The two women who made credible attempts at becoming president also happened to be utterly terrible politicians, but I’m sure that had nothing to do with the outcome.
Okay, so question: Why, in two out of the last three election cycles, has the DNC put forward “utterly terrible politicians” as the party leader and candidate for the world’s highest office?
Because if they can’t win with their corpo zombie zionist center-right candidate, they’d rather lose and play feckless controlled “opposition” than do anything to jeopardize their gravy train with a progressive.
The two women who made credible attempts at becoming president also happened to be utterly terrible politicians, but I’m sure that had nothing to do with the outcome.
Okay, so question: Why, in two out of the last three election cycles, has the DNC put forward “utterly terrible politicians” as the party leader and candidate for the world’s highest office?
Because a non-terrible candidate would do popular things they don’t want to do? What even is this question?
So either AOC is a terrible politician or the DNC won’t push her.
I mean it’s fucking obviously the latter? What’s even your point here?
If it’s the former, why be excited, if it’s the latter, who cares?
There is such a thing as forcing elites to make concessions. Not that I think Americans can or will do it, but it’s a thing.
The DNC likely won’t push her, they’ll push Newsom or Harris (she’s already mentioned she’s thinking about running again)
And they’ll say AOC shouldn’t run because a woman can’t win up until the very second Harris announces.
Because if they can’t win with their corpo zombie zionist center-right candidate, they’d rather lose and play feckless controlled “opposition” than do anything to jeopardize their gravy train with a progressive.
Uh huh. Keep going.