Just over a month after losing her bid to be the top member of the powerful House Oversight Committee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez let loose on Jon Stewart’s podcast over the weekend about the “existential” threat she represented to the Democratic party’s power structure if she’d won the post, and why the current system is politically “dangerous” for Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez to Stewart:
“There are rules and structures and orders in the Democratic party. One that we know very well is seniority. It’s a seniority-rule type of system, and it is true my run…. was a challenging of an entire system.
“It wasn’t just about me. I think Gerry’s great. But it wasn’t about just two individuals. It was about challenging a system and a way of making decisions in the party, and the problem with that is that when you asked Democrats sometimes to challenge the way that they’ve been operating for decades, it’s existential, in some ways.”
AOC then warned about its results, explaining why the seniority-is-everything system is “dangerous”:
“It makes the Democratic party highly predictable in the decisions it’s going to make, in the people that we’re going to select…. when we are highly predictable to the opposition, they [Republicans] will be one, two, four steps ahead. They know what Democrats are going to do.”
For example, she noted there was “never any question” about which Democrats would “show up to the inauguration or how they would be received.” (AOC famously didn’t go, but I’ll note that neither did Connelly).
That Democratic predictability meant, “Trump is able to run roughshod through these things, because he has a lot of the party’s numbers in terms of how they’re going to operate, and I think that sometimes making certain calculated, but unpredictable choices is a way that we can give ourselves an upper hand.”
To refresh: AOC lost to 77 year old Rep. Gerry Connelly of Virginia, a Democratic establishment figure, who voted with former President Biden 100% of the time, and was hardly the change agent Democrats were expected to be looking for in the aftermath of their 2024 election losses.
A reflective Democratic party was thought to be looking to freshen its image and Ocasio-Cortez had impressed insiders with a recent willingness to play the inside game and not just be a “Squad” member on the periphery, known for outspoken views.
In addition, AOC carries a massive online presence (e.g. 12.7 million followers on X, compared with Connelly’s 82,600 followers) and an instant ability to generate headlines and create buzz.
At the time of last year’s vote, the conventional wisdom was that she’d suddenly make a stodgy and old Democratic party more relevant and fresh after the Democrats drubbing in 2024, partly because the establishment had carried the weight of Joe Biden’s age far too long, with disastrous effects.
Even though AOC was the front-runner for the bid, Nancy Pelosi worked overtime to try to stop Ocasio-Cortez and sure enough, Cortez lost her bid in a 131-84 closed door Democratic caucus meeting, which rankled progressives and those yearning for new blood.
After losing the bid, Ocasio-Cortez was far more diplomatic in a brief Bluesky post, where she said: “Tried my best. Sorry I couldn’t pull it through everyone – we live to fight another day <3”
Tried my best. Sorry I couldn’t pull it through everyone – we live to fight another day. ♥️
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc.bsky.social) December 17, 2024 at 9:56 AM
2028 TAKE-AWAY: I still consider Ocasio-Cortez a darkhorse entry for the Dem race in 2028, even though she’s young*, and lost a position that would have given her more heft in the Democratic party’s inner piping.
That being said, if she’d won her bid, maybe she would have stopped being the free-wheeling, passionate opposition voice that generates so much buzz and so many followers. Or at least tempered that side of her. But that side of her is a huge part of her appeal as a potential 2028 candidate.
In the pre-Trump days, being a bit more politic about things was the politically smart thing to do, but the “old days” is, partially, what got Democrats into the mess they ran into in 2024 as they rallied around Joe Biden.
And how much does being a “top House Democrat” really matter anymore? How much did all the pedigree in 2016 stack up to when guys like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio squared off against Trump?
If the Democratic party wants to fall in love, and not in line again, AOC’s failure to win the House post doesn’t really matter for her presidential prospects.
Those Jon Stewart podcasts, millions of Twitter followers, and outsider, down-to-earth persona matter a lot more.
[Screencap: Ocasio-Cortez on Stewart’s podcast]
*JD Vance is only two years older than Ocasio-Cortez, so in a 2028 battle between them, age is sort of a moot point, although Vance, as Veep, would carry a lot more heft on his resume. Good or bad thing, depending on how Trump’s second term goes.
