To take a step back for a second, I am fairly sure that when Amy got into politics originally, it was out of a desire to do the work – make the world a better place and so on. They’ve been pretty consistent in giving her lines that indicate at least some level of idealism – her blow-up at Selina is entirely driven by disappointment at Selina’s failures (note, this is why Amy’s blow-up is so much more devastating than Dan’s earlier in the season – Dan is frustrated at Selina’s incompetence, but Amy’s the one who connects to a bigger picture in which Selina single-handedly sets back the cause of women by a hundred years), and her line to Dan in season 6 about Selina not being known for “serving her country” points to something similar.
I am ALSO sure that what’s KEPT Amy in politics is that it gives her an outlet for desires she would otherwise have to repress. Her reactions when she gets Dan’s job and when she makes Buddy’s opponent cry are not pretty – Amy is very, very competitive and very driven, and she gets a genuine thrill when she beats someone by being smarter than them. There aren’t many professions where that kind of behaviour from women is tolerated, let alone actively encouraged.
In addition, whatever Amy may think, while she is very driven, she’s also clearly happiest when working with a partner. From her demeanour alone it’s obvious she’s happier when she can bounce ideas off Mike or Ben or Selina or, most of all, Dan – half the reason she was so miserable in Nevada was that Buddy was fundamentally incapable of being that kind of partner for her. Compare it to happy she was in New Hampshire or Nevada or at the primary debate with Dan, or, in season 6, when she was working with Mike to track down his diary. She’s visibly relaxed in a way she isn’t on her own.
Finally, Amy values straight-talking – Karen Collins drove her insane for this exact reason, and I think it also lies at the root of her contempt for Danny Chung – and she has no poker face whatsoever. Which is why I tend to think she’d be a terrible politician, though I admit it’s at least possible a skilled campaign manager could turn her…transparency into a strength.
From all of that, I think a couple of things can be ruled out. She’d be a terrible lawyer – the pedantic use of language required by law would drive insane – and it also seems likely to me that Amy would need to work in an industry that was creative. I mean that in a very broad sense of the term, mind you – an industry that has an appreciable, positive effect on society or the environment or something (productive might have been a better word actually). So tech might be a good fit, of pharmaceuticals, but definitely not finance or management services, she’d hate it. It also seems to me that academia might, theoretically, be a good fit, though I think she’d need one of the more policy oriented roles – I can’t see Amy having much patience with post-modernist inflected theory.
But my instinct is that if Amy can still have some nascent level of idealism after everything she’s seen, that desire will never leave her, not really. I can’t see her becoming like Dan and trying to be a ‘personality’ in her own right – she’s good-looking enough that she could probably do it if she wanted to, but on the most basic level…I don’t think she’d find it interesting.