Does AOC have a realistic chance to become U.S. President one day?

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Yes, and I think she will be eventually.



Her ideas are becoming more and more mainstream, and as more boomers who are afraid of "socialism" die off and are replaced by minorities and left-leaning white millenials, she should have no problem winning.

Also, the suburbs aren't going to rapidly swing against her because by the time she's running for President, they'll already be Titanium D if current trends continue until then.

The Suburbs trended D because they weren’t too left wing on economics, if AOC becomes the nominee that will no longer be true


The Suburbs would on social issues right now cause right now both parties support policies that benefit the Suburbs . With AOC that will no longer be true

The suburbs are getting more and more diverse, and more educated as well.

They didn't vote for Clinton because they particularly liked her economic policies, they voted for her because they particularly hated Trump and his personality, with dislike for most of his policies probably being secondary.

Look at how well Beto did in the Texas suburbs, and remember he ran on abolishing ICE, Medicare for all, etc.

Again Beto and Clinton do not equal AOC not even close

On what specific issues did Beto run to the right of AOC in his Senate campaign?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think she's a flash in the pan, and I'm not saying that due to AOC Derangement Syndrome (which is as real as TDS is on the left, trust me) but rather due to history. Ask President Elizabeth Holtzman if AOC will make it to the White House.

Again, I actually like AOC - this isn't another right-winger predicting her political demise due to some weird hate boner. But I just don't see her future going beyond the House as of this moment.

[pbrower2a]

The case for her: she has gotten an unusually-early start  in her House career. That says something. The House of Representatives is usually two steps away from the Presidency. So is being the mayor of a medium-to-large city. In the case of Barack Obama, State Senator was enough to get him into the Senate.

Problems:

1. She is from an ultra-safe district. I question that she will ever face a significant challenge in the general election. She can get away with some rigid positions that one can't imagine with a Representative from a suburban district with a more diverse population.

2. She is neither an attorney or a retired senior military officer. Hey -- Truman was a colonel in the US Army. Dubya and Trump were lousy Presidents.

3. She is poor by Congressional standards, and she is going to remain so or implode in a scandal.

4. The Overton Window must move far to the Left to embrace her.

I see another Adam Clayton Powell. Should she ever develop leadership, it will be in the House, where people in ultra-safe seats tend to develop seniority suitable for leadership of powerful committees.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, and I think she will be eventually.



Her ideas are becoming more and more mainstream, and as more boomers who are afraid of "socialism" die off and are replaced by minorities and left-leaning white millenials, she should have no problem winning.

Also, the suburbs aren't going to rapidly swing against her because by the time she's running for President, they'll already be Titanium D if current trends continue until then.

The Suburbs trended D because they weren’t too left wing on economics, if AOC becomes the nominee that will no longer be true


The Suburbs would on social issues right now cause right now both parties support policies that benefit the Suburbs . With AOC that will no longer be true

The suburbs are getting more and more diverse, and more educated as well.

They didn't vote for Clinton because they particularly liked her economic policies, they voted for her because they particularly hated Trump and his personality, with dislike for most of his policies probably being secondary.

Look at how well Beto did in the Texas suburbs, and remember he ran on abolishing ICE, Medicare for all, etc.

Again Beto and Clinton do not equal AOC not even close

On what specific issues did Beto run to the right of AOC in his Senate campaign?

Taxes , energy policy , Healthcare (in the debate he said he is for a public option ) , And there is a massive difference in foreign policy .


Also midterm elections are fundamentally different than Presidential as in midterm elections , the election are mainly a referendum on the incumbent while in Presidential elections both candidates positions on the issues are much more known by the public .

[Xing]

Underestimate her at your own peril. Not saying that she'll become president or that another person on the left won't outshine her, but the idea that she'd lose in a landslide is absurd.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Who knows how much will change by then? I wouldn't rule it out.

[7,052,770]

She could run in 2068 and be the same age as Bernie in 2020, and with anti aging technology advancing, she could probably run later. Given her high profile and long time to potentially find the right moment to run, I'll say yes.

[TJ in Oregon]

I thought so initially when she came onto the national stage, but she's since proceeded to trip over herself repeatedly. I now think the answer is no.

[Badger]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

[OSR stands with Israel]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/green-new-deal-is-impossible-and-a-partial-attempt-would-cost-over-50-trillion.html%3famp

[Sestak]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

[OSR stands with Israel]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

Find any study that shows me it would cost less than 20 trillion over 10 years


By the way they explain how they got to those numbers in the articles but you guys on the left are just as fact free as you claim people on the right are on the issues you support .

[Badger]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

Published in a republican hack magazine, don't forget.

Congratulations, beep boop. You've hit the fact free trifecta!

[OSR stands with Israel]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

Published in a republican hack magazine, don't forget.

Congratulations, beep boop. You've hit the fact free trifecta!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

[Badger]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

Published in a republican hack magazine, don't forget.

Congratulations, beep boop. You've hit the fact free trifecta!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Your first link rather proves my point, and your ladder link is a pathetic red herring attempt at whataboutism.

BTW, check out the Wikipedia page for the website you are citing. Columbia journalism review refers to it as an amateur media bias website his results are in no way scientific. Admittedly, it's somewhat difficult to be scientific about something this subjective, but you aren't exactly reaching for the stars in terms of citing credible Authority here.

[OSR stands with Israel]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

Published in a republican hack magazine, don't forget.

Congratulations, beep boop. You've hit the fact free trifecta!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Your first link rather proves my point, and your ladder link is a pathetic red herring attempt at whataboutism.

BTW, check out the Wikipedia page for the website you are citing. Columbia journalism review refers to it as an amateur media bias website his results are in no way scientific. Admittedly, it's somewhat difficult to be scientific about something this subjective, but you aren't exactly reaching for the stars in terms of citing credible Authority here.

Find me a source which says the Green New Deal will cost under 20 trillion In 10 years

[T'Chenka]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

Published in a republican hack magazine, don't forget.

Congratulations, beep boop. You've hit the fact free trifecta!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Your first link rather proves my point, and your ladder link is a pathetic red herring attempt at whataboutism.

BTW, check out the Wikipedia page for the website you are citing. Columbia journalism review refers to it as an amateur media bias website his results are in no way scientific. Admittedly, it's somewhat difficult to be scientific about something this subjective, but you aren't exactly reaching for the stars in terms of citing credible Authority here.

Find me a source which says the Green New Deal will cost under 20 trillion In 10 years

You do realize that you have to compare $20 trillion or whatever number to the cost of all the damage climate change will do to America right? It isn't "20 trillion versus zero".

[OSR stands with Israel]

People who support AOC shouldn’t accuse Republicans of living in a fact free world because they are supporting a politician who lives in a fact free world as well.

"Fact free".

Do you make that assessment based on complete BS Fox News assessments like the green New Deal is going to prohibit procreation and cow farting? Or just a near religious like, not to mention ahistorical, belief that Reaganomics was wonderful and the only way to grow the economy is to give rich people tax breaks?

The cost of Trump’s Tax cuts were 1.5-2 trillion , the Bush ones were around 2.5 trillion



The cost of AOC Green New Deal are significantly higher and would cost more in one year than either the Bush or trump tax cuts did in 10 : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/19/the-green-new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/amp/

Congratulations, you found a Republican hack study from a Republican hack group that blows things way out of proportion.

Published in a republican hack magazine, don't forget.

Congratulations, beep boop. You've hit the fact free trifecta!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Your first link rather proves my point, and your ladder link is a pathetic red herring attempt at whataboutism.

BTW, check out the Wikipedia page for the website you are citing. Columbia journalism review refers to it as an amateur media bias website his results are in no way scientific. Admittedly, it's somewhat difficult to be scientific about something this subjective, but you aren't exactly reaching for the stars in terms of citing credible Authority here.

Find me a source which says the Green New Deal will cost under 20 trillion In 10 years

You do realize that you have to compare $20 trillion or whatever number to the cost of all the damage climate change will do to America right? It isn't "20 trillion versus zero".

20 trillion is the low end of the cost, the fact is there is no way to fund the green new deal without nationalizing many industries including the energy industry.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's look at some of the young Representatives who made big splashes:

Rep. Richard Nixon (R-CA) was the REAL face of anti-Communism.  Not Joe McCarthy.  Nixon actually nailed a REAL Communist (Alger Hiss) instead of making a lot of noise and getting slapped down at a hearing (as Joe McCarthy ultimately did) on the way to dying young due to alcoholism and drug addiction (as Joe McCarthy ultimately did).

I can't think of any young Representative who made a big splash in his/her first 2 years that went on to be President, other than Nixon.  Nixon did it because (A) he saw an open Senate seat coming in 1950, (B) used the Communist issue to frame the terms of the General Election, and (C) after getting elected to the Senate, was smart enough to do everything to hitch his wagon to Eisenhower's star.  (Nixon angered a number of conservatives in the California delegation, which was pledged to its favorite son, Gov. Earl Warren, by vocally downplaying Taft's chances in the General Election, which shifted California's delegation to Eisenhower, who was the sort of unknown quantity that Trump was in 2016.)  Nixon got on the fast track, and even his defeats in 1960 and 1962 did not diminish his role as a Republican contender.  Nixon got near the top, missed by a hair, but managed to stay relevant in his years out of office.

The key for AOC to become President is to get on a fast track to the US Senate.  That will be easy if Gillibrand is the nominee, but tough if she's not.  The biggest obstacle to AOC getting elected to the Senate is (A) if Gillibrand is not elected President, she and Schumer will be in office for several more 6 year terms, and (B) if Gillibrand IS elected President or Vice President, Gov. Cuomo gets to appoint her successor, and he's not likely to pick AOC (although her star status will put her in the mix).  She's not likely to become President directly from the House, and she's not likely to become President if she were elected Mayor of NYC (although that would make it a tad more possible). 

That being said, if Schumer or Gillibrand were to suddenly NOT run for re-election, AOC has a very good chance of being a Senate nominee and would likely be elected if nominated.  New York isn't shy to elect stars, and AOC is now a star in her own right.  Should Schumer retire in 2022 (he'll be 72 then), AOC would, indeed, be a leading contender.  Her chances of becoming President are small, but we can say that of any elected official.  She's a star, and stars get a boost in the world of NY electoral politics.  Her chances are much better than the chances of, say, Rep. Jared Goldin (D-ME) who's NOT a star, but who may have a better chance at being Senator sometime in the near future.  There is certainly something to be said about star power.  Nobody much has heard of Jared Golden.  Everyone has heard of AOC.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

No, she is way too hot to be taken seriously. May be, when Boomers dies out and Millennials have a bigger share of the electorate.

[T'Chenka]

No, she is way too hot to be taken seriously. May be, when Boomers dies out and Millennials have a bigger share of the electorate.

Younger people control what is popular, relevant, trending, cultural movements. If AOC catches on as a "thing" that is popular and mainstream with young people, it wil be young people who dictate whether she is taken seriously, generally speaking - and not boomers.

Boomers could decide to not take her seriously, but they'll do so knowing that by doimg so they're going against the default cultural zeitgeist.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Give America another hard economic crash, another decade or two of increasing wealth disparity, the toxic Republican bigotry agenda, and the impacts of global warming and she will likely be an extremely appealing candidate to all but whatever is left of the Republicans. That is if there is still a recognizable America with real elections by then.

[Hollywood]

The fact that this question is asked following Obama's administration, Clinton's near win, and Trump's victory is an indication that she has no chance.  She doesn't even have enough support to be President in this left-wing cluttered forum.  The answer is "no"

[T'Chenka]

The fact that this question is asked following Obama's administration, Clinton's near win, and Trump's victory is an indication that she has no chance.  She doesn't even have enough support to be President in this left-wing cluttered forum.  The answer is "no"

Why would Obama's 2nd term or Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign have much to do with the next 40 years of presidential politics? Even with Trump, he hasn't been re-elected yet, so America hasn't had a chance to say "this was a mistake" or "we are re-affirming that Trump is what we like" at the ballot box just yet.

The main reason people aren't talking about AOC as a potential president right now is that the 2020 election is starting up and she isn't old enough to run for president until 2024. She would be polling higher than Biden and Harris if she was eligible.

[Hollywood]

The fact that this question is asked following Obama's administration, Clinton's near win, and Trump's victory is an indication that she has no chance.  She doesn't even have enough support to be President in this left-wing cluttered forum.  The answer is "no"

Why would Obama's 2nd term or Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign have much to do with the next 40 years of presidential politics? Even with Trump, he hasn't been re-elected yet, so America hasn't had a chance to say "this was a mistake" or "we are re-affirming that Trump is what we like" at the ballot box just yet.

The main reason people aren't talking about AOC as a potential president right now is that the 2020 election is starting up and she isn't old enough to run for president until 2024. She would be polling higher than Biden and Harris if she was eligible.

The point I'm driving at is that anyone could be President in this country.  Even if she were eligible, there isn't any information to suggest that she could be president.  Her politics are far-left, racially toxic, and completely uninformed.  She clearly has some skeletons that have yet to be uncovered, and unlike the other corrupt Democrats, doesn't have enough allies to count on her fingers.  Even counting her fingers seems like an insurmountable task for her. 

Anyway, go ahead and run her.  Please run her. I want to see Democrats cry like babies again when they lose another election due to their own condescendance and incompetence. Although I won't have a dog in the 2024 election, because the Republicans are probably going to revert back to a corporate insider.