I have a lot of sympathy for John's argument, but I would move the date to 2030, when Kristen Gillibrand is up. I'm no fan of Chuck Schumer, but he is an effective parliamentarian: very good at herding egotistical cats. This is the most important part of a majority leader's job, and I am not sure who else has the skills. I hate Kristen Gillibrand--the Crypto Queen of Manhattan--with the heat of 10,000 suns. There is no loss in firing her.
I also think that Gillibrand would be much easier to primary than Schumer.
Yeah it's all very well to say somebody should be in the Senate, but the way it works is she has to take somebody's seat... preferably a Republican's... which doesn't seem to work out here...
I totally agree. I think having someone with national prominence to replace Bernie (not for years inshallah) is really essential. The more exposure social democratic ideas get, the less scary they are to ordinary people. It’s the opposite of national conservatism in that sense.
This is a tough call. I agree she should primary Schumer and get more experience. Not that experience matters for women in this country. So then maybe just go for it now.
I think everyone including AOC knows this to be true about AOC's personal career and future in politics.
The challenging question though, who is the Official Bernie Candidate for the 2028 primaries? That wing of the party can't possibly sit it out can they?
It's one old guy and a bunch of young people. They'd probably be better off sitting it out but trying to secure the same commitments they got from Biden from all the contenders.
The 2028 primary will completely envelop the cultural conversation for two full years and the Bernie left is a dominant discourse entity who will categorically reject association with any of the mainstream Dems. Someone is going to try to pick up that baton, it's a gigantic attentional vacuum.
It would be bad for the movement if that were like Nina Turner or some other not ready for primetime player.
I agree, although I think there's also a case to be made for Brad Lander doing the same thing. He doesn't have nearly the level of name recognition as AOC, but it will be harder to tar him with endless media hits. Though, echoing Ziggy, I could also be easily convinced to go big on Lander '30, primarying Gillibrand.
I definitely agree she shouldn't run for president. It's a terrible job. If I were advising her just for herself, I'd tell her to stay in the House and build power there. She's more likely to spend time in the majority there. Being a senator, especially a liberal senator constantly quashed by the filibuster, seems less fun.
It depends on whether the “moderate” wing of the party is willing to go after GOP political finance the way AOC is signaling. A big reason that the current authoritarian attempt is flagging is that it’s run by a gang of criminals attempting to wield criminal law against non-criminals — and in a society run by lawyers where the law is all-important. Their strategy is not as effective as they had hoped. And it’s a projection in the same way that GOP political communication is all projection. They are guilty as hell.
Now suppose a determined gang of non-criminals attempted to wield the law against a criminal opposition. I have a sinking feeling that AOC is the only one willing to go there and implement a genuinely scary anti-corruption drive. And maybe she herself wouldn’t be up to it either.
I agree it would be a mistake for AOC to give up the power and platform she has in the house for a low-chance run for President. She would be smart to continue to build her role in the house, or run for Senate.
Bella Abzug provides an instructive history. She had a strong left background in the civil rights and anti-war movements. Like AOC, she beat an incumbent to get elected to congress and faced strong opposition from the Democratic leadership. Abzug was an effective legislator, and was moving into a greater leadership role in the house. She gave up her seat to run for Senate, which she narrowly lost in the primary to Daniel Moynihan.. She would never again have the same level of power or influence.
I have a lot of sympathy for John's argument, but I would move the date to 2030, when Kristen Gillibrand is up. I'm no fan of Chuck Schumer, but he is an effective parliamentarian: very good at herding egotistical cats. This is the most important part of a majority leader's job, and I am not sure who else has the skills. I hate Kristen Gillibrand--the Crypto Queen of Manhattan--with the heat of 10,000 suns. There is no loss in firing her.
I also think that Gillibrand would be much easier to primary than Schumer.
interesting idea
Schumer will just retire I hope. Let Mamdani be the one to take out Gillibrand.
This is the best suggestion of the lot.
Yeah it's all very well to say somebody should be in the Senate, but the way it works is she has to take somebody's seat... preferably a Republican's... which doesn't seem to work out here...
I totally agree. I think having someone with national prominence to replace Bernie (not for years inshallah) is really essential. The more exposure social democratic ideas get, the less scary they are to ordinary people. It’s the opposite of national conservatism in that sense.
This is a tough call. I agree she should primary Schumer and get more experience. Not that experience matters for women in this country. So then maybe just go for it now.
I think everyone including AOC knows this to be true about AOC's personal career and future in politics.
The challenging question though, who is the Official Bernie Candidate for the 2028 primaries? That wing of the party can't possibly sit it out can they?
It's one old guy and a bunch of young people. They'd probably be better off sitting it out but trying to secure the same commitments they got from Biden from all the contenders.
The 2028 primary will completely envelop the cultural conversation for two full years and the Bernie left is a dominant discourse entity who will categorically reject association with any of the mainstream Dems. Someone is going to try to pick up that baton, it's a gigantic attentional vacuum.
It would be bad for the movement if that were like Nina Turner or some other not ready for primetime player.
I agree, although I think there's also a case to be made for Brad Lander doing the same thing. He doesn't have nearly the level of name recognition as AOC, but it will be harder to tar him with endless media hits. Though, echoing Ziggy, I could also be easily convinced to go big on Lander '30, primarying Gillibrand.
I definitely agree she shouldn't run for president. It's a terrible job. If I were advising her just for herself, I'd tell her to stay in the House and build power there. She's more likely to spend time in the majority there. Being a senator, especially a liberal senator constantly quashed by the filibuster, seems less fun.
It depends on whether the “moderate” wing of the party is willing to go after GOP political finance the way AOC is signaling. A big reason that the current authoritarian attempt is flagging is that it’s run by a gang of criminals attempting to wield criminal law against non-criminals — and in a society run by lawyers where the law is all-important. Their strategy is not as effective as they had hoped. And it’s a projection in the same way that GOP political communication is all projection. They are guilty as hell.
Now suppose a determined gang of non-criminals attempted to wield the law against a criminal opposition. I have a sinking feeling that AOC is the only one willing to go there and implement a genuinely scary anti-corruption drive. And maybe she herself wouldn’t be up to it either.
Totally agree
And I think that publicizing her decision to freeze her eggs was not wise.
Her initial appeal was to the working class. Not to privileged women who are juggling career decisions with the wish to have a child.
She is diluting her message.
I agree it would be a mistake for AOC to give up the power and platform she has in the house for a low-chance run for President. She would be smart to continue to build her role in the house, or run for Senate.
Bella Abzug provides an instructive history. She had a strong left background in the civil rights and anti-war movements. Like AOC, she beat an incumbent to get elected to congress and faced strong opposition from the Democratic leadership. Abzug was an effective legislator, and was moving into a greater leadership role in the house. She gave up her seat to run for Senate, which she narrowly lost in the primary to Daniel Moynihan.. She would never again have the same level of power or influence.
Then we could expect that DSA national office wouldn't endorse AOC for Senate. At least nationally, DSA are classic Left sectarians.