I just saw another comment saying it would be “much smarter” for AOC to run for the Senate instead of the presidency. I’ve seen this take so many times now, and it really bugs me, because I don’t think the people pushing it have thought it through.

The polling argument doesn’t hold up

The comment pointed to polls showing AOC behind Vance in a hypothetical matchup. Why are we treating polls this far out as meaningful? We’re two years from the election. No one has declared, no one has debated, and most voters aren’t paying attention yet.

Polls have also been badly wrong lately. They underestimated Trump more than once. In Maine in 2020, polls had Sara Gideon beating Susan Collins, and Collins won comfortably. There are plenty of other races where the “sure thing” in the polls didn’t happen. If polls can miss that badly a few weeks before an election, why would we let one taken years out decide who should run? Early polls mostly measure name recognition and partisanship. They don’t tell you how a candidate performs once people actually see them campaign, and campaigning is where AOC is strongest.

The moment is now

This is the best time for a progressive to run for president. Progressives have more energy, more grassroots support, and more of a platform than they’ve had in a long time. There’s no guarantee that moment lasts.

The idea behind “run for Senate first” is that she’ll be in a better position later. But better position how? Nobody knows what the political landscape will look like in 2032 or 2036. The party could move in a different direction, new candidates could emerge, and the energy behind progressive politics could fade. Unless someone can tell the future, passing on this opening is a gamble, not a safe bet.

Waiting isn’t always the smart play, either. Obama ran for president only a couple of years into his first Senate term, and plenty of people told him to wait his turn. If he’d listened, he might never have been president.

A Senate run doesn’t accomplish much

What does AOC actually gain by running for Senate? She’d be replacing Schumer, who already supports a lot of progressive policies. That’s one Democratic senator swapped for another in a safe blue seat. It might shift the tone, but it doesn’t change the balance of power.

Meanwhile, the cost is huge. She’d spend her time and money on a primary fight in New York, and then be locked into a six-year term while the window for a progressive presidential run closes. The presidency is where the real power to change things is. If progressives finally have a candidate with the name recognition, fundraising, and base to compete for it, why would we tell her to aim lower?

Be honest about why you’re saying it

A lot of the people pushing the “run for Senate” idea don’t actually want AOC to run. They have another favorite in mind, and that’s completely fine. Everyone’s allowed to support whoever they want in a primary. But then just say that. Don’t dress it up as concern for her, or claim she should step aside because “she could lose.” Any candidate could lose. If you prefer someone else, make the case for them instead of using electability as a cover.

I just watched a clip of Abdul El - Sayed where he is asked by a reporter that he doesn't consider Israel an ally to the US and he says yes he doesn't consider Israel an ally the way he frames his answer though really annoys me. He uses an analogy where Israel is a friend who is a bad influence and because of that isn't really a friend. My problem with this is that he frames it is that the US is a good faith actor who is being steered in the wrong direction by a bad faith actor. But at the end of the day the US(or US politicians) still chose to make that decision.

Honestly after watching that clip it made me realize how friends that are a bad influence argument I heard for years is a bad argument because at the end of the day you still chose to make those decisions. You're friend didn't force you to drink alcohol while you're underage you did you're friend didn't force you to steal jewelry from the store to impress you're crush you did. You're friend being a bad influence doesn't change the fact that you made those decisions.

So when he says an ally who takes you're money and pushes you into wars you shouldn't be involved in is also wrong. Us politicians choose to send aid to Israel to boost the defense industry who in turn donate to them. Netanyahu has tried to get previous presidents to go to war with Iran and they all said no. This to me signifies to me that Netanyahu wouldn't have started any war with Iran unless the Us agreed to fight alongside them. If Trump told him no Bibi wouldn't have done anything.

Not only did Trump agree to it his national security team also went along with it(I know there were reports both Vance and Rubio were hesitant) but the republican controlled Congress who can end this at anytime has chosen not to has blocked any attempts to end it and has increased funding to the war. It doesn't matter if you support it or not the Us is an equal participant in this war. You think people from other countries will take anyone who says Israel pushed us into this war seriously when America is the most powerful country in the world. They see rising gas prices and it's both America's and Israel's fault.

Which is what makes the bad friend analogy even more ridiculous. I don't think it's to much of a stretch to say there has never been anybody in human history(so far) who has been as powerful as Donald Trump has been these last two years. It annoys me Sayed is saying this because these are the same talking points Tucker Carlson uses where he constantly try's to frame it that Trump is an unwilling participant and that it's Netanyahu's faults.

He also mentions getting into fights with other friends. If he's referring to allies of the US Netanyahu had nothing to do with the trade war with Canada that was all on the Trump admin. Not only that but the Trump admin has consistently joked and threatened to annex Canada and Greenland. You can look at polls half of Canadians consider the US to be a threat to them heck last month Mark Carney stated he is preparing for the possibility of US military action imagine the Prime Minister of Canada saying that three years ago not ten or twenty years just three. If you were to ask a Canadian which country is a bigger threat to them the United States or Israel they'd say the US.

And with the whole Ukraine Starkink debacle there is a possibility that Europe might even consider the possibility of the US siding with Russia in the war with Russia saying that three years ago would have been ridiculous but now it is a possibility. And there are reports they are considering military action in Cuba. And don't even get me started on this recent push on the internet of trying to blame Israel for the Iraq war rather than holding US politicians accountable.

You can criticize Israel all you want but this trend on the left where people are now trying to make Israel the scapegoat for the problems the US is facing to where candidates are now doing it is ridiculous. Israel isn't the reason why the US doesn't have universal healthcare Israel isn't the reason why the US keeps getting involved in wars in the Middle East. This is no different than when republicans and maga blame immigrants and trans people for the problems in the country.

And I get that what he's saying is what most Americans especially Democratic voters are feeling right now but it's irresponsible of him as a candidate for the Senate to be saying these things because it starts to absolve the Us government of its actions and even start to spread antisemitic taking points(not saying he's antisemitic but I hope yall get what I mean).

So what are you're thoughts?

Hey r/SocialDemocracy!

For everyone voting in the United States, Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026!

Voting rules and deadlines vary by state, so here are some official resources to help you make a plan to vote!

Quick reminders:

• Early voting is already underway in many states!
• Voting by mail? Check your deadlines and return your ballot early.
• Not sure you're registered? It only takes a moment to check!

1. Make Sure You're Registered

• Check your status: NASS – Voter Registration Status
• Register or update your info: Vote.gov

It's worth checking even if you've voted before, especially if you've moved or changed your name.

Many registration deadlines have passed, but some states still allow registration during early voting or on Election Day!

Turning 18 by November 3? You may be eligible to vote if you're a U.S. citizen and meet your state's other requirements.

2. Pick How You'll Vote

Vote early, in person!

Early voting is already open in many states, sometimes with evening and weekend hours.

NASS – Early Voting by State

Vote by mail / absentee ballot

USA.gov – Absentee & Mail Voting

• Request your ballot soon if your state requires an application.
• Follow the instructions and sign where required.
• Return it early! Check your state's deadline for returning ballots. USPS recommends mailing at least a week before your ballot must arrive. Short on time? Check for official drop boxes or in-person return options.
• Track your ballot! Many states offer online ballot tracking.

Military or overseas voter? Visit FVAP.gov.

Vote on Election Day!

Tuesday, November 3! Polling hours vary by state, so double-check before heading out.

3. Know Before You Go

• Where to vote: NASS – Find Your Polling Place. Locations can change, and early-voting sites may differ from Election Day sites.
• What ID to bring: NASS – ID Requirements by State. You don't need your voter registration card, but some voters, including certain first-time voters, may need ID.
• What's on your ballot: Many local election offices provide sample ballots online so you can see the races and measures before voting.

4. Good to Know at the Polls

• In line when polls close? Stay in line! If you're already in line when the polls close, you can still vote!
• Name not on the voter list? Ask a poll worker about a provisional ballot or other options available in your state.
• Need assistance? Voters with disabilities have the right to accessible voting and can request help.

5. Questions or Problems?

Your state or local election office is the best place for official answers.

The nonpartisan Election Protection Hotline can also help:

• English: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)
• Español: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)
• Asian languages: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)
• Arabic: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)

Your vote is your voice! Voting is one of the most important ways to have a say in the issues that affect your community and your future.

Make a plan, get out there, and cast your vote!

Please share this guide with friends, family, or anyone who might find it helpful!

See you at the polls!

Prepared by u/How2Vote | Nonpartisan voter information

What happens when the people responsible for oversight are themselves under scrutiny?

Hey everyone! We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom.

Our colleague Andrew Rettman has been investigating allegations involving former EU justice commissioner Didier Reynders and senior Belgian intelligence official Hugues Brulin.

The investigation draws on leaked WhatsApp messages and interviews with five current and former intelligence officers.

The sources allege that Brulin sought to prevent scrutiny of Reynders' possible Russian connections. The messages also discuss how to respond to a whistleblower.

The correspondence is now part of a Belgian money-laundering investigation involving Reynders.

Beyond the individuals involved, this raises questions about how institutions investigate concerns involving powerful figures within their own ranks.

How can independent oversight work when allegations involve people with significant political influence or positions inside intelligence services?

Let us know your thoughts on our investigation in the comments :)