law openly and brazenly to sell weapons to netanyahu, as it became more and more undeniable to everyone that this was a genocide. And there's no way biden didn't know from the very beginning.

He broke the law for netanyahu. For genocide. But not for workers. Not for Americans. That's who he is. That's all he is. That's all he's ever been, that's the culmination of his entire career.

If you want to talk about accountability and congress' unwillingness to do so for trump, let alone biden, we can have that conversation. But I will NEVER accept Congress as an excuse for biden's behavior, partly because he ignored congress to accomplish his only goal in life, but also because there is no excusing his behavior.

Now tell me I don't know how anything works again. Gaslighting never gets old.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Hillary and Kamala

You mentioned 5 candidates in your post. Two of them are women, and they're the two that you called by their first names. It's not just you, I see that a lot. I can't help but think that also has something to do with it.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You're right, it's not just me...it's everyone. That's literally what everyone calls them.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I know. I'm not blaming you or criticizing you. I'm not even sure this phenomenon is problematic, and if it is you're just following everyone else's lead. I do think it's worth thinking about, though.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

To be honest, I had never thought about it like that, so you're right...it is interesting. Do you have any theories?

Other than their own campaigns trying to make them more "relatable" by using their first names to promote them, I can't think of a reason it would become the standard. With Hillary, there's also the need to distinguish her from her husband, but Kamala doesn't have that problem.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

It smells a little like sexism, like theyre taken more casually than male candidates. But your point about Hillary Clinton is a good one. I don't know the answer tbh.

The only man I can think of who falls under this phenomenon is Bernie Sanders. In his case it seems like a conscious decision on the part of his campaign.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

Both Hillary and Kamala campaigned on "first woman president" messaging and used their first names as part of that messaging. It's a feature until a man follows suit, then it's sexist abuse.

Politicians often try to cultivate a more informal or personal persona among voters for the "I'd have a beer with him" factor. In 2004, George W. Bush's campaign sold bumper stickers that read "W: The President." Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower campaigned under the slogan "I Like Ike." Heaven forbid we call a woman named Hillary Clinton "Hillary" though. There's no insult deeper than being called by your unaltered given name.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

While there is 100% an element of sexism here, I also think there's an element of these specific people having first names that are more specific identifiers. If you say Clinton, you may not effectively convey which one without more context, and Harris is a very common last name, whereas Trump, Biden, and Obama are very unique names.

People have never hesitated to say Pelosi, Klobuchar, or Slotkin, for example.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

People have never hesitated to say Pelosi, Klobuchar, or Slotkin, for example.

That's a really good point

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Then there's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but nobody got time for all that shit so we call her AOC.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 21 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

AOC needs to take Schumers seat in 28. She's got plenty of time to worry about being president, and she's probably not the candidate that will break the electorate to the left.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 weeks ago

AOC will get to take Schumers seat when she has become Schumer.

[–] bmeffer@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I really like AOC. She's extremely smart and capable. But, like Hillary, she's going to have the entire right-wing lobbing ridiculous conspiratorial accusations at her. Unfortunately, it will stick to a lot of low IQ Dems. Just like the 30 years of stupid conspiracies helped tank Hillary.

The hate for AOC is too high. I think she would be a great president. I just don't think enough people will vote for her because of the toxicity that has been created around her by the right.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I really like AOC. She’s extremely smart and capable. But, like Hillary, she’s going to have the entire right-wing lobbing ridiculous conspiratorial accusations at her.

Unlike Clinton, AOC isn't a corpodem. Maybe we should stop running candidates based on what fascists might say, because they'll make the same accusations about every candidate.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

Exactly time for her time in the Senate. No way could she win in 2028. Even if she went 100% to the far left. The system to rigged against her and the DNC would pull out all the tricks keeping her out. If it was for sure she would win they would close down their primary and pick thier candidate. And they are allowed to do just that.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

And so we get newsom in 2028, no primaries in 2032, and some other excuse for why a progressive can't run in 2036.

[–] deifyed@lemmy.wtf 2 points 4 weeks ago

Please. Make. AOC. President. ASAP

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Mainstream approval is kinda important to win elections. It would be great to have a more progressive dem in power, but if it means they lose the election it doesn't help. That said, as much as I hate it, a white old man is what's needed to win. One with a face of compromise, but a desire to root out corruption, play hardball with the previous administration cronies. One that can frame progressive ideology within economic prosperity. And one that will pushback hard on Isreal without calling for its destruction. It's a tough balance. And the progressive left would still probably fuck it up and give power to the right,

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Mainstream approval is kinda important to win elections. It would be great to have a more progressive dem in power, but if it means they lose the election it doesn’t help.

What a convenient excuse from the wing of the party that never wants to represent anyone to the left of Joe Manchin.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Safeguard the democratic system. Re-establish the division of powers. Deal with the influence of money in a democracy. Bring Republicans to justice for their constitutional and legal violations and treason against the constitution. Disempowerment private and corporate entities from their overwhelming influencing on legislation, taxation and law. Bring everyone involved in the Epstein shit to justice. Deal with the partisanship of the supreme courts. Eliminate the electoral college. Force fair distracting in states. Bring corporate risk taking to an end. Massively increase funding for the IRS to go after the wealthy for tax evasion. Institute strict regulations for media companies to dela with propaganda and media monopolies. Break up the big banks so they are small enough to let fail.

If they campaign on gender and equality or some other social justice causes and don't focus on the things that are threatening to break society, I'm going to be done with the dems. If the dem base, after everything that's happened, hasn't learned enough to redirected their priorities and values to the things that fundamentally matter to ensure the system functions, then they deserve their fate.

load more comments