• Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • teolan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      90
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • Botzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’ve shown they don’t want to vote for hope-extinguishing establishment dweebs.

      A woman candidate who’s actually good would do great.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Marthirial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      In our cast system she is way low in the hierarchy. Not even Hispanics would vote in the majority for her.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nope. We only use identity politics to explain political failings here.

        /s