this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
64 points (94.4% liked)

Progressive Politics

4497 readers
1175 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
 

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 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day 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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 54 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 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.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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 7 hours 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 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours 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 40 minutes ago

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.

[–] forrgott@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago

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

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days 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.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days 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.

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

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days 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 2 days 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 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

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.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days 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.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day 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.

[–] bmeffer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days 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 1 day 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 2 days 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.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

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

[–] deifyed@lemmy.wtf 2 points 2 days ago

Please. Make. AOC. President. ASAP

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days 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 1 day 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.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Mainstream approval is indeed important to win elections. That is why the Democrats lost the election. They ran a right wing hack and instead of pushing back and demanding a better candidate AOC and tried to force the left to vote for genocide. "Kamala is working tirelessly for a ceasefire" by the way.

"Progressives" like AOC are supposed to push the Democratic Party left, but all she has been doing the past few years is trying to push progressives right.

And now AOC is complaining that the left is leaving her behind.