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.
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.
Well, that and he promised the left a bunch of stuff that he never intended to deliver.
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.
Raising the minimum wage. Family leave. Childcare. Revisiting the public option. Rescheduling cannabis at the federal level.
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.
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. You just buy every excuse as long as you get what you want. Which is genocide and nothing the fuck else.
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.
I’m afraid there’s a rather unpleasant point to their strategy: controlled opposition.
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.
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.
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.
That’s a really good point
Then there’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but nobody got time for all that shit so we call her AOC.
You’re right, it’s not just me…it’s everyone. That’s literally what everyone calls them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AOC is doing everything she can to prevent the status quo from moving to the left. She’s the bullwark keeping the Liberal Democrats safe from criticism because if she takes the popular leftist positions, the centrists will be the next targets.
Wut? Dude…she IS moving it to the left. It’s not fast enough, obviously…but if you are suggesting that she’s somehow to the right of what we’ve been seeing over the last several decades, then you’re out to lunch.
Supporting genocide is extreme right not left.
AOC is a Nazi level opportunist politician but you’re not ready for the truth.
Lol! “Nazi level”!?! Holy fuck, dude. Did you sleep through history class? It is absolutely warped how clueless you are.
It’s an ml account. They’re not serious people
Are you denying the Holocaust was a genocide now?