AOC Says She Would ‘Stomp’ JD Vance In A Presidential Election
Tensions are already high…
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has claimed she would “stomp” JD Vance in a presidential election.
Ocasio-Cortez, the Left-wing congresswoman, made the claim hours after sharing a poll — conducted by The Argument and Verasight and released Tuesday — found Ocasio-Cortez leading Vance 51% to 49%, a difference within the survey’s 2.7-percentage-point margin of error, making the two candidates statistically tied. Respondents were asked how they would vote if the election were held between the New York Democrat and the Republican vice president.

When asked about the poll as she left the US Capitol on Wednesday evening, she initially downplayed its significance.
“These polls like three years out… they are what they are,” she told a reporter, who filmed the encounter.
“But let the record show I would stomp him – I would stomp him!” she added, laughing as she walked off and entered a waiting car.
Ocasio-Cortez, often known by her initials “AOC”, is seen as one of the frontrunners in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.
The poll — conducted by The Argument and Verasight and released Tuesday — found Ocasio-Cortez leading Vance 51% to 49%, a difference within the survey’s 2.7-percentage-point margin of error, making the two candidates statistically tied. Respondents were asked how they would vote if the election were held between the New York Democrat and the Republican vice president.
Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Vance has formally announced a 2028 campaign, but both are widely viewed as potential contenders to lead their respective parties. Ocasio-Cortez, first elected to Congress in 2018, has become one of the most prominent progressive voices in national politics. Vance, a former U.S. senator from Ohio and bestselling author, joined the GOP ticket in 2024 and became vice president after Donald Trump returned to the White House.
Demographic Splits Highlight Each Candidate’s Base
The poll found that Vance maintains a substantial advantage with white voters, leading Ocasio-Cortez 57% to 43% in that demographic. Ocasio-Cortez, however, holds wide leads among voters of color, including 79% support among Black voters and 64% among Hispanic voters. (RELATED: Democrats Win Miami Mayor’s Office After Nearly 30 Years Out Of Power)
Those patterns reflect longstanding partisan alignments: Republicans have consistently performed strongly with white voters in recent presidential contests, while Democrats have relied heavily on support from Black and Hispanic voters, though margins among the latter group have narrowed in recent years.
Standings Within Their Parties
Although Ocasio-Cortez polls competitively in a general election hypothetical, recent Democratic primary surveys show her trailing more established national figures, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. This suggests she would face a difficult path in a crowded primary field.
Another recent survey testing a three-way hypothetical between California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Vance, and Ocasio-Cortez found Newsom leading with 36%, with Ocasio-Cortez and Vance tied at 34% each.
On the Republican side, speculation around the 2028 field remains fluid. Asked in October which Republicans might consider a future presidential run, President Donald Trump told reporters, “We have great people… We have JD, obviously, the vice president is great. I think [Secretary of State] Marco’s [Rubio] great. I think I’m not sure if anybody would run against those. I think if they ever formed a group, it would be unstoppable. I really do. I believe that. I would love to do it. I have my best numbers ever.”
Trump, who returned to the presidency in 2025 after previously serving from 2017 to 2021, remains subject to the constitutional limits of the 22nd Amendment, which states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The provision clearly bars any individual from winning a third term, but its application to Trump’s unique electoral history has become a matter of legal dispute.
Constitutional scholars and legal analysts differ on how the amendment should be interpreted in Trump’s case, particularly whether his two election victories — in 2016 and 2024 — preclude him from pursuing future campaigns. Several lawsuits filed in 2025 seek judicial rulings enforcing the 22nd Amendment against Trump’s eligibility to appear on future ballots. Those cases are pending in federal courts and are expected to draw appeals, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. (RELATED: President Trump’s Legal Battle With The Pulitzer Prize Board Escalates)
Vance Addresses Speculation About His Future
Vice President Vance has attempted to downplay discussions about his potential 2028 ambitions.
In an interview earlier this month with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Vance said, “I would say that I’ve thought about what that moment might look like after the midterm elections. But I also, whenever I think about that, I try to put it out of my head and remind myself the American people elected me to do a job right now, and my job is to do it.”














George Santos Deserves Prison, Not A Pardon
George Santos did not stretch the truth. He did not fudge numbers. He did not run afoul of technicalities in campaign finance law. He stole, lied, and exploited vulnerable people for personal and political gain. These were not victimless crimes, nor were they victimless lies. They were part of an elaborate scheme to build a fraudulent political career on a foundation of stolen funds, fictitious wealth, and unearned trust. It is time conservatives stop equivocating. If George Santos were not a thief, he might have been a talented, even promising political figure. But he is a thief, and a spectacularly cynical one at that. He stole from the old and the sick, he stole from donors, he stole from the US taxpayer. He is not a misunderstood maverick or a casualty of overzealous prosecution. He is a con man, and a criminal.
Let us begin, as the law did, with the false image he built. Santos, through deliberate lies to the Federal Election Commission and his own party, fabricated a story of fundraising success. In early 2022, he claimed to have raised over $250,000 in a single quarter from third-party donors, including a personal loan of $500,000 to his own campaign. These were lies. He did not have the money. He did not receive these donations. But this mirage of financial viability was just enough to secure his acceptance into the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program, granting him financial, logistical, and strategic support. The GOP, believing they were backing a legitimate, self-sustaining candidate, diverted valuable resources to a fraud.
But Santos did not merely fake donor support. He invented donors. Using the identities and financial information of real people, Santos charged their credit cards repeatedly, funneling the proceeds into his campaign, other political committees, and even his own bank account. Nearly a dozen people were victimized, including individuals least capable of defending themselves. One woman, suffering from brain damage, had thousands of dollars withdrawn without her consent. Two elderly men in their eighties, each suffering from dementia, had their identities stolen and their cards charged. These were not passive accounting errors or clerical mistakes. These were acts of intimate, cold exploitation. Santos knew these people, spoke with them, thanked them for their support, and then used their vulnerability against them.
In one egregious instance, a donor who had already given the legal maximum found his credit card charged an additional $15,800 without authorization. Santos disguised this theft by attributing the funds to fabricated family members in his FEC reports, a maneuver that allowed him to continue the ruse while avoiding contribution limits. In another, he charged $12,000 to a donor’s account and deposited the majority into his personal bank. From there, it funded clothing, cosmetics, credit card bills, and gambling trips. The campaign, the candidacy, the public service, all were secondary to a lifestyle of luxury paid for by other people’s money.
Perhaps the most hypocritical of Santos’s frauds involved the pandemic. In 2020, he applied for and received over $24,000 in unemployment benefits from the state of New York. At the time, he was gainfully employed as a regional director at a Florida-based investment firm, earning over $120,000 a year. He did not miss a paycheck. He was not laid off. He did not qualify. And yet, each week, he falsely certified his jobless status, drawing taxpayer-funded aid designed for those hit hardest by COVID-19, the unemployed, the underemployed, the financially desperate. In an act of gall that would be laughable if it were not so despicable, Santos later sponsored legislation in Congress to crack down on pandemic unemployment fraud. The man who stole from the system claimed he would reform it.
Nor did the deception stop there. Santos lied on his congressional financial disclosures, the forms meant to ensure transparency for public officials. He claimed to have earned $750,000 in salary from a private company that paid him nothing. He reported receiving $1 to $5 million in dividends that never existed. He declared hundreds of thousands in bank holdings, when in fact his accounts were often in the low thousands, if not lower. In reality, his only actual income came from the investment firm and the unemployment checks he falsely obtained. The lies were not incidental. They were comprehensive, deliberate, and aimed at creating an illusion of wealth and competence.
Even more brazenly, Santos fabricated an independent expenditure group, a supposed political action committee called RedStone Strategies. He solicited two donors for $25,000 each, promising that the funds would be used for media buys and campaign efforts. They were not. Santos transferred the money into accounts he controlled and spent it on Ferragamo, Hermes, Botox, and credit card bills. This was not merely unethical. It was embezzlement. It was theft. It was a fraud perpetrated with full knowledge and intent.
In total, Santos stole or misappropriated approximately $578,750. The court ordered him to pay $373,749.97 in restitution and to forfeit an additional $205,002.97. These numbers were not speculative. They were calculated against real losses to real people, individuals whose credit was damaged, whose money was siphoned away, whose trust was obliterated. Santos’s 87-month sentence, or just over seven years, was not an outlier in the federal system. It was a typical penalty for this kind of sprawling, malicious financial fraud. Defendants with no political profile, who defrauded the government or private individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, routinely receive similar sentences. That Santos was a congressman did not result in his being singled out. If anything, it spared him scrutiny longer than he deserved.
There is no serious argument for clemency here. Clemency is for excess, for injustice, for punishment that outstrips wrongdoing. Clemency is not for grifters who fake their way into office by stealing from pensioners and pandemic relief funds. One does not defend George Santos by invoking freedom, fairness, or limited government. To the contrary, every dollar Santos stole weakened the legitimacy of our electoral system, diverted support from legitimate candidates, and degraded the moral clarity conservatives must offer in a dishonest age. The true conservative position is to say plainly: this man is a crook.
Yes, Santos was charismatic. Yes, he had a knack for commanding attention. And yes, in another life, with honesty and principle, he might have served well. But we do not excuse embezzlement because the embezzler is clever. We do not overlook theft because the thief is funny. Our movement has spent decades insisting that character matters. If that is still true, then George Santos is not a man to be platformed or pitied. He is a cautionary tale.
Some will argue that Santos’s sentence was harsh. Perhaps. But that is not a reason to pardon him. It is a reason to scrutinize sentencing guidelines for all non-violent financial offenders. Santos should be treated like any other fraudster, no worse, no better. And by that measure, he has been.
Others say we should forgive him because the media was against him. But the media is against every Republican. What makes our side different, or should, is our insistence on personal responsibility. George Santos did what he did. He admitted it. He pled guilty. He is being punished in accordance with the law. He is not a martyr. He is a criminal.
Those who now seek to rebrand Santos as a political prisoner or conservative folk hero are doing damage not only to the movement, but to the truth. And that matters. For if we cannot call theft what it is, if we cannot call fraud what it is, if we cannot reject the normalization of criminality in our own ranks, then we are not a movement of principle. We are just another racket.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
READ NEXT: Unstable Leader Pushes Reckless Nuclear Gamble
Sponsored
They’ve turned Social Security into a slush fund. President Trump is fighting to protect what YOU earned — but he needs you in this fight. Chip in $25 or more right now to stop the fraud and end the tax on your retirement [JOIN THE FIGHT TODAY]