She has nowhere near the chops for POTUS. Probably not the Senate, either, especially if she's replacing a long time national leader (even if it's past time for him to go).

She needs to first show leadership qualities IN THE HOUSE before thinking she's ready to move up a level.

What has she done? Seriously, what accomplishments and qualities has she shown beyond social media sound bites and edgy yet in the end useless "progressive" angst?

AOC is tapping into - alomg with whatever else she encounters - strong currents of progressivism. The socio-political climate seems to be getting prepped for transformative times.

#46 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'm sorry, but I disagree and this misinterpretation is what happens every single time the Dems gain some momentum.

What's growing is populism. The masses are tired of getting little to no benefit from their time, sweat and blood while paying ever more to satiate the greed of the ruling class.

The Dems are riding a swell of anti-Trump sentiment because as soon as he got into office, the mask came off and he showed the person behind it we, the non-MAGA morons, all knew was there - a greedy, self-absorbed pile of s*&^ working for the sole benefit of himself and the billionaire class.

They don't want progressivism, they want a government and country that actually works for and benefits THEM to the extent that they don't have to go to sleep hungry and anxious for what tomorrow will bring or whether rent will payable when it comes due in a few weeks or if their car will continue to struggle on long enough to get it fixed before it dies and they lose their job(s).

AOC would make a great POTUS. She would have my vote!

#54 | Posted by moder8

Why? Beyond yelling into a microphone and providing soundbites, what has she done that shows she has the leadership chops to actually run a government?

Seriously, someone spell it out for me on why she wouldn't be the left's version of Trump - a cult of personality centered on a hollow, unqualified figurehead running cover for unknown, unelected accomplices that are actually running the show.

I would love to cast a vote for, say, Mark Kelly for President

Honestly, Kelly is the one I'm hoping will run.

I doubt he will because he doesn't seem to want it, but that's the kind of leader we need right now. Someone with actual, real world leadership experience and intelligence who is hesitant to be the top of the heap, not some kid who got lucky to be elected to Congress and thinks they can do it because their social media likes lead them to believe they're capable.

Also, you will have people like JPW that dont know what she has accomplished and think she is just a face with a loud mouth.

You mean people who accurately assess reality?

JPW will continue to rail against progressives and makes sure Trump wins in 2028.

#72 | Posted by ClownShack

I'll rail against the Dems making the same mistake they make every single time they think they have momentum.

It also couldn't be any clearer at this point in time what a plurality of Americans wants. Here's a hint, it's not progressivism.

It's funny how y'all always think you're what this country wants no matter how many times you're repudiated in state- or national-level elections. Without fail, Dems lose power once they have majorities BECAUSE they swing too far left to please people like you.

#74 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

I'm sure she's doing something right for her district if they keep putting her back in office.

But I just don't see POTUS-level performance or accomplishments. Most of what people know about her is from her being a favorite Faux News punching bag which, fair or not, will definitely work against her in any national election.

Couple that with the fact that a woman as qualified as Hillary Clinton couldn't win and I just don't think AOC would be a good choice. You'd be handing the WH to the GOP on a silver platter.

The only quality that a leader needs to win right now is credibly fighting against the corrupt elites.

Surface level nonsense.

Y'all are going to guarantee Trump wins a third term.

The reason why leadership is such a critical attribute at this juncture is because of how difficult that task will be on top of beginning to fix the damage caused by Trump and MAGA.

Y'all's apparent solution for that is to hand the keys of the country to the equivalent of Trump's Counter Terrorism lead at DHS...

The best reason to support AOC is how much the DNC and RNC hate her.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

We need an asinine flag.

You know what dems haven't tried against maga yet? An actual economic populist.
#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

No, they haven't.

But how do you see economic populism working out? The electorate has consistently voted for tax cuts and, foolishly I admit, decreases in social spending. They certainly won't vote for tax hikes or, more than likely, large scale social programs.

They just want to ability to work hard and make fair wages and a good living for doing so.

No the DNC is doing that by burying their study on the reasons people hate them because we know what that study concludes - the people hate elitist corruption and want real populism.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I don't disagree with you on that one tiny bit.

The perception of corporate capture of both parties is a huge turn off to a large portion of the electorate.

Problem is, how do you fix that if you stop participating?

Did you see POTUS-level performance from the Community Organizer?

#85 | Posted by snoofy

More than AOC.

Successful lawyer in civil rights, community leader and state and federal level elected official.

He also had a gravitas and demeanor that was able to reach people. I don't see that quality in AOC whenever I hear her speak. I feel like she's typically saying the same things over and over and usually they're standard talking points.

Nominating a woman?
I agree this nation is currently way too misogynistic for a woman to win the presidency.

Thank you for elegantly and perfectly encapsulating why progressivism is a huge ick for most voters.

Well then you should be elated! You're getting exactly what you want, regressivism!
Best of luck with that whole science thing. Most people consider it progressive and worthless.

You're flailing. Rather desperately.

What's funnier is you don't know what the ---- you want.
It's almost like you're balled up in fetal position wishing it was 1997 again.
#92 | Posted by ClownShack

LOL another poster who's gonna take a crack at telling people what they think while they can barely assess the reality around them for what it is.

I know perfectly well what I want.

The GOP to move back towards the center.
The end of collaboration and cooperation and bipartisanship being considered toxic.
Both parties to stop pounding us with bulls*&^ social issues while core issues fester and die.
Reasonable regulations to protect citizen's finances, health, our environment and our children's futures.
Enforcement of anti-trust laws to push our economy back into something that's more than free market in name only.

Should I go on?

pick a woman with more credentials than "its her turn" or a SELECTED
illiterate ---- who's only claim to fame...( other than "servicing" willie brown"
was repeating this stupid chit ....what can be, unburdened by what has been"

#103 | Posted by shrimptacodan

You know, people might treat you a little less harshly if you weren't such a proudly degenerate loser piece of s*&^.

Just sayin'.

How is your response functionally any different than when Republicans say teaching about slavery is bad because it makes the white people feel bad?
Same concept in play, just being applied to sexism. No?

#110 | Posted by snoofy

Sure, if you've buried your head so far up social wedge issues a&& that you can only see it through that lens as opposed to, oh I don't know, seeing it through reality that Harris was a terrible candidate who was handed the nomination she couldn't win on her own when she entered a primary after four unremarkable years of an extremely low profile VP stint?

But you're right, it's simply because she's a woman.

I'll bet that hurt to click "post."

I don't think you can name her.

#115 | Posted by snoofy

Off the top of my head, no I couldn't.

So, does that mean Harris lost because misogyny?

Amy Klobuchar, Gretchen Whitmer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris (no), AOC (no), Elissa Slotkin, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Maura Healey. Source ballotpedia.org

#120 | Posted by snoofy

What's your point?

I'd have to look into them a bit more because I recognize names but don't know enough about their politics and experiences to give a quick answer.

I already said that.

Is this where you start arguing with yourself in the form of a strawman position you're going to claim I hold?

I'd put misogyny on the list of reasons for her loss.
I wouldn't strike it from the list. Would you?

#123 | Posted by snoofy

Of course, not. Read the nonsense from people like shrimpd*&^ or lfthndcuck et al and it's obvious that it was present.

But I'm not sure I would even put it in the top five reasons she lost considering those types weren't going to vote for her anyway.

The electorate hates the insurance industry. They want a candidate who terrifies the insurance industry. Same as the utility industry. Same as the tech titans.
The electorate wants someone who fill fight back. Dems refused to give them that option, so they turned to trump.

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I agree entirely with the except of turning to Trump.

The electorate didn't turn to Trump. Trump kept his voter base and gained a small fraction of new votes (about 3 million IIRC).

Trump won not by being appealing to voters, he won by attrition and convincing people they shouldn't vote.

If you are racist, and you see a black pilot, you'll think "Boy, I sure hope he's qualified!"

Difference being the racist in your hypothetical assumes that without knowing a thing about the pilot whereas we knew the qualifications of Harris.

We knew she was the first to drop out of the 2020 primary having never broken 1% support.

We know she was an unremarkable and largely absent VP instead of building her reputation in such an amazing opportunity.

We know she was installed in that position in 2020 assuming she would be next in line and she did nothing to earn that, she just assumed it.

We knew what her platform was and it wasn't remarkable or solid enough to pull people past the "not Trump" underpinnings of the entire 2024 Dem campaign.

It was far from an assumption based on race or sex.

#149 that's a little over the top.

AOC hasn't accomplished much. I'm sorry, but it's true.

LOL idiots ....
She introduced the Green New Deal - a corporate donation of Trillions of dollars to corporations.
#154 | Posted by oneironaut

Except Green New Deal is an international movement that began in the 2000s.

LOL idiot...

An undeniable truth:

The only undeniable truth is you're a f*&^ing moron.

You poor thing.
She's accomplished more than you, and most people have.

Like what?

Face it, you're as bad as Trumpers following her cult of personality.

OS: You are more than welcome to look up the definition of the word tenure ; )

#159 | Posted by MSgt

Condescension only works when you're NOT one of the dumbest turds on the site.

As i said above, how is a progressive supposed to accomplish anything when the DNC and RNC both oppose them?

Ahhhh yes. The Man is holding her down...

Is this your best attempt at trolling?
I expected more from the man voted the nooner's best truck stop,---------- attendant.

#166 | Posted by ClownShack

Interesting that you revert to that stupid s*&^ instead of actually saying what she's done.

It's almost as if she doesn't have much in the way of accomplishments...

AOC is 36 years old. She entered Congress at 29 becoming the youngest woman to win a federal election.

So? Mark Wayne Mullen got elected to Congress. Getting elected to Congress isn't much of an accomplishment, sport.

You'll need a whole lot more than that for POTUS.

In seven years she's become a leading voice in the Democratic Party and is helping shape its future.

Nonsense. Maybe for you and people in your bubble, but not beyond that. "Leading voice" LOL

You know why I know this is BS? Look at her committee assignments.

From Wiki:

Committee assignments
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Past committee assignments

Committee on Oversight and Accountability[272] (Vice Ranking Member, 2023"25) (2019"2025)
Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Committee on Financial Services (2019"2023)
Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance and International Financial Institutions (2021"2023)
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions (2019"2021)
Committee on Natural Resources (2023"2025)
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources (Ranking Member, 2023"25)

She's never held leadership in a committee, nor has she ever been selected to serve in any of the high power, influential committees like Ways and Means or Appropriations.

Kind of odd for the Voice of the Democratic Party, isn't it?

If you don't think that's an accomplishment let's see your resume.

All this bluster and you STILL haven't posted her accomplishments.

Because. She. Doesn't. Have. Any. Of. Substance.

She is not POTUS level material. Period.

A cult of personality isn't necessarily a bad thing. Washington and Lincoln both had cults of personality.

Oh please. This is like saying dropping out of college isn't a bad thing because Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

You're going to have to do better than that.

The thing is, if a candidate is going to run a campaign like that, they need to go all in and sustain it. If they're doing it just because they saw it worked for Trump (or whoever) and decided to try to copy it, it won't work.

#175 | Posted by sentinel

The thing is is it's a great way to get a incompetent, unqualified person POTUS as we are currently experiencing.

For this standard to materially exist, you need to be able to name some things that other, better, more effective Representatives have accomplished.
Who outshines AOC? Give me the run-down.

You're just flipping the question and acting as if that's making a point.

It's hilarious watching y'all flail so much to defend AOC for no other reason than cult of personality.

You're as invested as Trumpers and are just as irrational.

Your post is basically saying AOC should run because people from the past have lost.

Still no actual accomplishments explained.

BTW I don't have to have the winning ticket in my pocket to say AOC isn't POTUS material. That's not how this works.

I would also be making big $$$ informing the DNC if I had that kind of crystal ball.

What were Trump's Accomplishments?
He was never a politician, he Bankrupted Numerous Businesses.
He declared that he would "Be a Dictator from Day One" when he ran in 2024.
He Won.
SO What Qualifies a Candidate?
Can you at least explain that?
Or are you just irrationally anti AOC?

#193 | Posted by Effeteposer

More nonsense whataboutism.

I don't support Trump.

Try again.

So you're saying she shouldn't run? If she's really as unqualified as you think, then she'll flame out in the primaries.

#194 | Posted by sentinel

If I was advising her, I wouldn't suggest running at this point, no.

She's a lightning rod with an easily demonstrated lack of qualifications.

I would advise to start leveraging existing connections or building new ones to move up the ladder. A cabinet position. Backing for a Senate run (she's apparently already doing that).

Harris was an experienced lawyer (DA), California AG, California senator and VP and she STILL wasn't able to ride the anti-Trump wave to the White House. Why would AOC with even less on her resume?

BTW finally a good point about the primaries. She is, of course, welcome to run in them. I'll just laugh when she "flames out" and the immediate cries of misogyny arise from her supporters.

Oh man, a white conservative guy won?
That's never happened before. No wonder you're impressed.

LOL of course, you have to skew it through the social wedge issue lens. Which is why you'll continue to lose.

The point is that he inherited Daddy's business, rode that to being elected to the house in his mid 30s and leveraged that to a Senate seat. He only went higher by being a ball licking Trump sycophant.

In other words, he's not qualified either for where he's gotten because...wait for it...getting elected to Congress isn't an accomplishment worthy of higher office.

Let's see you do it, sport.
Hit me up when you're giving your victory speech, champ.

You're such a pathetic stooge. This is the basest, most stupid argument you could swing for. You'd think with actual accomplishments she'd be an easy sell.

The rest of your post is you kicking and flailing, setting prerequisites for AOC you've never expected from any prior presidential candidate.

I've never expected POTUS candidates to be qualified?

LOL nice strawman idiot.

Is it misogyny, stupidity, hate?
I don't care.

And here we go. It'Z MySoGyNy!!!!

The only mysogynist here is you and the other White Knights trying to take it easy on her because she's a woman.

But you sure are making yourself look like an idiot.

Right. Says the numbnuts who's wasted how many posts simping for a politician for no other reason than his confirmation bias and cult of personality gullibility.

Here's a suggestion, tiger. When you and BullBringer post the same nonsense, it's time to reevaluate your position.

#195 | Posted by ClownShack

Here's a suggestion, try having enough intellectual chops to form opinions on your own instead of relying on those around you to confirm them.

Obama was an unknown candidate on a national stage.
#197 | Posted by ClownShack

A US senator is an unknown nationally?

He was a dark horse candidate, but hardly an unknown.

Because people like AOC.
No one liked Harris except for the DNC elites who thought those "accomplishments" you listed for Harris meant something to voters.

#208 | Posted by ClownShack

You sound like a tween age girl.

But they liiiiiiiiike her!

You're admitting there's nothing but cult of personality, you know that right?

All of the posts you've wasted sum up to one simple line - I support her because of her cult of personality.

Oh, and accomplishments shouldn't be in quotes you misogynist. You're one step away from saying Harris slept her way up the top and AOC didn't and that's why AOC is better.

Not sure if you missed it, but somebody accurately described our elections as a popularity contest.
AOC can win that popularity contest.
Harris couldn't even win the DNC primaries.

#210 | Posted by ClownShack

Yup. Tween age girl.

Sad you have to degrade our national politics to this point in order to push your preferred candidate forward.

Because, you know, she has no actual accomplishments to run on.

BTW you're also being full bore Trumper by assuming your little bubble is fully reflective of reality. It's not. She's not as widely liked as you believe once you get out into the real world.

It's your Opinion. That's All it is.
#213 | Posted by Effeteposer

Clown is a tween girl who thinks it's about, like, who's like popular and all that...

And you're now trying to trot out a relativism argument that we can't possibly have standards for who is electable.

You people are f*&^ing absurd.

Really, you're going to hold the colossal mistake that is electing Donald Trump up as a reason why we should make the colossal mistake of electing an even less experienced cult of personality?

F*&^ing. Absurd.

I hope y'all reflect a little bit on this exchange and realize that you're now actively part of the problem Trump has forced into our body politic.

Whether you want to admit it or not, this thread is absolute proof that progressives, for all their self-righteous puling, are happily jumping onboard for the race to the bottom.

'How was Trump qualified? So why should our candidate be qualified? That's just an opinion!'

Umm. Why is that a problem?
That also perfectly describes Der Leader Trumpy.

*facepalm*

But it is an accomplishment.
Is it worth of higher office. Doesn't really seem to matter. It's not a promotion to go from the HoR to the senate.
It's all up to the will of the voters.
And again. It's all a popularity contest.

No, dumba&&, it's not. It's just the first step.

What's worthy of higher office is what you do with it. In what world is a promotion given simply for having your current job?

And yes, it is a step up to go from HoR to the Senate. That's understood as common knowledge to anyone who remotely pays attention to politics.

Her accomplishments are becoming a national figure, being a person who has proven to want to fight for the American working class.
Most of Congress aren't doing that, including the majority of democrats.

Which is why the majority of democrats aren't qualified to be POTUS either. You keep flailing hoping something sticks but it's not going to, champ. Because you're arguing an unwinnable argument in any sphere that adults dominate.

I know you want to discredit her because she hasn't lived up to your vague expectations.

Stating the obvious isn't discrediting her. It's sad how big of a misogynist you are without even realizing it.

But the fact is, you're an idiot who wants politicians to be like Biden, a do nothing loser who fell asleep for 4 years and left the country vulnerable to Trump and project 2025.

Biden was a good choice in 2020. He made a terrible decision to pick Harris as VP that all but made 2024 inevitable. A pick made to placate people like you.

Stagnation is death. Regression is what the Republicans want. Without progressives the Democrats have nothing, are nothing, accomplish nothing.

Progressives are a millstone around societies neck along with MAGA. You're proving that with every post on this thread.

Nope. You never have. Harris was worthless with zero accomplishments. Biden accomplished nothing his whole life other than being a career politician who wasn't very fond of black people at one time. Obama was an unknown.
You didn't care. You voted for all of them.

Perfect example right here. Holy s*&^ are you a f*&^ing idiot. Wow. Parroting Trumper talking points because your cult of personality isn't getting glowing reviews from the adults in the room.

Says the guy downplaying AOC for no other reason than she's a women.

That is entirely made up in your head because you lack the intellectual abilities to have this conversation. You're outclassed and it shows.

At least OneTrumper admitted he believes she won cause she has nice tits.
You're too much of a coward to say what you're really thinking.

Too bad you're such an intellectual light weight that you have to resort to this. How much spittle is on your monitor right now?

Too bad AOC isn't a man. Then you'd never question their accomplishments.

If that were true I'd have thought Trump qualified. I didn't.

But keep it up, White Knight. Watching your misogyny unfold is quite interesting.

Says the guy gatekeeping who can run for president.

LOL what's next? You going to point out my microaggressions?

You lost, sport. Take the L and go lick your wounds.

AOC has accomplished more with her life than you ever will, and that pisses you off.

#219 | Posted by ClownShack

Nope. But if that's what you have to tell yourself then have it.

BTW I'm not qualified for POTUS either.

JPW
Good luck in your search for an ideal candidate that is pure enough for you to vote for.
When my choices are a shit sandwich and a turd salad I'll usually take the turd salad.
At least it comes with some leafy greens.

#221 | Posted by donnerboy

LOL pointing out one doesn't have the accomplishments or qualifications beyond making some people feel good is now a question of purity?

What's funny is that the purity nonsense is one of the major reasons Progressives are so unbearable. Look at Clown tearing Biden and Harris apart like a good little Trump puppet because he can't rationally explain why AOC is a good candidate for POTUS or what her accomplishments after getting elected to Congress have been.

Get some awareness before posting this ridiculous nonsense.

And I'm tired of voting for two forms of s*&^. Just as a poster here points out regularly, the repubs didn't have to pick Trump. He was chosen from a field of something like a dozen candidates.

Why would I jump on that race to the bottom and choose an unqualified candidate before we've even had primaries?

#222 | Posted by Effeteposer

I don't have a preferred candidate yet nor is that an argument in favor of AOC.

What's funny is your making perfect the enemy of good.

Yeah, Obama wasn't the perfect Progressive y'all wanted him to be. I got bad news for you, sport, you're going to be disappointed every time with that childish expectation.

Like it or not, no POTUS will ever have the power to work entirely against the machine. The best you can hope for is one who can effectively work within it to still get things accomplished. Obama was that POTUS.

You and the real world are miles apart.

Nope. Sorry.

Early polls at this point have been meaingless in the past.

She's currently only at 26% for generic Dem support in 2028 with Buttigieg and Newsom being close behind.

Wishes often fall apart quite quickly once they meet the harsh reality of an actual campaign.

The problem with your assertion is that she does have qualifications. They just don't suit YOU. And thats ok.

Like what? I've been asking and nobody seems able to provide them beyond she got elected.

So, what are they? How has she shown leadership qualities of a grade sufficient to run the United States in a time when significant leadership will be necessary to start fixing the mess we're currently in?

Because IF, big IF, 2028 is a legit election, we will need another Dem POTUS on part with Obama (Housing crash) and Biden (COVID pandemic) to dig us out of yet another Repub created hole.

But according to today's standards in the real world as it exists today (not the one you wish would exist) she is very qualified for the job.

Very qualified, eh? How. Her accomplishments are shared by dozens of other Dem representatives, many with better legislative records and important experiences like committee assignments or committee leadership.

And much more qualified than the current occupant of the White House.

Another one racing to bottom with MAGA.

Sorry, that is NOT a compelling answer.

It's only your opinion that she is not. And we know all about opinions. Studies have shown that many others have one, too!
#229 | Posted by donnerboy

There are two tells that a person doesn't have a cogent argument to make but feels compelled to speak anyway - citing their position as common sense or whining about opinions.

No s*&^ it's an opinion.

AOC has every right to run in the primary.

Never said otherwise.

The voters will determine if she is qualified or not.

No, the voters will determine whether they want her as a candidate or not. Her performance, if she were to win, will decide whether I'm wrong or right.

Saying that voting for her is a "race to the bottom" is absolute BS.

Happily choosing an unqualified candidate for their cult of personality because the Repubs did it too is 100% race to the bottom.

Look at the mayor of NY and what he has accomplished in a short time. Did he have the "accomplishments" you are harping on AOC for?

Another weak a&& whatabout. Is he POTUS? No. Try harder.

I believe AOC has an uphill climb simply because she is a woman but you cant even admit that this is her biggest challenge.

Yawn.

You keep harping on the accomplishments thing but I cannot find any example of the same worry about any man in the past that tossed their hat in the primary.

LOL another idiot reaching for the misogyny card because they have nothing while also demonstrating more misogyny in their very post than I have in any of mine.

Why are you still here vehemently against anything AOC? Nothing you say on this site is going to change whether she enters the primary and certainly wont change one voters mind on whether they like her or not. In fact just seeing that you are still here today so against her I am more for her and might actually go google her. Give it a rest.

#231 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

F*&^ off, idiot. If you're that intellectually weak in how you choose candidates I couldn't care less what stupidity your brain sharts into existence.

#233 | Posted by Effeteposer

You keep asking the same stupid questions because you don't have an affirmative argument in favor of AOC beyond "because I want her to."

Trump is meaningless.

Who I would prefer is meaningless.

Your posts are the same logical fallacy as MAHA morons who make ignorant statements then act as if they're true until someone disproves them.

That's not how it works. You make the assertion, you provide the supporting info.

Obama was the one who blew our chance to fix the healthcare system.

Fix how? Enacting single payer or universal? Untennable.

I'm sure the millions of people who ended up with insurance under the ACA, despite its flaws, would disagree with your position.

He abandoned populism so trump embraced it and won.

#239 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I think it's a little simplistic but yes, to some degree it is true.

Major caveat to this is that the people who voted for Trump because of his populist statements (his embracing of populism was entirely cynical) were never going to vote for Obama anyway. Trump's cynical embracing of populism was well timed because the decades of GOP economic policy had finally caught up to the Repub middle class voters who supported it so long as those people bore the brunt of it.

First step to what?
Nancy Pelosi spent her entire political career in the House of Representatives.
Did she miss out on the second step?
Talk about FOMO.

First step to accomplishments worthy of POTUS. You know, like being a party leader and having a significant record of success behind you like Pelosi had. That she never tried for a Senate seat or anything higher is irrelevant to the argument as that was apparently her choice.

You're comparing the government to a business.
They're not the same.
If they were, Trump wouldn't be president of the United States
He wouldn't have been qualified to apply.
Which honestly would've been fantastic for everyone. But, again, that's not how the government works.

It's just an analogy. I think we can all agree running a country like a business is a bad idea.

Point is what one does with the position they've obtained is more critical than obtaining it. I didn't think that was a hard concept to grasp, but I guess it is/was.

No, it's not. It's not a ladder. You don't have to be in the House of Representatives before you go to the Senate. Do you understand how people become politicians?

*sigh* intentionally obtuse? I know it's not a ladder and there's no requirement for that sequence.

However, it is typically seen as an upgrade to go from HoR to the Senate. If you're not aware of that, just admit it. We won't make fun of you too much.

It's possible you don't, considering you were shocked that our elections are popularity contests.

The only thing shocking is that someone simping so hard for a politician only has that childishly stupid argument to make.

I'm just enjoying watching you make stupid excuses as to why one of the most popular, influential Democrats aren't qualified to be president of the United States.

Influential. LOL

And what's your reasoning?

Her record (or lack there of) in legislative accomplishments and committee assignments and leadership. The latter showing you just how NOT influential she is within her own part.

She hasn't "accomplished enough". A vague bar you can't even qualify. What's "enough of an accomplishment" for you?

Not vague at all and you have to be beyond stupid to think I haven't made it quite clear what accomplishments or positions she needs to have under her belt to be considered qualified.

Which one of our politicians is a scholar or a scientist or mathematician or an engineer? Do they have to cure cancer before they can become president of the United States?

Cool hyperbole. Still not an affirmative argument.

Face it you've been brainwashed to hate progressivism. Because your ideal political candidate would rule through stagnation. Like Biden did.

More stawmen. Just STFU already. Duhhhhh BrAiNwAsHeDzZ!!! Says the idiot who can't formulate an actual argument for someone beyond the intellectual capabilities of a tween aged girl.

He didn't even try to overturn any of Trumps policies. He simply managed the country for four years and then handed it back to Trump ...

LOL such a simp he has to misrepresent Biden's administration to make AOC look even remotely palatable.

Oh, he was such a good choice! He did absolutely nothing and left America open to Trump taking over and shitting all over it.

Complete horses*&^. How's that spittle layer coming along?

I'm so proud of the America we live in thanks to Biden.
If I remember correctly, didn't you claim you were leaving the country?

Because of work and the nonsense Trump is doing. Has nothing to do with Biden.

I'm glad you keep illustrating how irrational your hate towards progressivism is.

Citing wins of the past to try and whitewash what the movement has become is a sad look.

Still afraid of AI I see.

AI will be the bane of our society. It's good for an initial step of a process but trusting it without verifying or curating the result is beyond foolish.

Leaving aside her qualifications to run for office because well she successfully ran for office already.

Different office, different qualifications. HoR is the People's House. It's supposed to be where your average person enters public service at the national level and, as such, the bar is much lower.

Key actions include introducing the Green New Deal resolution,

"Championing" a body of work that had been around for over a decade isn't much of an accomplishment.

passing amendments to redirect federal funds toward opioid treatment and Puerto Rico recovery,

Two amendments in seven years. Holy s*&^!

and securing millions in community project funding for her district.

Great, so she's a good representative. What about POTUS? How is she any more qualified than dozens of other Dem Reps who have done the same or more?

From this I can clearly see what her qualifications are and what she stands for.

No, you see that she aligns with your biases and that's enough for you.

That AI summary reads like a weak resume. Only two points have actual metrics of success and they're pretty paltry in the grand scheme of things.

Did I mention she holds a Bachelor's degree in International Relations and Economics from Boston University?

So where are the committee assignments to put that knowledge to use? Where are her accomplishments that have taken that knowledge and put it into practice?

So what, it's a degree. Most people in Congress have advanced degrees.

She is obviously "qualified".
#242 | Posted by donnerboy

Nope. Sorry.

To use the resume analogy one more time, you're taking someone's resume from their first unremarkable seven years at the first level of middle management and claiming they have the chops to be CEO.

Is that your problem? She's too Progressive?
Trump is a Reactionary and Incipit Fascist.
What makes AOC more "dangerous" than that?
You think she'll bring Communism to America?

Why do you even bother posting this garbage?

If my position isn't clear at this point you're a waterhead.

I don't care about Trump.

Nice race to the bottom, Trumper lite.

Just a distaste for Progressive politics.

Only the extreme fringe social issue politics.

My beef is almost entirely with progressives themselves. Y'all are the Veruca Salts of politics and the most frequent cause of Repub resurgence in power at the national level.

Trump's Excesses make AOC more Viable not Less.

Only if you're a weak-minded fool enjoying the race to the bottom.

If you're someone with actual standards? Not so much.

The Status Quo before Trump is Gone Forever.
Extremes will define our Future.

#244 | Posted by Effeteposer

Race. To. The. Bottom.

#246 | Posted by eberly

I've never been so embarrassed for others for their childish lack of pragmatism.

It is absolutely mindboggling how little accounting for real world conditions there are and how little appreciation of nuance or degrees of change there is.

It's all or nothing. Black or white.

Race. To. The. Bottom.

Wrong. Tons of people who voted for obama later voted for trump because they felt so betrayed by obama.
Trump's embrace of populism worked because dems openly rejected it.

#248 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Citation?

Just is obviously qualified.
She is as qualified as most and more qualified than many.

Completely untethered from reality.

Let's recap your s*&^ty AI summary-

1)She "championed" or pushed a bunch of stuff that never became policy - meaningless
2)amendment for $5 million from the drug war to opioid treatment - ok, good
3)secured $10 million for cleaning up toxic sites in Puerto Rico - ok, good
4)Secured over $1.9 million in federal funding for local community projects in the Bronx and Queens, including violence prevention programs and infrastructure - ummmmm ok. Is that supposed to be billion? $1.9 million is a box worth of federal claw hammers with a bonus toilet thrown in...

and add in a few things from her background

5)elected to HoR by ousting long standing incumbent Dem
6)BA in international affairs and economics

So that's it? That's what is "more qualified than many" and worthy of running the whole show? C'mon, you're joking, right?

Just say YOU don't like her and be done with it.

Just say you don't have a strong argument to stand on and stop making s*&^ up.

The above is anything but qualified.

I don't know why you are so bothered. You lost the "qualifications" argument when America elected Trumpy. Twice!
#253 | Posted by donnerboy

Race. To. The. Bottom.

So yes. AOC meets all the requirements and so is obviously qualified.
And because of her experience she is obviously more qualified than most.
Perhaps you should take this up with the U.S. Constitution?

#255 | Posted by donnerboy

No, she just meets the base Constitutional requirements.

The list of qualifications is weak as hell, dude. Middle management as CEO.

If I put similar qualifications under a different name you would probably not agree they were POTUS material.

Also, I'll clarify that if AOC is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her over Vance or Rubio or anyone else that arises from this administration to try and take the reins.

I think her administration will see another resounding Dem defeat in 2030 and loss of control of all three branches of government in 2032. Why? Because that's the pattern of recent history when the Dems gain power and try to ram through every single wish list item as if they were just handed an absolute mandate and I don't think she has the finesse and leadership qualities to not fall into that trap.

No. Not meaningless. Shows what her concerns and cares.. you learn the most by failure.

I asked for qualifications or accomplishments. The above is meaningful in knowing her thoughts and priorities, but they're not accomplishments same as my support of dog adoption from shelters isn't an accomplishment.

My points stand for themselves. They are strong. They are real. And are all factual. Nothing made up. You even admitted to some of those things she did were "good".
No need to lie and say I am "making things up".

You presented a strawman argument that I quoted. The definition of a strawman is...it's made up.

She meets ALL the constitutional requirements

Which means she's eligible to run. Nothing more. Still not an accomplishment.

and has extensive experience in government

Extensive experience is Chuck Schumer. Seven unremarkable years in the HoR is NOT extensive experience.

and as you just admitted she has experience in successfully submitting and passing legislation.

Two amendments in seven years. You're so light on standards you might as well not have any.

WTF is wrong with you? Just admit you don't like her and won't vote for her and move on?

There's that strawman again.

The problem with you folks is that, just like Trumpers, it's personal for you. Your politics are so entwined in your personas you can't see this rationally.

The voters decide if those qualities are worth voting for. You have made your position and your opinions perfectly clear.

Indeed, they decide if she's a candidate worth supporting. Her performance alone will reveal whether she's qualified to be there.

But studies show others have perfectly clear positions and opinions too!
#260 | Posted by donnerboy

Ahhhh yes the opinion whine. Next up is claiming common sense.

#259 | Posted by Danforth

I started using it to customize my resume and cover letters for job applications.

It was wildly problematic, regularly claiming experience I didn't have, applying buzzwords to experiences I didn't have that the buzzword didn't apply to and inserting so many trendy terms it was a blazing red flashing light saying "AI wrote this."

I eventually switched to using it to analyze job advertisements to identify ATS alignment and necessary key phrases to insert into my resume, but I ended up doing that myself using the AI analysis as a guide.

It think it's interesting that the two hottest things right now are short cuts people use to make life easier without thinking about long term consequences - GLP-1 inhibitors to lose weight and AI to do their thinking for them.

It's now been purposely crippled, ever since Republicans chopped off the mandate leg.

#262 | Posted by Danforth

Despite widespread public support for it.

It may not have been perfect, but it provided much needed relief for millions.

Because the wheels on the truck go round and round?
Or.
The pendulum swings like the pendulum do ...

Because Democrats do what Democrats do.

the voters will decide if she is "qualified ".

#263 | Posted by donnerboy

No, the voters decide if she's the candidate. Only her success will show her qualifications.

No such step exists.
It's amazing you suddenly demand this notion of "accomplishment" when AOC's name is brought up but never in the past.
What were Biden's accomplishments? Existing? Being a career politician? What exactly did Biden accomplish?

Of course, it has. You're just butthurt this time so it's sticking in your craw.

I never doubted Harris' qualifications/accomplishments, I just thought she was a bad candidate installed into the nomination; two losing propositions.

I never doubted Hillary's qualifications and think she got a raw deal, and the country made a huge mistake.

Your Biden comment is just sheer butthurt stupidity.

Obama and Clinton never served in the House of Representatives and went straight to the Senate.
Obama didn't accomplish anything before becoming president.

I didn't say it was a mandatory pipeline. Are you able to read at an adult level of comprehension?

Obama had a JD from Harvard, worked for a civil rights law firm, taught constitutional law for over a decade, served as both a state and national Senator for the state of Illinois, during which he held positions on significant committees and leadership positions on subcommittees that gave him visibility and experience in foreign affairs/policy. Here Donnorboy, here's a bone for you; from AI:

Before becoming President in 2009, Barack Obama built a reputation as a pragmatic legislator in both the Illinois Senate and the United States Senate. His accomplishments were not on the scale of a long-serving congressional leader, but he was involved in several notable bipartisan and reform-oriented laws.

In the Illinois State Senate (1997"2004)
Obama's most substantial legislative record came at the state level.
Ethics and campaign finance reform

He worked with both Democrats and Republicans to pass ethics reforms that:
Restricted gifts from lobbyists
Increased transparency in campaign finance
Tightened disclosure rules for politicians

These reforms gained attention after corruption scandals in Illinois politics.
Criminal justice and policing reforms

Obama helped pass legislation that:
Required police to videotape interrogations and confessions in homicide cases
Addressed racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers stopped during traffic stops

The videotaping law became especially influential because it aimed to reduce false confessions and wrongful convictions.

Health care expansion
He supported and helped pass a measure expanding health coverage for uninsured children and low-income families in Illinois.
Tax credits for low-income workers
Obama backed expansions of the state Earned Income Tax Credit to help lower-income working families...

In the U.S. Senate (2005"2008)
Obama served only about four years before running for president, but he still participated in several significant bipartisan efforts.
Federal transparency and accountability
He partnered with Republican Senator Tom Coburn on legislation creating greater transparency in federal spending.
This led to the website:
USAspending.gov, which allowed the public to track federal expenditures more easily.

Ethics and lobbying reform

After corruption scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Obama co-sponsored reforms that:
Increased disclosure of lobbying activities
Restricted gifts and travel funded by lobbyists
Improved transparency in earmarks
Nonproliferation and security

Obama worked with Republican Senator Richard Lugar on measures related to:
Securing conventional weapons and nuclear materials
Preventing weapons smuggling in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
This cooperation became known as the Lugar"Obama initiative.

Veterans' benefits

He supported legislation improving benefits for veterans returning from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Broader significance
Obama's pre-presidential legislative career was often characterized less by sweeping landmark laws and more by:
Bipartisan coalition-building
Ethics and transparency reforms
Criminal justice reforms
Incremental social policy expansion

Can any of that be said about AOC who is usually confrontation and theatrical in her politics? Remember the sit in in Pelosi's office? The Met Gala? The fake arrest at a protest?

Your analogy sucked. Trump is running America like a business.
The government isn't a business. It's a place where people go with ideas on how to make America better.

No s*&^, moron. I said as much.

Which is exactly what AOC is doing.

Except she hasn't really done much beyond elevate her own standing and income...

And yet you keep demanding for there to be one.
Make up your mind, stupid.

Not remotely close to reality. Do you read at a fifth or sixth grade level or something?

And look here you are again, putting it in a sequence.
I'd say Nancy Pelosi has been a much more powerful force in politics than most senators have been.
But clearly, Senator is a better title. Because you think the government is a business.

I'm stating what is common knowledge. For someone who frequents a political discussion site, you're awfully uninformed.

Here, let AI do your thinking for you:

Yes. In U.S. politics, moving from the United States House of Representatives to the United States Senate is generally considered a major promotion or "step up."

Here's why:

Prestige and visibility: Senators are more nationally prominent. There are only 100 senators versus 435 representatives.
Longer terms: Senators serve 6-year terms instead of 2-year terms, giving them more stability and influence.
Broader constituency: A representative serves a congressional district; a senator represents an entire state.
Greater powers: The Senate has unique constitutional responsibilities, including:
Confirming presidential appointments
Ratifying treaties
Conducting impeachment trials
Presidential pipeline: Senators are much more likely than House members to become serious presidential candidates. Examples include:
Barack Obama
John F. Kennedy
Joe Biden
John McCain

That said, powerful House leadership positions can rival or exceed the influence of many senators. For example:

The Speaker of the House, such as Nancy Pelosi or Newt Gingrich, is one of the most influential officials in Washington.
Senior committee chairs in the House can wield enormous policy power.

But for an ordinary member of Congress, a Senate seat is usually viewed as a significant advancement in status, influence, and political opportunity.