Stephen A Smith agrees AOC would 'turn off' centrists if she ran for president, poses question to Dems
Stephen A. Smith had a question for "Democrats everywhere" on Tuesday during the latest episode of his podcast as he touched on the possibility of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., (AOC) running for president.
"What is your strategy?" Smith asked.
The ESPN personality turned his attention to AOC and a Wall Street Journal report that said she was nOt ruling anything out, including possible Senate and presidential runs. The paper added that some Democrats worried Ocasio-Cortez would "turn off the centrist voters they need to win competitive races."
Smith agreed she would turn off centrists, saying her platform does nOt resonate with most American voters.
"I think if you are a Democrat, if you are a leftist who rails against the system, who believes free-market capitalism spearheaded by billionaires is not the way to go, if you believe that not enough attention is being paid to the desolate and disenfranchised, if you believe that higher taxes is the way to go, that a focus shouldn't be on securing the borders, if you believe those kind of things, and that's where you stand ideologically, AOC is your candidate," he said on "The Stephen A. Smith Show." "No doubt about that."
Smith said he had no doubts about her ability to fight for what she believes and fight for the district in New York that she represents. However, he wondered whether the strategy is something that could win elections.
"Most people in the country are centrists, they're moderates. Whether they're Republican moderates or Democratic moderates or just flat-out centrists who are independents – that's most of the American population," he said. "They are not MAGA right and they are not progressive left. She clearly is (progressive left). And not be literal and not to be taken literally, but she gives the impression, when you talk about universal healthcare and you talk about other things, if you equate it to taxing Americans 70% of their income she wouldn't be against it. That ain't going to win you elections. That's not going to win you elections.
"If you're living in this day and age, and you're talking about fighting for certain rights as it pertains to transgender individuals, athletes transitioning and men competing in women's sports and stuff like that, which she is not about to speak against. If you think that's going to win you an election, you've got your head in the sand."
He said he wanted to hear some kind of plan from the Democrats. He pointed to Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, who has seemed to be just against anything related to President Donald Trump.
Smith suggested he did not think that was doing enough to legislate.
"The real issue I'm having right now with the Democratic Party is I'm waiting to hear what your plan is," he said. "It can't be, 'We're just against all things Trump.'
"What's your plan? What's your plan for the economy? What's your plan as it pertains to comprehensive immigration reform? What is your plan when it comes to foreign affairs? What is your plan as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or should I say Israel with Hamas? What is your plan with Russia and Ukraine? Is it just giving Ukraine more money like Biden was willing to do? What are your plans? … What is the plan as it pertains to the vast majority of Americans in this country?"
Ocasio-Cortez's constituents made clear to Fox News Digital earlier this month that no one should "underestimate her," pointing to her 2018 upset of Joe Crowley to win the House seat.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
19 minutes ago
Michigan House Republicans sue the secretary of state over election training materials
KALAMAZOO, Mich. -- Michigan Republicans are suing the battleground state's top elections executive over access to election training materials. The lawsuit filed Thursday is the latest escalation in a brewing dispute that began when the GOP took majority control of the state's House of Representatives last year. Since winning control of the chamber in the 2024 election, statehouse Republicans have repeatedly scrutinized the state's election processes and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026. The conflict comes as some state Republicans echo past false claims of election fraud in Michigan, which was a prime target of President Donald Trump and his backers after his 2020 election loss. Republicans on the chamber's Oversight Committee subpoenaed Benson in April, seeking access to training materials for local clerks and staff who administer elections, including access to the Bureau of Elections' online learning portal. Benson's office released some requested materials in response to the subpoena, but not all, citing cybersecurity and physical security concerns related to administering elections and the voting process. The office has said it needs to review the online portal for 'sensitive information" and make redactions. 'Since the beginning of this saga, Secretary Benson has asked lawmakers to let a court review their request for sensitive election information that, in the wrong hands, would compromise the security of our election machines, ballots and officials,' Michigan Department of State spokesperson Cheri Hardmon said in a statement Thursday. House Republicans say the goal of reviewing the material is to ensure clerks are trained in accordance with Michigan law. The House voted along party lines in May to hold Benson in contempt for not completely complying with the subpoena. The request for training materials originally came from GOP state Rep. Rachelle Smit, who has pushed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Smit is the chair of the House elections committee, which was renamed to the Elections Integrity Committee with the new Republican majority. 'Secretary Benson has proven she is unwilling to comply with our subpoena and Michigan law,' Rep. Smit said in a statement Thursday. 'She's skirted the rules and done whatever she could to avoid public scrutiny. It's become overwhelmingly clear that she will never release the training materials we're looking for without direction from a court." The lawsuit asks the Michigan Court of Claims to intervene and compel Benson to comply with the subpoena. 'The public interest is best served if the constitutional order of the State of Michigan is preserved and the Legislature can properly perform its duty to regulate the manner of elections in the state and, if deemed necessary, enact election laws for the benefit of Michigan residents,' the lawsuit says. Benson gained national attention for defending the results of the 2020 election in the face of Trump's attempts to undercut the outcome nationwide and in Michigan. Multiple audits — including one conducted by the then-Republican-controlled Michigan Senate — concluded former President Joe Biden won the state in 2020 and that there was no widespread or systemic fraud. Benson has remained a subject of GOP scrutiny this year. A Republican state representative introduced three articles of impeachment against Benson on Tuesday, and several of the accusations continue to cast doubts on the results of the 2020 election. With Democrats in control of the state Senate, it's unlikely the impeachment articles will result in a conviction.
28 minutes ago
What Trump ordering an investigation into Biden's actions might mean legally and politically
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into pardons and other executive actions issued by his predecessor, Joe Biden — launching an extraordinary effort to show that the Democrat hid his cognitive decline and was otherwise too mentally impaired to do the job. Trump, who turns 79 this month, has long questioned the mental acuity and physical stamina of Biden, and is now directing his administration to use governmental investigative powers to try and back up those assertions. Biden, 82, and now undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, dismissed Trump's actions as 'ridiculous.' Here's a look at what Trump is alleging, what impact it could have, and why the country may never have seen anything like this before. Trump directed his White House counsel and attorney general to begin an investigation into his own allegations that Biden aides hid from the public declining mental acuity in their boss. Trump is also casting doubts on the legitimacy of the Biden White House's use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. It marks a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries, and could lay the groundwork for arguments by leading Republicans in Congress and around the country that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,' Trump said Thursday. He then went further, suggesting that rogue elements within the Biden administration might have effectively faked the president's signature and governed without his knowledge — especially when it came to pushing policies that appeased the Democratic Party's far-left wing. 'He didn't have much of an idea what was going on,' Trump said, though he also acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up those assertions. A Trump fundraising email released a short time later carried the heading, 'A robot ran the country?' Legal experts are skeptical about that the investigation will do much more than fire up Trump's core supporters. 'I think it's more of a political act than one that will have any legal effect,' said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law. He added: 'I think it's designed to continue to fuel a narrative that the administration wants to elevate, but courts are not going to second-guess these sorts of executive actions' undertaken by Biden. Trump has long questioned the legitimacy of pardons his predecessor issued for his family members and other administration officials just before leaving office on Jan. 20, people whom Biden was worried could be targeted by a Trump-led Justice Department. But Trump has more recently suggested Biden was unaware of immigration policies during his own administration, and said Thursday that aides to his predecessor pushed social issues like transgender rights in ways Biden might not have agreed with. It is well-established that a president's executive orders can easily be repealed by a successor issuing new executive actions — something Trump has done repeatedly since retaking the White House. That lets Trump wipe out Biden administration policies without having to prove any were undertaken without Biden's knowledge — though his predecessor's pardons and judicial appointments can't be so easily erased. 'When it comes to completed legal acts like pardons or appointing judges,' Pildes said, a later president 'has no power to overturn those actions.' Autopens are writing tools that allow a person's signature to be affixed automatically to documents. The Justice Department, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has recognized the use of an autopen by presidents to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades — and even Trump himself acknowledges using it. 'Autopens to me are used when thousands of letters come in from young people all over the country and you want to get them back,' Trump said Thursday. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said the 'consensus view is that, as long as the president has directed the use of the autopen in that particular instance, it is valid.' 'The only issue would be if someone else directed the use of the autopen without the President's approval,' Kalt, an expert on pardons, wrote in an email. Yes. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution bestows the president with the power 'to grant Reprieves and Pardons.' 'A president's pardons cannot be revoked. If they could, no pardon would ever be final,' American University politics professor Jeffrey Crouch, author of a book on presidential pardons, said in an email. 'There is no legal obstacle I am aware of to a president using an autopen on a pardon.' Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor, said, 'Once you pardon somebody, you can't go back and un-pardon them.' 'If it's done with a president's authority, I don't think it matters whether it's done with an autopen or not,' Greenfield added. 'The president's authority is the president's authority.' Trump's suggestions that Biden's administration effectively functioned without his knowledge on key policy matters go beyond questions about pardons and the president using the autopen. Even there, though, the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. At the time, Trump celebrated the ruling as a 'BIG WIN' because it extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against him on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss. Such immunity would likely cover Biden as a former president. It might not extend to Biden administration officials allegedly acting without his knowledge — though Trump himself acknowledged he's not seen evidence of that occurring. Biden has dismissed Trump's investigation as 'nothing more than a mere distraction.' 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he said in a statement. In a word, no. There have been allegations of presidents being impaired and having their administrations controlled by intermediaries more than the public knew — including Edith Wilson, who effectively managed access to her husband, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, after his serious stroke in 1919. Wilson's critics grumbled about a shadow presidency controlled by his wife, but the matter was never formally investigated by Congress, nor was it a major source of criticism for Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding. More recently, some questioned whether President John F. Kennedy struggled more than was publicly known at the time with Addison's Disease and debilitating back pains while in office. And there were questions about whether dementia might have affected Ronald Reagan during his second term, before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, five years after he left office.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High court ruling on reverse discrimination a no-brainer: Chuck Rocha
(NewsNation) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected legal precedent that people in a majority group have a higher standard for proving discrimination. Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha agrees with the high court decision. 'Discrimination doesn't say, 'Oh, you have to be black,' or, 'You have to be a woman,' or, 'You have to be gay.' … Discrimination means you're treating me different,' he says on 'CUOMO.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
