The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. 

With each election cycle, the same old questions resurface: Who should lead the party? How can Democrats reconnect with voters in the heartland? And why does the party keep bleeding support among working-class Americans? 

Last week, David Axelrod tossed a name into the ring for the next DNC chair: Rahm Emanuel. Predictably, this suggestion set off a firestorm—none louder than from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose critique of the Democratic establishment feels more at home in a Tea Party playbook than in traditional Democratic discourse.

Ocasio-Cortez, better known as AOC, wasted no time attacking the idea of another Obama-era leader taking the reins of the Democratic National Committee. 

Her argument? These establishment figures oversaw some of the party’s most devastating electoral losses. In fact, she called Emanuel and his ilk a “disease.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) launched a blistering critique of former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel‘s potential bid for Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, slamming the Democratic establishment’s donor-focused approach.

“There is a disease in Washington of Democrats who spend more time listening to the donor class than working people,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “If you want to know the seed of the party’s political crisis, that’s it.”

The sharp rebuke from the progressive congresswoman came after veteran Democratic strategist David Axelrod publicly pitched Emanuel, the current U.S. Ambassador to Japan, to lead the DNC when current chairman Jaime Harrison‘s term concludes in March.

And, honestly, she has a point. Under Barack Obama’s leadership, Democrats experienced some of their worst down-ballot performances in modern history. But is the party’s problem really the so-called Obama coalition, or is it AOC and her loud progressive faction that’s driving voters away?

The Ghosts of Obama’s Leadership

Let’s not sugarcoat it—Barack Obama was a political phenomenon. His 2008 and 2012 campaigns were masterclasses in coalition-building, bringing together young voters, minorities, and educated urbanites. But the success of Obama’s personal brand didn’t translate into lasting gains for the Democratic Party. 

In fact, during his presidency, Democrats lost more than 900 state legislative seats, 13 governorships, 69 House seats, and 13 Senate seats. The working-class voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin who helped Obama win twice? Many of them jumped ship in 2016, frustrated by policies they felt prioritized elite academic interests over their needs.

Yet Democrats seem intent on avoiding this painful truth. Rather than reckoning with Obama’s shortcomings as a party leader, they continue to idolize his approach. The problem, though, is that the coalition he built wasn’t designed for longevity—it was built for Obama himself. His successors, from Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden, have struggled to revive that same magic, leaving the party floundering in its search for a winning strategy.

rest of the story here

if an idiot like AOC is their spokesperson, the group IQ is pretty low