Should AOC run for Schumer's Senate seat or run for President in 2028?

[acefsw]

AOC came to Philly Friday to support Chris Rabb in the primary for PA's 3rd congressional district, which prompted the Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch to ask whether AOC should run for Schumer's Senate seat or run for President in 2028.

I emailed him that I thought AOC should run for Schumer's seat. She stands a decent chance of unseating him and at 75, he really should stand down to make way for younger politicians so that they can dictate their own future, bring fresh ideas, and so forth.

No, I did not send an unsolicited email. He asks a question every week and asks for his readership to respond. You can email him with your own answers if like bunchnewsletter@inquirer.com with "AOC in 2028"

So, what do you guys think? Should she make a presidential bid or run for the senate?

 

[drogin]

She’s not electable as President. That’s just the sad truth.

To the right, it would be worse than Hilary running again.

MAGA would put up Ivanka or something.

 

[acefsw]

She’s not electable as President. That’s just the sad truth.

To the right, it would be worse than Hilary running again.

MAGA would put up Ivanka or something.

Yeah, in my opinion, our country is too misogynistic and racist for someone like AOC to win the electoral college. That said, I think she stands a decent chance at snagging a Senate seat in New York.

 

[Shavano]

She’s not electable as President. That’s just the sad truth.

Maybe? But will she have a better chance?

Should AOC run for Schumer's Senate seat or run for President in 2028?​

Definitely. In fact, Schumer should not only not run, due to age, but he should endorse her, and if not her, someone of her generation with progressive politics.

 

[acefsw]

Maybe? But will she have a better chance?

Definitely. In fact, Schumer should not only not run, due to age, but he should endorse her, and if not her, someone of her generation with progressive politics.

I definitely agree that he should stand down. We have way too many geriatric politicians - the average age in the Senate is like 64 - and need more young politicians to bring fresh energy and ideas. Elder statesmen and women should step aside to mentor and when needed advise younger politicians - institutional knowledge does have a place - in order to keep the Democratic party relevant.

 

[vassago]

She’s not electable as President. That’s just the sad truth.

To the right, it would be worse than Hilary running again.

MAGA would put up Ivanka or something.

I don't care what maga finds "electable" they're never going to vote for any candidate the Dems put up. So instead of chasing the lunatics rightward for votes you aren't going to get, start putting up actual left/progressive candidates. We need to target people who don't vote or vote in-often and give them candidates to be excited about, not trying to out-"conservative" maga with maga-lite candidates. Biden and candidates like that merely slow down the rightward destruction of this country but we need candidates who will turn it around. And AOC definitely fits that bill.

 

[herko]

I think she'd be an amazing Senator, and it's a logical next step in her career. Removing Schumer would be a cherry on top. It's also more realistic than running for President, at least at this moment in time. She should absolutely go for the Senate.

 

[acefsw]

I don't care what maga finds "electable" they're never going to vote for any candidate the Dems put up. So instead of chasing the lunatics rightward for votes you aren't going to get, start putting up actual left/progressive candidates. We need to target people who don't vote or vote in-often and give them candidates to be excited about, not trying to out-"conservative" maga with maga-lite candidates. Biden and candidates like that merely slow down the rightward destruction of this country but we need candidates who will turn it around. And AOC definitely fits that bill.

I don't they were suggesting we chase the rightward vote as much as pointing out that a lot of the electorate are misogynists and racist as fuck. Sure, if not for the electoral college, Hillary Clinton would have won by popular vote, but that's not the world we live in.

I think our best chance for positive change is to support more progressives in the Senate, the House, and governorships.

 

[Thegn]

While I would like Schumer to step aside, I would not be upset if he stayed in and got utterly destroyed by AOC. The “centrist” faction needs to be roundly defeated for any progress in this country to happen.

 

[LTParis]

I’d love AOC on the top of the ticket. That being said by said I think she’d be in a better position for Schumer’s seat and can continue to help drive that momentum.

Is 2028 her year? I don’t think so but I’d love to be proven wrong. I think enough Dems are done with the corporatist wing. But is it enough to gain just a seat or two or is there real momentum here.

 

[Shavano]

I don't care what maga finds "electable" they're never going to vote for any candidate the Dems put up. So instead of chasing the lunatics rightward for votes you aren't going to get, start putting up actual left/progressive candidates. We need to target people who don't vote or vote in-often and give them candidates to be excited about, not trying to out-"conservative" maga with maga-lite candidates. Biden and candidates like that merely slow down the rightward destruction of this country but we need candidates who will turn it around. And AOC definitely fits that bill.

A candidate must be able to turn out nearly all the Democrats and a majority of independents. I'd rather see AOC make a Senate run to prove she can appeal in more than her district before she runs for the Presidency. But personally I'd vote for her over most Democrats.

 

[etr]

It's honestly a messy calculation for Ocasio-Cortez, and it really depends on what she wants. A lot depends on her goals and her intended/desired timeline.

The downsides of going for the Senate seat are that a junior Senator usually has less sway than a senior House member. If she has her eyes on the presidency, the Senate is a little better stepping stone than the house, but still not great. As an added factor, the governors office is just as much a state-wide office as a Senate seat, and is generally a far better stepping stone to the presidency.

Assuming Ocasio-Cortez is motivated largely by the change she hopes to accomplish, the jump to Senate is probably worth the (arguable) short-term career hit, probably followed by a stint in the governor's mansion and then a run at the presidency. The longer she can manage to play the game, the more influence she is probably going to have and more impact she is likely to have on the shape of the country. I would guess (and it's a pure guess), that a Senate race would be cheaper than one for the governor's mansion, so probably easier to win in the near term and use as a stepping stone to the other.

The one potential downside for Ocasio-Cortez is that she would probably need to re-invent herself once or twice on that path. This is not a criticism of her policy, just an acknowledgement that she has been well served by a strong link with youth that seems likely to fray the longer her career runs. Age comes for all of us.

With respect to Senator/Representative age, I think it's reasonable for the Senate to skew old--and somewhat older than the house. Most Senators are not going to hold a higher office, so seeing them approach retirement age is not, in principle, a problem for me.

Probably my biggest concern here is that a decent population of senators probably had their eyes on higher office and missed the ideal age window. At least some of those may have less zeal for the work when "advancement" was a more realistic possibility, and could instead be coasting into retirement. On balance, I don't want to be retired while still productive just because promotion prospects go down. Most people can work productively beyond the moment of their last promotion--and many have need to. Why should I apply one metric to Senators and another to myself when my career approaches its conclusion?

That said, we do not need a ton of octogenarians in the Senate.

 

[N4M8-]

She’s not electable as President. That’s just the sad truth.

She's not -=YET=- electable. Given a stint as stint as VP and I think she'd be there in sufficient people's minds.

 

[m0nckywrench]

A Senate seat is attainable and gives experience otherwise unobtainable. The idea people with little experience are fit to be POTUS is nonsense no matter what side they're on. A Senate seat then running for NY Governor would offer a much longer career than a VP slot in a region with which she is familiar and well-supported.

Why should I apply one metric to Senators and another to myself when my career approaches its conclusion?

Because the purpose of the Senate is to effectively serve the public. Private parties have no such duty.
The armed forces understand the need to maintain a youthful, vigorous force for their demanding jobs. So should legislators because the mission should come before personal concerns.

Ossified leadership by human obstacles is no blessing.

 

[drogin]

She's not -=YET=- electable. Given a stint as stint as VP and I think she'd be there in sufficient people's minds.

In theory, yes. The problem is that that really depends on who is President during that term.

If her President has a bad run, she’ll be damaged goods and out of the race.

I have similar thoughts about her as a senator. I think she’d be a great one if left alone, but my fear is she gets tainted in some way.

I guess it’s a risk either way. Doing nothing isn’t really an option either.

 

[Tremere]

Shamelessly stealing my own post from back in Feb in the wishcasting candidates thread. My opinion sadly hasn’t changed in the following months:

I love AOC. If my heart were voting she’d be my choice all day every day. She’d make a fantastic leader. But an unsettling percentage of people in this country are willing to revoke women’s rights and/or disappear someone for being brown.

My heart says AOC, I’m just concerned the electorate won’t show for her. Not like there isn’t a pattern there. My brain says Pritzker or Kelly if we want to field someone to win. Maybe she could vice?

Senate however, especially ousting someone that rolls over on command like ol’ Chuck… now that’s intriguing.

 

[slymenstra hymen]

She should do whatever the hell she wants?

There will be a primary this time so the people will get to decide.

 

[Chanur64]

I think she'd be an amazing Senator, and it's a logical next step in her career. Removing Schumer would be a cherry on top. It's also more realistic than running for President, at least at this moment in time. She should absolutely go for the Senate.

Fully agree. Schumer is part of the problem, during the shutdown last year he was part of the reason it ended without any compromises being realized. He absolutely needs to go regardless of anything else, democrats have zero credibility until the old establishment are gone.

 

[KD5MDK]

All ages approximate, I'm not bothering to count months/days.

She'll be 39 in 2028. That would be the youngest president ever elected by 4 years. (TR succeeding McKinley is close enough it doesn't matter)
I don't think that and being a representative is a great place to start unless she was Speaker of the House.
I also am now skeptical that running for both Senator and Governor is useful. I'd go for Senator and have a national platform over being a governor but other people have more visibility to how other voters think.
The other thing of course is we don't know who will be president or VP in between which will influence whether she joins the 2036 race as a VP, former VP, first timer, etc.

 

[m0nckywrench]

She should do whatever the hell she wants?

Victory demands strategic thinking and action to take the fight to the enemy.
Democrats should be uniting to play ruthless team ball, but they're so reliably terrible at that even Trump couldn't unite them effectively. Becoming Governor of New York seizes key political terrain and can be a much more effective strategic victory than becoming a mere Vice President. New York does not have gubernatorial term limits. Victory there can have sustained political impact. Done right there's a chance to enhance a lastingly effective political machine.

As Governor she could elevate more younger progressives by appointment so they can permeate state government. Control of coastal power centers is critical because politics is war that never ends.

There is no future "better" USA in human terms. Technology improves. Humans do not.
Competition for power is permanent and should be embraced. Wins are ephemeral because victors become complacent. The American public are do not learn from experience. They run on vanity, passion and ignorance. Trump is not the last demagogue to win the Oval Office. His base got a taste of power and know what it takes to win elections.

 

[acefsw]

Victory demands strategic thinking and action to take the fight to the enemy.
Democrats should be uniting to play ruthless team ball, but they're so reliably terrible at that even Trump couldn't unite them effectively. Becoming Governor of New York seizes key political terrain and can be a much more effective strategic victory than becoming a mere Vice President. New York does not have gubernatorial term limits. Victory there can have sustained political impact. Done right there's a chance to enhance a lastingly effective political machine.

As Governor she could elevate more younger progressives by appointment so they can permeate state government. Control of coastal power centers is critical because politics is war that never ends.

There is no future "better" USA in human terms. Technology improves. Humans do not.
Competition for power is permanent and should be embraced. Wins are ephemeral because victors become complacent. The American public are do not learn from experience. They run on vanity, passion and ignorance. Trump is not the last demagogue to win the Oval Office. His base got a taste of power and know what it takes to win elections.

I like your thinking. State level control is an imperative because states determine House districts and, up until 2000, conducting and deciding elections -vote counting, registration, etc. It's also where you can build a base and create a political machine for bringing up House and Senate candidates. Taking over state houses and governorships is likely the most effective way to gain federal control and rein in executive overreach, (or, more recently, outright criminality).

Anyway, I don't think she would stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary let alone the presidency. She's too young and needs experience beyond the House, but I think she stands a chance for taking the Senate seat. She actually polls pretty well in New York statewide and a stint in the Senate wouldn't necessarily hurt her if she later wanted to make a bid for governor.

 

[Technarch]

I'm not sure I understand the "too young" and "needs experience" arguments. AOC is running rings around crusty "experienced" fucks like Schumer and, well, literally every other Democrat in federal elected office. And the electorate has made it pretty clear that they're pretty tired of ancient boomer politicians like Schumer and Trump and Biden and Pelosi and McConnell and so on. I bet the zoomers would prefer a 39-year-old with bartending experience over even pushing-retirement-age Gen Xers like Kelly and Newsom.

 

[acefsw]

I'm not sure I understand the "too young" and "needs experience" arguments. AOC is running rings around crusty "experienced" fucks like Schumer and, well, literally every other Democrat in federal elected office. And the electorate has made it pretty clear that they're pretty tired of ancient boomer politicians like Schumer and Trump and Biden and Pelosi and McConnell and so on. I bet the zoomers would prefer a 39-year-old with bartending experience over even pushing-retirement-age Gen Xers like Kelly and Newsom.

She's only been in office 7 years as a house member and US voters have rarely elected a House member to the Presidency. The majority were governors or previously governors. That seems to be the most likely path to the Presidency. I have no doubt that if she ran, she'd get a higher youth turnout, but I don't see that as something that would necessarily get the win. I think she would stand a better chance if she were in her 40's and already held the office of governor, senator, or VP.

 

[Kevin Lantz]

AOC should certainly run for Senate and see where that goes.

 

[linnen]

She's only been in office 7 years as a house member and US voters have rarely elected a House member to the Presidency. The majority were governors or previously governors. That seems to be the most likely path to the Presidency. I have no doubt that if she ran, she'd get a higher youth turnout, but I don't see that as something that would necessarily get the win. I think she would stand a better chance if she were in her 40's and already held the office of governor, senator, or VP.

Obama had about 10 years experience, one term in the Senate and about 7 years in the IL senate. Are you certain this line of argument is useful?

 

[Thomnmi]

Yeah, in my opinion, our country is too misogynistic and racist for someone like AOC to win the electoral college. That said, I think she stands a decent chance at snagging a Senate seat in New York.

Why are you assuming that her 'unelectability" is based on her sex or race?

 

[Thomnmi]

I really wish the Democrats would run more center candidates

 

[drogin]

I really wish the Democrats would run more center candidates

Hmm. I would think it doesn't matter much to the other side if they are center, center-left, or full on left.

If they have a D next to their name on the ballot box, very low chance you're going to get a lot of die hard Republicans to vote for them.

So you might as well run progressives.

In fact, the other reason to run progressives is we need a pretty be reversal on the pendulum swing we are on. Centrists won't do that, and shouldn't do that. If a candidate presents themselves as a centrist and then flips into progressive mode once in office, then they just disenfranchised many of their votes. I feel like that's wrong and won't lead to lasting change.

 

[zenparadox]

I don't care what maga finds "electable" they're never going to vote for any candidate the Dems put up. So instead of chasing the lunatics rightward for votes you aren't going to get, start putting up actual left/progressive candidates. We need to target people who don't vote or vote in-often and give them candidates to be excited about, not trying to out-"conservative" maga with maga-lite candidates. Biden and candidates like that merely slow down the rightward destruction of this country but we need candidates who will turn it around. And AOC definitely fits that bill.

IIRC it was the failure of Democratic voting males to turn out in the same numbers for Hillary and Kamala as they did for Obama, that lost both women their elections. The poster you're replying to simply acknowledges the fact that for the immediate future, misogyny is the more difficult barrier to overcome than racism in terms of motivating voters - and that's among Democratic voters.

 

[Shavano]

I'm not sure I understand the "too young" and "needs experience" arguments. AOC is running rings around crusty "experienced" fucks like Schumer and, well, literally every other Democrat in federal elected office. And the electorate has made it pretty clear that they're pretty tired of ancient boomer politicians like Schumer and Trump and Biden and Pelosi and McConnell and so on. I bet the zoomers would prefer a 39-year-old with bartending experience over even pushing-retirement-age Gen Xers like Kelly and Newsom.

I think there's invaluable experience in running a large org rather than being an influential member. That's why Speaker of the House or at least minority leader are the most credible backgrounds in the House for a Presidential run. A House member by definition represents a small, highly localized contingent. AOC is really active in getting to know and have influence beyond her district but the job is still the job. A Senator has a broader view (except Wyoming other low-population states), and more stature and is closer to more centers of power. That's why people see it as a more credible background for a Presidential run. IMO Mayor of a major city like NYC or Los Angeles which are bigger and more diverse than some states is credible but everybody seems to think of mayors as the mayor of Hickberg not a position where you work for millions of people.
Governor is historically the best background for a Presidential run. That's where you actually have a job that's a lot like running the country but at a smaller scale.

 

[Thomnmi]

Hmm. I would think it doesn't matter much to the other side if they are center, center-left, or full on left.

If they have a D next to their name on the ballot box, very low chance you're going to get a lot of die hard Republicans to vote for them.

So you might as well run progressives.

In fact, the other reason to run progressives is we need a pretty be reversal on the pendulum swing we are on. Centrists won't do that, and shouldn't do that. If a candidate presents themselves as a centrist and then flips into progressive mode once in office, then they just disenfranchised many of their votes. I feel like that's wrong and won't lead to lasting change.

If the Democrats want the Independent vote, I think they need to move more to the center.

Republicans will mostly vote for Republicans
Democrates will mostly vote for Democrates

It is often the Independents that decide the elections

 

[Shavano]

If the Democrats want the Independent vote, I think they need to move more to the center.

Republicans will mostly vote for Republicans
Democrates will mostly vote for Democrates

It is often the Independents that decide the elections

We keep hearing that but that's not how politics works. Did Trump win by moving to the center? If he didn't have to, why would Democrats?

 

[Thomnmi]

Trump won because of the way Biden managed/mismanaged the campaign and dumped at the last moment, in my opinion

But to answer your question, Trump won because he got the most votes made up of Republicans and Independents.

 

[Shavano]

Trump won because of the way Biden managed/mismanaged the campaign and dumped at the last moment, in my opinion

But to answer your question, Trump won because he got the most votes made up of Republicans and Independents.

He didn't get those independent voters by going all centrist.

 

[DarthSlack]

She's not -=YET=- electable. Given a stint as stint as VP and I think she'd be there in sufficient people's minds.

VP Is really a career killer though. If she really wants to be President, she's much better off going for the Senate or Governor so she doesn't get saddled with Someone Else's Baggage. That's why Tim Walz was such a good choice, he really didn't want anything beyond VP.

 

[DarthSlack]

If the Democrats want the Independent vote, I think they need to move more to the center.

Republicans will mostly vote for Republicans
Democrates will mostly vote for Democrates

It is often the Independents that decide the elections

What the "independents" have shown is that they really aren't. They're just Democrats and Republicans pretending to be something else. Trump appealed to "independents" by being a racist fuckwit. How "moderate" was that stance?

 

[spacespektr]

When speculating about AOC’s calculations, keep in mind that her next shot at NY governor isn’t until 2030. So her options are:

• Sit tight and build her influence in the House
• Go after Schumer’s seat in 2026
• Go for the presidency in 2028
• Go for the governorship in 2030
• Go for the presidency in 2032/36

Of course, “All of the above” is the smartest approach. Even if she doesn’t run for POTUS until 2036, she’ll still be in her 40s and will have two decades of leadership some combination of the House, Senate, and governor’s mansion.

 

[drogin]

If the Democrats want the Independent vote, I think they need to move more to the center.

Republicans will mostly vote for Republicans
Democrates will mostly vote for Democrates

It is often the Independents that decide the elections

That logic doesn't really hold.

What exactly do you mean by Independents? I am not a registered member of any political party, but I've voted Democrat in every major election. Am I an Independent in your mind?

If you're really talking about non-voters...then they may very well be progressive and just not excited by centrists or center-left candidates.

 

[drogin]

When speculating about AOC’s calculations, keep in mind that her next shot at NY governor isn’t until 2030. So her options are:

• Sit tight and build her influence in the House
• Go after Schumer’s seat in 2026
• Go for the presidency in 2028
• Go for the governorship in 2030
• Go for the presidency in 2032/36

Of course, “All of the above” is the smartest approach. Even if she doesn’t run for POTUS until 2036, she’ll still be in her 40s and will have two decades of leadership some combination of the House, Senate, and governor’s mansion.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of her as a Senator.

She'd have a national platform, and she'd still be able to exercise agency from the President and the Party when she wants to.

That's something a VP doesn't get. VPs have to be "the good soldier" so outside of another President like Obama...I don't really see her soldiering up for someone.

 

[N4M8-]

VP Is really a career killer though. If she really wants to be President, she's much better off going for the Senate or Governor so she doesn't get saddled with Someone Else's Baggage. That's why Tim Walz was such a good choice, he really didn't want anything beyond VP.

Senator works but it is easier to frame it as the whacky choice of a liberal state, particularly depending on the legislation she gets associated with.

Yes VP carries association with the presidency it is part of. That worked for Joe Biden .

There are trade offs either way