From AOC’s Chances of Becoming Democrats’ 2028 Presidential Nominee: Polls:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, has increasingly been discussed as a leading star within the Democratic Party, with some suggesting she could be a 2028 contender for the party’s presidential nomination.
While potential announcements for 2028 candidates are likely still a couple years off, a number of recent polls are already showing how voters are thinking about the upcoming primary—with Ocasio-Cortez emerging as one of the top few contenders.
I may be too far out of touch with reality, but I think this is going in the wrong direction to get votes. Sure, she gets the votes of the Marxists. And yes, she is attractive*. But will she get the votes which were defectors from the Democrat Party in 2024?
I think a good portion of those defectors were because Harris was too far left. AOC would lose even more votes to a respectable Republican candidate. I could even see a good Libertarian candidate** getting more votes than AOC.
* I once read that in most presidential elections the more attractive candidate wins. This claim annoys me to no end, but I suspect it is true.
** Yeah, like that is going to happen.
She’s not presidential material, but she and Bernie Sanders are the only ones in the Democratic party who are mounting any real resistance to Krasnov at this point, so there’s not really anybody else to talk about. The rest of the dems are busy cowering in a corner.
It may not matter. If Krasnov/Musk successfully kill social security, folks are going to vote for “anybody but the republicans” in 2028 (and the mid-terms, for that matter). I can’t think of a better way to commit political suicide.
A libertarian candidate would be nice, but thus far they’ve all been nutjobs. Now if they could get Nick Gillespie to run….
Who is Krasnov?
And where did you get that fiction about killing social security?
I suspect he means the supposed codename “Krasnov” given to Trump by the KGB in the latest round of “Russia, Russia Russia” against Trump. He is apparently a KGB asset you know!
I have noticed a significant uptick in trolling posts on various blogs and forums as the left becomes increasingly unhinged.
They are always “Lifelong conservatives” or “Gun Owners, but…” type people who spew utter nonsense they can’t back up.
When you respond to the Russian collusion with Clinton and Uranium One they melt down like the wicked witch of the west got hit with a bucket of water.
As they say, when you are taking flak, you are over the target…
Krasnov is the FSB’s code name for Trump. And wrt killing social security, have you read a newspaper recently? It’s about as far from fiction as you can get. Well, the attempt anyway. They’re unlikely to succeed, but the attempt will have massive repercussions at the midterms.
Hopeium is an excellent plan, John. Stick with it.
It sounds like Qanon went over to being BlueAnon. Don’t listen, It a trap, buddy!
I had to search the web for the Krasnov reference. Once I found the reference, I rolled my eyes and decided it wasn’t worth my time to directly comment. The killing of Social Security is only slightly less likely of being true.
John view of the political world is, sadly, somewhat reassuring to me. He just demonstrated absurd political beliefs are not the exclusive domain of a few Republican supporters.
Oh, and now is a good a time as any to say this: For every U.S. President elected since, and including, Bill Clinton people have express serious concern that there would not be any more elections. Someone was always believed that the president was going to stay in office at the end of their elected term.
I don’t think the current resident of the White House is any more likely to cancel elections than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden.
I can take the eyeroll about Krasnov (it’s not fully validated, but well in line with his current alignment with Russia), but Musk’s claims that social security is a ponzi scheme and should be dismantled is straight from the horse’s mouth:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-social-security-ponzi-scheme/
And the attempt to eliminate phone support and close social security offices in favor of online support only (which old people are so very, very competent at) is an attempt at what, in the retail world, is called “breakage.” It’s a concept whereby you make fulfillment of an offer so onerous or so easy to avoid that the actual take rate of the offer is low. GroupOn was only profitable when breakage was high. Musk is trying to put social security into the same model.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-social-security-phones-b2714222.html
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breakage.asp
Will Musk succeed? Probably not, but pointing out the attempt isn’t “absurd,” and to claim he isn’t trying ignores well documented statements to the contrary.
Did he say, “Ponzi scheme”? True. Did he say it should be dismantled it? False.
The Ponzi scheme claim is an exaggeration of the situation. But it is not an absurd exaggeration. There are some strong similarities.
The claim that he wants to dismantle Social Security is more than an exaggeration. Perhaps it doesn’t reach the level of absurd. But it is without any truth. That claim is an emotional appeal intended to create divisiveness rather than honest debate about potential solutions to the massive government debt.
People that are more focused on creating division, hatred, and controversy than honest debate are not worthy of much more than my derision.
Just so I understand: Democrats are using explicit statements about equality and civil rights and justice as a cover for their subterfuge where they implement a totalitarian communist hellscape, so we shouldn’t believe anything they say. And Republicans we should take at literal face value and assume they all have our best interests at heart with no ulterior motives? Do I have that right?
SS is a ponzi scheme. Always has been.
The problem starts with congress putting the real money they collect from the tax, in the general fund. Then writing an IOU for the SS fund.
It was away for FDR to get more money to spend without a raise in the general taxes.
Like most things in government, it’s a lie.
But one no one can get rid of it, ever, and win the next election. If it goes away. It will be replaced under some new ponzi scheme is all that’s going to happen.
For being a libertarian, you sure buy into a lot of commie-cratic talking point hyperbole.
Try a 12-step program off CNN?
Joe, you should have stuck to your initial decision that it wasn’t worth your time to directly comment.
I remember the Clinton years. I did expect him to stay in office past the 2000 election, at least until mid-1999, but I didn’t expect him to cancel elections. I just figured he would ignore the 22nd Amendment.
Krasnov is the father of John Schussler’s three year old boyfriend.
Needless to say, Schussler and he do not get along.
It’s a Markley’s Law Monday…and you seem to have added a homophobic variant.
Though usually it’s Joe criticizing other people for using that technique….
That wasn’t a homophobic statement by Ken.
Sounded more like he was calling you a pedophile.
And you shouldn’t confuse homo-disgustia, for homophobia. (A common problem with liberals.)
I don’t think Ken’s afraid of queers. I know I ain’t. Their just mentally ill from parasites they won’t get rid of.
I thought the whole point of Markley’s Law Monday was the theory (at least by Joe) that name calling was the refuge of the weak-minded. Maybe I have that wrong.
You’re right. I just don’t have any spare minutes to explain it again.
She literally called the NRA a white supremacist terrorist organization.
Only if Musk gets Neuralink up and running in time for her to get a GROK III login, Is she going to sound/act smart enough to be president.
Right now, the commies are lauding anyone that can string a sentence together. But that ain’t going to hold.
They been on the wrong side of every 80/20 issue so far. And all this is predicated on them surviving audits and investigations. That, and being governmentally defunded.
On top of the world watching as the communist once again burn shit over another political temper tantrum.
Any honest DOJ could wipe out most of congress tomorrow. Along with the rest of the blue state control system over the next week and a half.
That, and the rest of us ain’t going to be fooled by “those big’ol, communist titties”. Not that they ain’t nice, but we got a whole internet full of nice titties we ain’t never going to be able to play with.
And when she opens her mouth all the rest of us see is the communist demon. (What did you think they look like?)
The commies are far from done. But their legitimacy in politics is pretty much finished.
It ain’t coming back.
The problem isn’t that people will vote for AOC’s tits.
The problem is that the Left will portray everyone who has the balls not to like her as a sexless dweeb who, when one of the sexy Democrats comes around, runs and hides behind a stack of Bibles.
That’s why we need to be doubly aggressive. If you hear some punk mouthing off left-wing bullshit, get in his face. I have, and I have spent some time in county because of my aggression. It was better than letting him punk me.
Lexie Cortez is only marginally less vacuous than Harris and her “Eat the Rich” ballgown and Pallywood style theatrics are serious baggage as are her besties Omar and Tlaib. Also this assumes she isn’t indicted on corruption charges before the mid terms.
It’s interesting how much media attention AOC gets despite the controversy around her politics. If she keeps pushing further left, though, I wonder if she’ll end up losing more swing voters than she gains.
AOC is superficially attractive at times, in the right lightings, in certain outfits, but sooner or later she starts talking so….
Given her political philosophy, I also go with “Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the soul”
After stumbling bumbling Pedo Joe in 2020 and Kackles the Ho Harris in 2024 nothing is impossible when it comes to the insanity the left will attempt to foist on the country. Generally these days the person who wins is the one given the most favorable reporting by the media whores….with very rare exceptions.
RE: the more attractive candidate tends to win —
It was before my time, but I’ve heard from people who were there, of the Presidential campaign and debate between JFK and Nixon in 1960.
It was historic, the first official Presidential debates, as well as being nationally televised. Both candidates were relatively young, too.
What was interesting in what I’ve been told, was that Nixon didn’t give the television camera it’s due importance during the first debate; he campaigned right up until the event, didn’t shave, refused make-up, was still recovering from an injury, and his eyes darted around. Kennedy, OTOH, was rested, made-up, and spoke directly to the cameras.
The end result was, people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, but people who watched it on TV thought Kennedy was the clear victor.
It’s an anecdotal example, yes, but it supports the point. A candidate’s physical appearance and attractiveness do seem to affect how people vote.
What’s funny is when you apply the “most attractive” rule not to obvious cases like 1960, but to elections like 1968, 1972, or 2016.
Nixon was Nixon, but he was still more handsome than Humphrey or McGovern.
And Donald Trump in his first election was at the nadir of his attractiveness, but he was against Hillary. (Incidentally, Hillary was not bad looking when she was younger. But leftist women get remarkably ugly over time. Check out Argentina’s Christina Kirchner 15 years ago vs. today). Trump also won last year, but he was noticably more handsome than he was then, or in 2024.