Is AOC president material?

[Big Reputation 800]

19 minutes ago, Enigma said:

You are allowed to be wrong, sadly

You don’t have to be disrespectful about my own personal views though. It’s fine to disagree but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong at all

[auburn 1,072]

The Dems or the GOP would never allow any progressive to take the office. 

[ctherainbow 3,162]

I would prefer US Rep from the 3rd District of Kansas, Sharice Davids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharice_Davids

Native woman, past MMA fighter, queer, has run and won in a competitive district multiple times, so she knows how to speak to people outside of blue urban islands

Plus it's just time for us to have a Native, queer and/or female Prez.      

 

(But to answer the question, from what I know of her, yes, I think AOC could make a decent to good president    )

[bionic 50,111]

I like her policies but she is way too divisive and her approach to politics is really militant which i find very offputting

[Benji 20,113]

She’s too far left.  She is a great politician and she brings great balance and ideas but you really want someone a majority of the country can be agreeable to and have the house more united.

[Chuckles 2,549]

7 hours ago, Aphasic said:

Well people in the USA are mortified of socialism (even though they are the biggest economy the USA also has the most disadvantagestist system for their own people). Why are people so afraid of the benefits of socialism?

Because they think it’s synonym with communism 

[NightStar 313]

I think it's impossible to tell now because she has just won two campaigns in the same congressional district, winning a little over 110.000 votes in 2018 and 150.000 votes in 2020.

It's a rather special district with clear democratic preferences among voters where no Democratic Party presidential candidate has ever scored less than 70% of the votes in the presidential elections held since 2000.     

This district is also not very representative of the swing states which would be crucial for her victory if she ever decided to run. 

 

[Enigma 7,182]

4 hours ago, Reputation King said:

You don’t have to be disrespectful about my own personal views though. It’s fine to disagree but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong at all

Everyone on the right has always and will always be wrong about everything.

[Taylucifer 5,249]

material? yes, but in the US a lot of work would have to happen for her to get the necessary points to win cause most ppl are too right wing to even consider her

[monster4life231 4,304]

This is from a British perspective. I think that she's an amazing politician and I agree with her on most things (I'm also a democratic socialist, although I'm more left wing than her on some issues). I think that she would be able to make great changes in the USA, however, I do not think the electorate would be ready for anybody remotely as left wing as her. Almost immediately right-wingers won't vote for her and I would even suggest that some centrists/the soft left would not vote for her either. In a lot of cases centrists are more comfortable with a right-wing leader than they are a left-wing leader since they often want to maintain the capitalist status quo, so they will often resist those who pose a challenge to that. Plus, since she openly describes herself as a socialist, as @Chucklesnoted, socialism is often used as synonym with communism (specifically Soviet style communism, which in itself is only one strand of communist thought). Therefore, I think it would be very difficult to convince many people that democratic socialism can bring benefits to them. So although I think that she would be an amazing president, I do not think the electorate would be prepared for a democratic socialist to lead perhaps the most pro-capitalist country in the world. It would require significant cultural shifts that may take some generations to occur in order to elect a president similar to AOC.

Edit: Random note here, I suppose in a sense AOC isn't even a democratic socialist, she's more like a social democrat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that she's advocating state control of some sectors of the economy or advocating for workers control in some businesses? It seems that she's supporting a strong welfare state over a socialist state, as @Jillmentioned. In that way, some people wouldn't even class AOC as being a socialist, but rather as a social democrat who just wants capitalism to work a bit better for the marginalised. This may negate some of what I've said above, since I was using the definition of democratic socialism as being a person who advocates for either nationalisation (which I support) or worker's control of industries (which I also support in some instances).

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

9 hours ago, Economy said:

Corporate taxes in particular I’d be careful with. I’m more comfortable with big hikes on the wealthy individuals themselves but high Corporate taxes everyone ends up paying for it, it’s not really a tax on the wealthy specifically and I don’t think most people understand that

The consumer only ends up paying for it because the executives don’t wanna give up their outrageously high salaries. Higher corporate taxes without higher prices = cutting into executives’ salaries. Low wages for workers, corporate abuse of the planet, and corporate irresponsibility are all directly tied to low taxes on rich people (which most executives are). So long as there aren’t confiscatory taxes on rich people (think 1950’s style taxes), this is gonna keep happening; if taxes end up being confiscatory for the rich, then they’ll have no choice but to give in and stop trying to become as rich as they otherwise would if the taxes were lower (current rates). So instead of keeping all that extra money for themselves they would most likely give it to their workers since Uncle Sam would end up taking almost all of it past a certain threshold. This would also lead to higher corporate taxes being more tolerated by corporations like it was in the 1950’s.

[Rock Jock 993]

No lol

she is too radical 

[kwiax 3,028]

best scenario for 2024: Kamala winning Presidential Elections with AOC as her Vice

[HuffsAhoy 7,433]

Not in a million years, she's in too in your face and radical. We need people like her to stay in congress because that kind of personality and work ethic is sorely needed there. Unlike so many dems, she doesn't bend over backwards to the establishment. I'd like to see her rise through the ranks and eventually replace Do-Nothing Nancy as Speaker

[andreas85 400]

ACO isn't far-left or any kind of a radical either. That is just typical hysterical propaganda that right-wing medias keep spouting. In reality she is basically just supporting ideas that are common sense in every other western country. US mainstream policies are just so far-right that any even moderately leftist looks like an extremist.