I love AOC, but she will lose.
The American people have shown that they would rather have a convicted felon, rapist, fascist pedophile than a highly qualified woman.
It’s stupid, but it’s reality.
A woman candidate is a non starter.
Unlike Kamala and Clinton she actually believes in something, and not just the Dems’ very rich corporate donors.
look at Zohran Mamdani in New York. He’s a Muslim, foreign born, socialist. Plenty of things that by the same logic would make him loose. But he won the primary and odds are he’ll Winn the mayor position.
His path to victory is very hard. Expect hundreds of millions to be spent on ads against him. My boss’ PAC has estimated Cuomo would have $100 million available if he chooses to run as an independent.
That’s New York. You won’t win swing states with those candidates. And I love Zohran. If he ran in California, I’d vote for him.
He won with 48% of the 15% most involved DNC voters who took time to participate in primaries, in New York City, and he still has to win the generals next.
Unlike Kamala and Clinton she actually believes in something, and not just the Dems’ very rich corporate donors.
And that is why she will fail.
Welcome to reality. Welcome to America.
We chose a felon rapist traitor over highly qualified women…twice. And those women were more qualified than AOC and more moderate. The further left AOC goes, the more voters she loses.
She won’t win.
It does not matter enough. Too many bigots in the conservative dem voter base.
They will vote black, Muslim, Asian, so long as it’s not a woman.
Sad state of the American psyche.
In all likelihood, yes, she will lose.
But she should still run for the same reasons Bernie ran. Change the discourse and prevent unfettered ratcheting of the Overton window; force Democrats to respond to her challenge.
If she doesn’t run, we all lose. Winning isn’t quite everything.
If the dems lose in 2028, assuming there is an election, the fascists will consolidate power and the U.S. will be a dictatorship for 40 years.
Exactly. The Primary process is about getting your policies in the platform as much as it is getting you candidate(s) the nomination. She should run, a “standard neoliberal” should run, a corporatist should run etc… the process is allowed to be messy.
To be fair, Clinton and Harris and the platform were not particularly exciting, and they played by the old rules.
Misogyny may have been a contributing factor, but not being bold, exciting, or authentic sure as hell didn’t help.
Harris and Clinton both had major structural issues that went beyond their gender. I’m not ignoring the reality that women face a greater uphill battle–they need to be downright perfect in order to even get fair consideration–but I don’t think that the fact that they are women was the only factor. I’m not even positive that it would be a deciding factor against someone who isn’t Trump. His particular brand of politics really only works for him, somehow.
Walz/Cortez 2028 take my vote all day long.
Losing the nomination would not be the end for AOC. But as a champion for the “Democratic Socialist” wind of the Democrats there’s really not a better candidate to speak at the primaries and ensure that even in a primary loss the eventual winner adds parts their goals to the administrations goals.
This is why the “Christian Conservatives” always run a few candidates in the Republican party, and why they’ve always got a spot in the Republican party platform.
Based on what’s happening in New York, I think they’d sabotage her.
You could say also they’d rather select that than a qualified “person”. Should no opposition ever run again? Or is it clear that she was not chosen because of her gender? Maybe so, but that feels to me like it completely overlooks that there could be anything about her personality or positions responsible.
I’m not comfortable saying AOC or any other woman is a non-starter because other women have failed. A lot of people have failed before and at some point perhaps one will be selected. I think she would be a good choice, and more appealing to many than Kamala, I suspect.
They’ve shown they don’t want to vote for hope-extinguishing establishment dweebs.
A woman candidate who’s actually good would do great.
I wish. I really, really do. It’s nothing more than fantasy right now.
deleted by creator
You are correct.
Anyone downvoting you is just ignoring reality.
There’s a reason Trump has run 3 times and only lost once and it was to a man. A significant portion of this country in the right geographical areas will never vote for a woman to be president. And that includes a ton of women. And half of the country wants to burn AOC at the stake for being too liberal.
She can’t win the Electoral College.
You want to get Bernied again? Vote for AOC.
In our cast system she is way low in the hierarchy. Not even Hispanics would vote in the majority for her.
Yup, it’s ridiculous, but reality is reality.
Maybe people didn’t vote for Clinton and Harris because both are complicit in war crimes?
After doing weeks of phone banking and door knocking, my read is that it was the economy and being unwilling to break the mould. They were more of the same and they were uninspiring.
It was so rare that I would run into people who wanted to talk about foreign policy.
Nope. We only use identity politics to explain political failings here.
/s
you guys need ranked choice. I’d bet on most red voters not ranking multiple and just putting their evil fucker pick as #1. then you need more than one non evil candidate.
She should absolutely run. I don’t know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.
Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.
I don’t know if she should win the nomination,
Her winning the nomination would be Schumer and Pelosi’s worst nightmare. They would 100 percent rather lose to Trump than let that happen.
they’d actively campaign for mango mussolini’s third term before they let AOC win the nomination. fucking ghouls.
Maybe we’ll luck out and those two will be dead by then.
But, from the last election, we know some minorities will never vote for a woman. This is a big gamble.
I voted for Harris. I thought she was going to win until I saw all those minorities vote against her just because of her gender.
This world is not ready.
She also ran an incredibly poor campaign (Not completely her fault). Assuming she would have a run a Biden free open (which I’m not convinced of given how poorly she did in 2020), she would have done so by being good at campaigning and testing which messages swayed the electorate. Every winning canadite gets it.
Additionally the people you beat, give you a feel for the parts of the party that you need to bring into the coalition which you can satisfy as you build out your proposed VP and Cabinet. Think of how Obama brought in Clinton as Sec of State, Trump brought in Pence as VP to satisfy the religious right, how Biden brought in Harris etc… Harris didn’t have any of that feedback and picked a pretty questionable VP as a result.
At the end of the day she lost by 1.5% of the popular vote. And I got to imagine that the whole process lost her significantly more than that.
To be fair, she is a woman.
There are many men and women will never vote for a woman no matter what. Many Latino and black men will not vote for a woman, especiially she is brown . A lot of white men won’t vote for a brown woman
We are sexist. The US is not ready. We are not a land of the free.
1.5% was her popular vote margin. Hardly some blowout. Maybe instead of scapegoating brown people we look at the legitimate ways in which her campaign should have been better but couldn’t be because of corruption in the DNC. That corruption is correctable.
As a non-American, electing AOC as president would be the way to speed run the repair of America’s reputation internationally.
I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don’t really care about fixing our international reputation atm. I’m worried about stopping the country from falling apart first. We can fix all the international stuff after.
I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don’t really care about fixing our international reputation atm. I’m worried about stopping the country from falling apart first. We can fix all the international stuff after.
This will be a rather gentle rebuke:
AOC being elected president would not only be the most direct way of making the day to day lives of all Americans better, it would be the quickest route to restoring America’s status on the world stage. It would all happen simultaneously.
I agree but the issue is her actually winning. I feel like america broadly is still too racist and too sexist to elect her. Obviously I would love to fix both simultaneously but I’m trying to be realistic with the info we have now. Maybe something changes between now and then and I would be happy to be wrong but rn that’s kinda where things stand.
I can only speak from the outside, as Americans need to decide for themselves if they’re worth saving.
Ofc. I’m not expecting people to know everything about what’s going on here. Everything these next 4 (?) years is gonna be a uphill battle here. Rn we’re literally seeing policy that could lead to the balkanization of the usa. The ability to file a fair injunction against Trump is officially gone here. Red states will get preference from the courts while blue states will fight constant battles to get anything through. I am interested in repairing our national image but there very well may not be a nation to repair the image of in coming years. People do care it’s just that they don’t care enough to do what actually needs to be done.
Most dictatorships are toppled by external powers.
This DNC won’t help any specific candidate in a primary, but they won’t work against a specific candidate either.
That’s all progressives and specifically AOC need, a fair primary.
We’re on a huge inflection point, if we let some shirt bird neoliberals like Cuomo or Newsom win the primary, then they get to name the next DNC chair if they win the election
And we’ll be right back where we were in 2020.
We can not afford to roll the dice on neoliberalism again, and AOC has the best shot right now. But a lot can change before the primary starts.
“This DNC won’t help any specific candidate in a primary”
I’ll believe that when I see it.
They’ve always claimed that. It has always been bullshit.
deleted by creator
100% agreed!
PSA: there is an inbound showdown between Saikat Chakrabarti (AOC’s 2018 campaign manager and Justice Democrats co-founder) and an AIPAC center-right Democrat hack for Pelosi’s seat.
They gave the keys to the castle directly to the Clinton campaign. But maybe they’ll have integrity one day. We’ll probably have all turned to dust by then.
Actually they stopped claiming that during the Bernie-Hillary primaries. It’s part of why the candidates
I still vividly remember them holding back Bernie and pushing Hillary in 2016.
Hillary had the purse. The fact that a CANDIDATE in a PRIMARY was in the position to be the purse for a national campaign is fucking embarrassing.
deleted by creator
Buddy…
This is like if in June 2021 you stared blaming Biden for the shit trump did when he was president…
The DNC is essentially ~400 people that get together to vote for a chair every four years. And if a Dem was elected president they just all vote for who the president suggests. (Note: Obama never nominated one)
So the people who rigged 2016 could have been replaced, and Donna Brazile’s brief time gave us valuable insights into how fucked things were.
But the voting members went neoliberals again, there wasn’t a good option running.
2020 Biden won, and picked the same type of chair who handed him the primary.
2024 we didn’t get a primary, and New Hampshire’s delegates were stolen, something I can never forgive as a Democrat.
But in February the voting members (who have slowly been getting replaced, literally not all the same people) choose a state chair who took a purple state, ran fair primaries for a decade, and turned it into a progressive stronghold.
“The DNC” is not a monolith, it’s not some great institute of life long beurocrats.
Change is possible.
I’ve spent literally 30 years bitching about the DNC (and yes, I still held my nose and voted D in generals once I was 18). I understand how it works.
The chair runs the show and is final call on literally everything.
So expect the DNC to be run exactly like the last decade of the Minnesota party was.
Blaming current DNC for the faults of the last is as dumb as blaming 2021 Biden for what 2016-2020 trump did…
Just because they’re both at the head of the same office.
Quick edit:
Also, Martin just ran out two of those problematic superdelegates who had been fucking shit up. Not only that, they had been high ranking members of the committee that has been running the sh primaries.
Shit is getting better.
Just don’t expect Martin to throw the trash on the front yard and dont expect billionaire owned media to put anything this new DNC does in a good light. If a progressive wins in 2028 we’d see an fdr style movement again.
The billionaires don’t want that. And they don’t mind lying.
And sorry this is a wall of text, but it’s important people understand how optimistic we should be right now.
deleted by creator
This DNC won’t help any specific candidate in a primary, but they won’t work against a specific candidate either.
The same group of people absolutely shitting themselves over Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of NYC won’t work against any specific candidate in 2028? Did we completely forget about 2020, when Obama got half the field to drop out after Super Tuesday to pave the way for a guy in fifth place? Or 2024, when Dems forewent having a Presidential Primary entirely so they could fumble between a geriatric genocidal bum and his Cheney-loving VP?
We’re on a huge inflection point
In 1972, Richard Nixon made the case for his reelection by invoking the second derivative of inflation. He stated that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing.
This is the inflection point the American liberal party has reached, in the year 2025. Things are so incredibly bad that a Cuomo can’t walk off with a high office in the finance capital of the world. The increase of fascism is decreasing.
We can not afford to roll the dice on neoliberalism again
This won’t be a diceroll. The preponderance of Democrats are firmly in the tank for some ideological mix of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. One of the great “successes” of the Democratic Party over the last 20 years has been to draw a big chunk of the economic conservatives out of the Republican Party and into their own.
From Kristen Gillibrand to Kristen Sinema, from Hakeem Jefferies to Henry Cuellar, from Michael Bloomberg to Rick Wilson, this is a party overflowing with Bush Era “compassionate conservatives”. AOC has no path to a national platform in 2028. Y’all are going to be stuck holding your noses and voting for Gretchen Whitmer/Pete Buttigieg while shouting “Vote Blue No Matter Who” in another three years.
But maybe we can get Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman their house seats back. Maybe we can get a few more Mamdanis into the big city mayorships. Then talk about what a minority of leftists in the Senate could look like in another ten to forty years.
deleted by creator
Sexism run deeeeeeeep in this country.
It’s not that big of an issue.
When you run Kamala and Hillary, sexism is an easy excuse. Neoliberals will never blame a loss on their policy, even though everyone is outright saying it’s due to policy.
Someone who identified as a trans-racial Martian could win a general if they also had a progressive platform, charisma, and authentic delivery.
Like, if sexism was such an issue, she wouldn’t poll so well
My wife argues that the only reason dudes support AOC is because she’s fuckable which is a whole other level of sexism and patriarchy.
People ignore how many women hate women.
Lots of them have the mindset that every woman is completion, just like lots of men see it.
Women (not dissing your wife) can be fucking awful.
And just like some men can fall victim to that line of thinking and say prejudiced shit without meaning to, so can women.
Like, sure, it’s undeniable that AOC is attractive. But I’ve had loads of platonic friends who were more attractive than she is. Above all else we’re all just human, it’s fucking played out to assume physical appearance is always the most important quality.
Baddies can be more than one thing
deleted by creator
The patriarchy is insane in the USA.
Two of the last three presidential elections have had a woman candidate…
There was a laundry list of valid policy based reasons why the last two women lost, and they barely lost.
How the fuck does that make you think no woman in America could manage a win?
I’m really sorry to say that AOC stands a snowball’s chance in hell. Look around and ask yourself whether this country would ever, ever, EVER elect a woman. It’s really that simple. It’d be great if we lived in a more progressive country, but we’re going to have to be crafty clever to get what we want. Nominating a woman for the highest office of our land is a choice we can keep making, but we’ll keep losing and the GOP will continue to erode the country.
Look around and ask yourself whether this country would ever, ever, EVER elect a woman.
Kamala and Hillary combined had zero charisma, ran policy Dem voters hated…
And still almost won.
So yeah, a charismatic woman with popular policy would win.
You can put whichever woman you want there on the top of the ticket — they will lose every time in the current landscape of the US. We need a different strategy for now.
Source: Trust me bro. I’m super sexist and also friends with super sexist people and I can tell you that my super sexist bro’s yearn for tax cuts for entrepreneurs who run a business for 3 years in a disadvantaged neighborhood. Trust me bro.
What are your thoughts? Do you think there’s a liberal female candidate that could beat the GOP challenger in 2028?
AoC. Literally any “female” with good policy since much like Clinton and Harris, their gender was the least important part of their loss.
I’m afraid it’s way more important to most US voters than it is to you or I.
NGL I’ll take any blue tie but we’ve already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.
While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates’ loss vs. Trump.
- Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an antiestablishment era.
- Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
- Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.
I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like “socialism” scary) but most Democrat politicians aren’t willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.
Here is a basic logical analysis of our “democratic” republic.
Everything, and i mean EVERYTHING regarding our sociopolitical system is up for sale and easily manipulated by money. It was this way before citizens United but then citizens united just exacerbated this and pushed this so far that a study done by Princeton concluded that the amount of influence one has on any potential political policy is directly proportional to how wealthy you are with regular working class people having a statistically irrelevant near zero level of influence on any potential policy/Legislation regardless as to how popular or unpopular it may be.
So in a system where it is obvious a small group of people with immense wealth and privilege who act as though they have divine provenance to dictate how our society is run what gives anyone the extremely naive idea that for a class of people who effectively believe themselves to be above the law they would for some reason consider the American democratic process to be one step too far for them to exert influence upon by any means necessary?
In Germany there was a supreme court case concerning election integrity within the last 15-20 years or so(i don’t exactly remember when) but the supreme court ultimately decided that electronic voting is unconstitutional because it is impossible to differentiate between fraudulent results and legitimate ones for laypeople who are not cybersecurity/ IT experts. And this is what the US needs immediately as well as a repeal of citizens United, and laws that prevent a biased Supreme Court acting in bad faith.
True leftism has been eradicated from the sociopolitical discourse. The Democratic party has shifted to the right every election since LBJ refused the party nomination and then RFK was subsequently shot in the head. To think that this has not been achieved through subversive collusion of individuals/ organizations/ entities with like minded interests and agendas requires the same level of naïveté it takes to believe our presidential elections have not been tampered with to benefit wall street Military and prison industry profiteers.
If you want more data there is also Congress which is only 28% female, and historically there were far less. I think the sentiment I saw in a lot of republicans wasn’t that they supported Trump all that much, but that they opposed Hillary and Harris.
What exactly makes you say Joe Biden was a better candidate than either as far as those bullet points?
I’m sure some minority of the population is misogynistic and wouldn’t vote for a woman. I just don’t think it’s enough misogynists to ruin their chances.
Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an anti-establishment era.
Yes, Biden definitely suffered from this.
Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
In the primaries, absolutely. However, once Biden won, he took on projects from the progressive wing, likely in exchange for full throated endorsement/support. Green new deal type stuff. Not amazing, but not nothing. A lot of the more progressive goals were wrecked by Democrats’ hopeless naivety, or feigned ignorance, when attempts were made to reach across the aisle and get some consensus from Republicans… who had made it crystal fucking clear that their only goal was obstruction and sabotage. Then other Democrats straight up ruined it themselves. Anyway…
Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.
Biden’s biggest advantage was that he followed Trump. I’m fucking appalled that people had already forgotten the first time. Makes me wonder if it wasn’t rigged by Republicans more thoroughly than had become obvious.
Didn’t the Dems run on ‘anyone but Sanders’ and they propped up Clinton instead?
Independent Party Bernie Sanders was invited to participate on the DNC presidential tickets on multiple occasions and in 2016 he earned over 13 Million Votes compared to Hillary Clinton’s 16 Million.
If 4 Million more people voted for Bernie Sanders then he would have been the name on the Democrats ticket at the top of ballots across the nation.
The DNC had absolutely no incentive nor obligation to run Bernie in their primaries, they like his policies and gave voters the option to have him represent them as our president.
Exactly.
Americans chose a felon rapist clown fascist over HIGHLY qualified women. Twice.
America is not even close to being ready for a female president.
If we want to lose again, run a woman. That’s the shit reality in this shitty country.
Not to mention AOC is still “green”. Clinton was a Senator, a Secretary of State, and ex-first lady. Kamala was a VP. AOC is just a member of the House.
People need to stop fantasizing and get real. It’s also WAY too early to seriously be talking about this.
I remember bullshit like this being spewed about Obama, too. “Obama is too green!” “a black man could NEVER be president. We have never had one before, after all!” (Or are you too young to remember that? I forget there are adults on here now who weren’t even 2-years-old when he was elected.)
… Cue him defeating 2 white successful men by large margins. Doh. Think this through and stop parroting wedge-driving sexist gatekeeping conservative propaganda.
Also Hillary was a famously unpopular candidate and still won the popular vote, and there were maaaany confounding factors to a weak democratic race in 2024 apart from Kamala’s gender
She was at one point one of the most popular politicians in America, actually. She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders. People decided she was awful once she started running for president and Social Media campaigns told everyone what to think about her.
at one point
Too bad that point wasn’t during her campaign.
My point being that no matter who we run there will be vicious smear campaigns attacking their character.
Actually Bernie Sanders was outperforming Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Trump poll after poll.
Umm actually, that didn’t argue counter to anything that I said.
She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders.
If Sanders outperforms Hillary with the general population against their competitor, then they are not “alongside” — Sanders is, in fact, ahead.
Word definitions matter!
How many black candidates lost to white candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
That’s right, zero.
How many female candidates have lost to male candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
Two, or in other words, all of them.
You can make an argument to say that there was racist gatekeeping back when Obama was running, and that was absolutely true, but we never actually had a situation where a political party fronted a black man and lost. We actually do have data that shows that America rejected a female presidential candidate twice. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that America simply isn’t socially developed enough to be capable of looking past the misogyny and we should take that into consideration if our goal is to win.
Ar… Are you really going to use Samples N=1 and N=2 as some sort of statistical relevance? Wtaf?
This logic is most asinine. By that logic, the vast majority of Presidential losses were of white men, and my sample is higher!
Two non-charismatic inauthentic candidates lost, and race and gender had little to do with it because the bigots already coalesce under the maga banner; the problem was that their lack of vision, charisma, authenticity led to the reachable swing-voters either sitting on the couch, or voting for Trump on failed perceptions that he was better for the economy.
When your logic is absolutely ignoring entire swaths of reality, I think its interesting for you to try to attack someone elses logic.
Quaint deflection.
So I guess your excuse if AOC or whatever female candidate the DNC happen to trot out next loses to the next guy, be that JD Vance, some other MAGA nutjob, or even Trump taking a shot at a third term, is that she isn’t charismatic or authentic, is that right?
No, no, it couldn’t possibly be because America has a misogyny problem. I mean, never mind the fact that black men earned the right to vote before any woman did, that’s not relevant at all. History never repeats itself. I’m sure those basement dwelling neckbeards and macho-man wanna-bes will TOTALLY sign on to canvas for AOC. I’m sure her being a woman will not be a factor at all, people will be so enamored with her great policy that they will forget about it entirely!
I think it’s hilarious that if we put Tim Kaine or Biden himself (who was losing by a larger margin than Harris in polling) in, they would’ve lost just the same if not more so… Yet you wouldn’t be here saying, “Golly gee-wizz, I think people are sexist and tired of old white men! I mean, the majority registered voters ARE women after all!” — Therein revealing one’s own gatekeeping sexist dogma.
Obama won btw, he didnt lose because he was too green, or black.
Alright but Obama was a man, so
Idk if it’s too early to talk about it, but part of the process is definitely weighing the pros and cons.
This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.
Have you gone outside? Americans (even women) don’t want a woman president. We are stuck in 1890.
Unlike you I imagine, I actually door-kncoked on GOP and Independent households so yes, dare I say I’ve gone outside while in a battleground state no less.
I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary: There is no evidence Harris lost because she was a woman. Put another way, if we placed Biden in her position or if we placed an identical copy of Harris as a male, she too would’ve lost for a multitude of factors beyond the fact she was a woman (again, because no actual sexist fuck was reachable in the first place for Democrats and never are).
I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary
Twice americans chose the fascist over the woman. Now Americans won’t have free elections anymore so they will never have a female president unless her last name is Trump maybe. So I guess they got what they wanted.
Sure, there’s other factors, but even if they were exactly what voters wanted, there would be a stigma around it. I mean, even women hate women and actively vote to sabotage their own Healthcare so it’s not really based on any logic. Maybe in 20 years when the olds are gone, and IF the youngs don’t get brainwashed by Tate types, there could be a female president.
I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.
Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.
I voted for the female candidates, they both lost. The gender divide in congress is 7:18, only 28% of elected federal representatives are women. Gen Z voters were divided along gender lines between Trump and Harris. I don’t know how to fix this problem, but ignoring it is not the solution.
This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.
-
A majority of registered voters are women.
-
A majority of actual voters are consistently women.
There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.
This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win.
I’ve got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.
Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.
Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.
We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.
28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress’. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
We’re not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We’re talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.
a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
Now intersect that with actual reachable swing-voters and Democrats.
Like I said: that tracks for core dyed-in-the-wool MAGA trash that we will never win nor want beneath our banner.
Let’s not make Faustian bargains, shall we?
Edit: Also, your facts are just incorrect, as well as interpretation:
a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
- 23% is not 33%.
- 57% say America is “ready” and 20% were “not sure”
- Answering the question whether the rest of America is “ready” is not answering whether you believe a woman could be President.
To make it even more clear for you: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/madame-president-changing-attitudes-about-woman-president
Public willingness to vote for a woman
In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.
In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970’s and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.
Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.
In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?
-
God, americans are so naive. There won’t be fair elections anymore. You had your chance and you blew it! It’s over for your democracy.
It is looking more and more like the election was stolen.
Edit: You are blaming Americans for screwing up the previous election becuase this next one will not be fair…when the last one you are blaming Americans for was already rigged.
there’s a reason for that.
I’d rather AOC knock Schumer out of the Senate in 2028. (Or a special election if he for whatever reason is unable to complete his term.) Congress needs as much replacement as the White House.
But it is really frustrating framing how the article is already conceding Trump will be the dominant candidate for a third term in 2028. That’s a long way off.
I think AOC would make for a much better Presidential Candidate in 2036 or 2042, after a term or two in Chuck’s Senate seat. (Or maybe even as VP)
But, she is still a good candidate right now, and the next election will be crucial for the country. If 2028 AOC is the best option for Democrats, we should run with it. I would definitely sooner vote for her than the Next One Up for Democrats.
Harris/Newsom 2028 because “it’s their turn”
I agree. I want to see AOC have long-term influence over the Democratic party. We’re going to need significant reconstruction over the next 4-8 years, and I personally think she would be a bit wasted in that role.
That said, we don’t really have an alternative well positioned to run in '28 except Bernie, and I wouldn’t blame him for not running (or people being upset about another 80+ year old president).
During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.
And the deep-seated sexism of too many independent/moderate voters, unfortunately.
If the BIG Bill of Garbage passes, there are no more free elections.
Just passed the Senate by one vote. Back to the House for the finale vote, which is controlled by Republicans.
It’s over fam.
You can kiss this nation goodbye.
Now hunker down for the suffering and death that’s sure to follow.
This is what happens when you give conservatives power. Such a profoundly stupid nation of individuals.
I agree that she should run, but as an independent candidate because the DNC will never give her a honest shot in the primaries.
Americans however are unlikely to elect her especially due to electoral college as there are plenty racist and misogynistic voters in the swing states.
But if she’s able to raise money in the process to give her a real shot, US will finally have a viable third party candidate. If it looks like she’ll only split the Dem vote without winning, the raised money can be used to support progressive candidates in local elections.
Either way, I think US needs a progressive liberals party and soon because there’s a lot of House and Senate seat elections coming up and as we have seen from the GOP playbook, local elections are as relevant and influential as the national ones.
as an informed she’ll split the vote.
it’s there a way to force a form of ranked choice voting?
she runs for independent, but the votes are for delegates that chose the president, so if she gets 10% of the votes, the delegated should vote for the other less fash candidat, while if she does get the majority she gets the presidency
on top of that, she can make the delegate vote conditional for some policies. so even if she gets 5% of the votes she can dictate the delegates to vote for whichever candidate signs a legally binding contract to do some prewritten executive actions on day one, like abolish Ice. release all imprisonment migrants, grant re-entry visas to deported…
so even if she only gets a few votes, she can have a lot of influence and power.
I just started thinking about this today,and I fear there are more complications. but I’m principle, could this work?
At a minimum splitting the vote would mean that they are coming from the “didn’t vote” pool (which has been the majority in pretty much every election for decades now). This is a strong signal that the DNC needs to move left or become irrelevant because a new party would simply split. For example of this working see the republican party becoming the maga party for that reason. Doing this will also add more weight to our protests.
yhea, the dems becoming right wing is what the donors want, but it won’t get votes
making the democrats a dead party, unless they tell the donors to fuck off.
I’ll vote for her and split the dem vote. if the dems are hell bent on killing their own party, then fuck em.
No way AOC is getting anywhere near the Presidency unless there is a full scale revolution. Sad, but true.
Because there won’t be another election?
Also because both of our major party machines would cooperate in attacking her.
Neoliberals would rather lose power than signal to their bribers that their party isn’t bought and paid for. President Ocasio-Cortez would be such a signal.
The DNC promotes on the basis of potential federal level reps getting bribe money. AOC was a spoiler and is not welcome in the party because of her views. That’s why the Neoliberals in congress don’t care Trump is in office and even help him with appointments.
Neoliberals like Pelosi would lock arms with the Fascists and treat a President AOC like the threat we wished they’d treat their fascist opposition like, but they have too much in common on the same Economic policy they’re both well bribed to enact and protect from us.
Which is why, all the more, AOC is a good choice. The hatred of our true oppressors on Wall Street is welcome. At worst, it will further demonstrate that the American people aren’t permitted by big corpo to have a real choice in governance, only hypercapitalist robber baron enablers paid to divide us on social wedges as they legislate new ways for the owners to monetize sucking us dry.
deleted by creator
Our nation is too sexist and too racist for AOC to win. I’ll still vote for her if she runs.
“We’ve tried running two shitlib women with ‘status-quo’ platforms during a time when the public is crying out for economic change, and they both lost. That proves women can’t win, because it couldn’t possibly be about our abject refusal to rein in the billionaires!” — shit liberals say
