Nothing worse than either Dubya or Romney did on the campaign trail (both notoriously weak on foreign policy in their first runs).

The anti-AOC crew are upset because it didn't blow up on her, and her presence at Munich is pretty much proof that she's getting on radar at least for VP. She actually took a relatively modest and centrist position.

She would be pigeonholed as VP. I think senate would be best at this time, but she would be a compelling presidential candidate. People trust her and she would have a shot.

... ergo, she'll never be elected President. She's fine in the role and office that she currently occupies. We need to focus our energies and money on more serious and more electable contenders who have broad appeal across the entire country, not just New England and California.

Eliminate the Electoral College and then maybe we can talk... but until then, this is pure fantasy to think "she would have a shot."

TBH, while I can’t prove it, AOC getting elected President 15-20 years from now seems infinitely more possible than the electoral college fantasy.

Actually, I have no expectation that the EC will ever be replaced. I only brought up the "fantasy" of removing it as a thought experiment to show how unrealistic political wish-craft has become... and to help illustrate the irrationality of many other political fantasies. Under our current system, she’s just not a viable national candidate. She might run for the nomination, but she won't even secure it, let alone the presidency.

Everything is unrealistic. until it isn't.

Advocating only for what is "realistic" guarantees that any and all progress is impossible.

The realistic is what we already have.

Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society. Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.

Edward Kennedy
Eulogy for his brother, Robert.

Continually adjusting our agenda based on what we think will win is exactly what has allowed the right wing to become so powerful and dominant.

Abolition was once a "pipe dream." Women's suffrage was once a "pipe dream." Organized Labor was once a "pipe dream." The National Park system was once a "pipe dream." Medicare and Social Security were "pipe dreams." The Land Grant college system, and Cooperative extension and the entire food safety infrastructure were once "pipe dreams."

In each of those cases, there were people saying what you are saying here. Usually the lead in is "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT..." "It isn't practical." "Now is not the time." "First we need to win." "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

...discussing anything further with you.

Bye.

Why post at all if you aren't serious?

... as having a lack of seriousness. I've seen it all before. There is a fine line between rigorous self-examination and a performance of "intellectual superiority" that serves only to demoralize.

I should probably go ahead and say that the common "blame the messenger" attacks, along with microaggressions and personal hostility being presented as as "objective detachment" is a common trope, but it rarely survives a close reading of the actual language used.

Again... bye. Have a nice day.

It’s great to have opinions, but your posts in this thread are just that. The argument seems to be that she’s not electable because it’s a “fantasy” to think so. How convincing do you think she is not a a viable candidate because it’s laughable that you think she’s not a viable candidate is. Obviously, you do not know that the probability is zero that she could get the win or even get the nomination. You admit reason for bringing up replacing the EC is to show people the “irrationality of many other political fantasies.” You haven’t really shown anything except that you believe we should keep New England and California ready political ideas out of the conversation. I can only infer that you mean to make the argument if we want to have success in national elections, we should not stray too far from the center. That’s a serviceable political viewpoint, but your argument here is just that straying is political fantasy. Calling something a “fantasy”, “wish-craft”, and a “pipe dream” does not make it so. It mainly serves as a rhetorical device to shut down further discussion by denigrating others’ as living outside reality. I’ve seen other posts by you that are enlightening in their analysis. This isn’t one. There seems to be a battle for the direction of the Democratic Party. I’m happy to listen to all opinions and arguments. I just wish people would not disguise unsupported opinions as arguments by putting them forth as self evident to those with their feet on the ground.

...in two years and you'll see I was right all along. Time will prove me correct. She will not be our party's nominee. Period. We can do better with someone who has broad national appeal rather than limited regional appeal. Actually, my characterisations don't "make it so" ... it doesn't *make* anything so. I'm just telling it like it is. You don't need to believe me now, but time will tell and you'll believe me later. Everything I've said is true, not dismissive... true.

in the next 20 years

Our political aspirations need to be based on reality, not some "wouldn't it be nice" fantasy.

OK

Maybe this will make things clearer:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1322&pid=106431



I hope this helps.

It’s worth noting that recent presidential elections have been responses to the previous administration…electing Bush in response to Clinton, Obama in response to Bush, Trump in response to Obama. AOC in response to Trump isn’t as far-fetched as one might think, and people will be hungry for something more progressive than the traditional Democratic Party has to offer by the time this is over.

There’s a key distinction between Obama’s strategy and the current progressive movement that you are overlooking. Obama didn’t win by moving to the extreme left, instead, he won by building a Big Tent coalition that included moderates, independents, and even disaffected Republicans (remember?)

Unlike AOC (or even Bernie) who primarily energize a progressive base, Obama was viewed by a majority of voters in 2008 as being just-about-right (ideologically) and not "too liberal" to the typical swing-state voters.

You can't win a national election by only speaking to the "hungry" wing of one's own party. We win by making the middle feel safe, which is exactly what Obama did and why others fail. Moving even further left is not the solution that many seem to think it is.

With regard to describing a candidate or a politician as being the "face of the party" or the "future of the party"... while those are flattering compliments, that really isn't the same as being a viable national candidate.

Obama's 2008 brand was "Hope and Change," which was intentionally broad and inclusive. In contrast, AOC and Sanders brand themselves on "Revolution" and "Democratic Socialism." Obviously, this is quite polarizing, and is not a winning message in most of the swing states or battleground states.

Also, if your theory that "AOC easily wins in response to Trump" were true, we would have seen it already with Bernie Sanders. I recall the massive crowds, but in the end, he was unable to expand his base beyond his core ideological supporters when the field cleared in 2020. Yes... Bernie won some primary states, but in the end, he failed to build the broad coalition (specifically with older Black voters and moderate suburbanites). This is something that Obama and his campaign mastered, and it's something that's REQUIRED for a General Election victory.

Obama's rise wasn't simply a response to Bush ... it was ALSO a masterclass in primary math. He won the nomination by out-performing in moderate and swing states. This, I think you'll agree, is something the current progressive stars have yet to prove they can do outside of their home states and outside of safe, deep-blue districts.

In the end, Obama won because he was a candidate who presented a narrative that everyone could relate to. He presented a vision of the future that people could see themselves being a part of. However, extreme candidates (even those who are incorrectly perceived as being "too extreme'') end up becoming a litmus test that half the country ... and much of the Democratic Party ... will inevitably fail.

I agree with you in one regard... there is no denying that AOC is a generational talent. She's spirited, enthusiastic, and a deeply committed Democrat who helps to reshape the party's conversation. Her message resonates powerfully within her own district and the progressive base... however (a big HOWEVER) the transition from a deep-blue New York seat to being successful on the national stage remains a bridge too far.

We need her voice to rally the voters and to gin up support for the party. She'll be great at that.

The main reason I think Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is capable of winning is that people believe she means what she says and that elections eventually come down to binary choices. I think after Trump, and whoever Republicans put up next if not Trump, she will be preferable in the eyes of the electorate. Also, Trump is a good example of someone catering to the fringe of their party and winning because of dissatisfaction with the status quo, i.e., Biden/Harris, right or wrong. Biden/Harris were a hell of a lot more popular than Trump/Vance are, so I don’t think Dems are required to put forth a moderate consensus candidate. Democrats should probably swing for the fences, confident that any semi-reasonable candidate is going to clean-up against more fascism.

From her FB page:

AOC is rising--and so are the establishment attacks on her.|

Then delivered her thoughts clearly and concisely…. Kinda like Obama

Is what the media is running with that I saw. Very minor.

That’s sort of a foreign concept to the Maga people. They just want to blurt out propaganda. She gave a very thoughtful answer. It’s a delicate question which I’ve never heard asked of Trump.

YouTube for viewing.

This is the excerpt that folks are all talking about. A question about Taiwan was asked and AOC answered as such. No big deal.

I thought she was diplomatic and didn't really answer the question directly. If she says yes, she pissed off China. If she says no, she is going against longstanding US policy, potentially putting Taiwan at risk. She should get credit for being cautious and contemplative.

There are a lot of other ways to fill the time while formulating an answer. I recall being a teenager and realizing that I was saying "um" a little too frequently. It requires a conscious effort to stop and more focus on what you intend to say. One summer and I was "um" free and haven't looked back since. In AOC's case though, this happened in Germany...How many Americans even heard it?

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2026, 08:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Those that hate her will always find something. In this case it’s this but her answer when she got there was actually good.

It was a gotcha question with no good answer.

Ask Rubio that question. It's his remit.

"They say she had a big gaffe"

Thanks

The sitting “President” has a gaffe any time he opens his mouth.

"Someplace nice, eh?"

Imagine trying to light up AOC for thinking before answering when Trump is the head of your party!

He's no genius.

And was asked a question on whether the US should send troops to defend Taiwan if it was ever attacked by China, and was clearly caught off guard and wasn’t prepared to answer such a question.

Of course, the media has focused on the latter minor gaffe, completely overshadowing the significance and importance of the main focus of her comments.

It’s popular to say we would send troops to Taiwan. I don’t think the general public would have any stomach for such a thing whatsoever, especially when facing an adversary that could do real damage to the USA.

But this question was quite specific regarding American boots on the ground in Taiwan.

It’s a question I don’t think any member of congress would have a prepared answer for.

We've generally avoided saying just what we'd do if China got frisky to keep them guessing.

As a practical matter, if China invaded Taiwan I think we'd go to war to defend them and I think it'd be the right call. Quite apart from defending a friendly democratic nation from aggression, Taiwan manufactures a huge percentage of the world's computer processors and similar.

Allowing China to take Taiwan would give them a stranglehold over that critical industry. No way we could allow that to happen.

But that's just me being an armchair strategist, so what the hell do I know?

Selling that to the American public if thousands of Americans were dying would not be an easy task. I’d be in favor of giving Taiwan equipment for defense, but, if the Chinese blockaded the country, there really would be no way to assist them without a huge confrontation.

You're going too far saying every member of Congress would be stupefied by this question. it's actually not a hard question. The US is committed to Taiwan's defense and will help Taiwan in case of an attack. U.S. troops on the ground? Not sure it would even be necessary. It wasn't a hard answer.

She needs to learn how to think better on her feet. You're going get all sorts of gotcha questions. These are the sorta questions that sunk Sarah Palin and how we laughed our asses off.

“Not sure it would even be necessary” is a dodge from the reporter’s straightforward question to AOC, which was specifically a yes/no question of the willingness of the US to put their troops on the ground in Taiwan, fighting PRC troops.

Has Whitehouse answered that specific question without hedging or dodging?

The question is too black and white and there are a lot of variables for a hypothetical event that is not guaranteed to happen. It was a layup question. No reason to stammer and stutter.

That couldn’t be answered clearly in writing and unlimited time.

Because any politician who wants to be president and says we will have all out war with China will lose. The average American person doesn’t want that. We don’t get basic services here and we are going to fund a war against China?

... once you see someone get caught in the headlights, you should be smart about when you carry sunglasses (or some other half-assed folksy metaphor) - she made that mistake and now no one else should. What will matter is whether anyone can use it against her.

Definitely love me some AOC, and I’ll admit I did see or hear about this “gaffe”
However, under both parties, US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. It follows a “one China” policy, recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China, and maintains only unofficial relations with Taiwan via the Taiwan Relations Act (since 1979). The US takes no position on Taiwan’s sovereignty and does not support unilateral changes to the status quo.
Every member of government should understand this and be able to articulate this without hesitation

Even if they could, I don’t think they would, especially if asked by a Taiwanese journalist .

It would cause an international diplomatic incident to give such a frank, albeit honest and accurate, reply, even by a president.

Admittedly, if we're to judge by the news reaction, it WAS worse than being part of a child rape ring, but these things happen.

"it happened"

sure bro

will write a book about it.

The bots are likely out in full force in other places to dissuade from the positive narrative it created.

Doing an Obama (empty suit, has to use teleprompter, just a celebrity) on her.

She’s one of the few people that can take Vance on in a debate. She’s also trusted by a lot of people that don’t trust easily.

It's the usual moderate and right wing bullshit.

I keep tabs on a few conservative pages like National Review's FB page and they have been non stop with posts about her "bad" she was. I refuse to read their crap, but seriously they have posted like a dozen times this week.

because it upsets them that AOC has influence, respect, intelligence and power that they will never achieve.