General Discussion

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.