• Devolution@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    AOC is a fantastic candidate in an ideal world. But she won’t win. She’s too divisive for Conservatives and moderates and I don’t expect progressives to actually vote; complaining is easier than showing up.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    5 days ago

    During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    5 days ago

    NGL I’ll take any blue tie but we’ve already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.

    • theparadox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          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).

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        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.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          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.

          • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 days ago

            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?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            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.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              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.

          • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 days ago

            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.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              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.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

  • Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    67
    ·
    7 days 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
      146
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 days 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.

        • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          58
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          The issue is we’ve never actually tried to run a populist left candidate. So everyone saying, “it’ll never work!” have no real bases for that statement. (the closest we’ve ever been was Sanders, and the DNC ensured that he was not going to be on the ballot.)

          A TRUE LEFT POPULIST WILL WIN! in my opinion

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            6 days ago

            We actually did, his name was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

            Sure if we hold him up to today’s standards not a progressive by any means, but he campaigned on working class issues and helped steer the country out of the depression. He created virtually all our modern safety nets or their predecessors.

            He was so popular a president that Congress amended the constitution to ensure no other president could have more than 2 terms. He was so popular congress was afraid it threatened the power of their branch of government.

            Running on and actually accomplishing worker centric policy works.

            And to fend of the inevitable yes he was not that progressive by today’s measures and had a mountain of flaws. But his accomplishments were revolutionary for the country in his time.

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            I didnt say ‘it’ll never work!!’, I said NYC <> the US. You can’t compare the two and say “See, it works” when he isn’t even elected yet, and its in a city that is absolutely further left than democrats on the national scale.

            I would love to see it work. One mayoral hopeful in a friendly city is not a reasonable comparison though.

            Edit: feel free to show me a single example somewhere red. I’d love it.

            When that happens, yeah, that’d be a good example.

            • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              6 days ago

              To bolster your point, a true progressive ran in 2018 in west Virginia- Paula Swearengin. She challenged Joe Manchin in the primary and lost 70-30.

              She then won the Democratic primary in 2020 for Senate and went on to lose in the general 70/27 (other votes to the libertarian.)

              People really need to understand that while Zohran and AOC are great there isn’t some kind of silver bullet with progressivism across the country.

              • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                6 days ago

                How do we know that? In super deep red areas it’s a uphill battle. But the most left wing president we’ve ran since FDR was Carter and I’d say he’s more neoliberal/pure centrist than progressive/left. Once again, when you only run center and more right candidates; the more center candidates losing isn’t really a sign America wants only right politics. It just means the more left wing voter stays home on elections.

                • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I don’t know? Results?

                  I want more progressive policies. Run em. But just don’t be surprised if they get slaughtered.

                  I think more than progressive policies people want younger people.

                  But to Anyone down voting, great. I simply presented raw facts.

              • lemonaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days ago

                It’s not just policy, it’s energy.

                Becoming a recognized name that sticks in people’s heads is the biggest battle — this is usually the incumbent advantage: this was Manchin’s advantage over Paula Jean Swearengin; but it was also Cuomo’s advantage over Zohran Mamdani… and Cuomo lost. So there’s another way to make yourself known: being disruptive.

                I loathe MAGA. They are assholes, but that’s how they took over. That’s what gets them covered in the news, they do constant theater saying asshole things. Literally everyone knows who Marjorie Taylor Greene is, whether they’re into politics or not. Many MAGA politicians nowadays you know first from the podcast circuit. Yes they have an ecosystem but that doesn’t mean we can’t do guerrilla campaigning. After all, Mamdani still won, right?

                Now I’m not saying we need progressives to be assholes. But they should be more performative — loudmouths even: get up in people’s faces, speak confidently and provocatively into the camera, tell people your values without them asking. Do things that aren’t necessarily stunts, but that get labeled as stunts.

                Mamdani has done a bunch of this stuff, from telling Cuomo how to spell his name, to his full day walking through Manhattan and interacting with people, to how easily he answers even the hardest questions — I mean, you probably already know how good he is at this stuff and how easy he makes it look, so it might be tempting to think you can’t replicate his success because of how uniquely talented he is, but let me give you another example:

                Kat Abughazaleh (YouTuber and investigative journalist for Mother Jones and Media Matters, currently running for Congress) has done arguably even more with her campaign: she’s using campaign money for mutual aid (anyone can walk into their office and get free stuff except for ICE), feeding the homeless, Pride and Drag Queen Story Hour; she gave bigots the finger on camera and doubled down; she did a campaign event in a comedy club and turned it into a TED-style stand-up presentation about “General” Michael Flynn wanting to sell your blood. Her campaign slogan as a Democrat is “What if we didn’t suck”! She started in single digits and now she’s single digits away from first place. Watch her explain it though, to get a sense of the energy. (All the other stuff is on her channel too, I highly recommend the Flynn one btw!)

                You have to get creative and work the outrage media space, it’s the only way. Get eyes on you and stand up for your values, loudly!

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            6 days ago

            (the closest we’ve ever been was Sanders, and the DNC ensured that he was not going to be on the ballot.)

            Ah, yes, when the DNC forged millions of votes to make Sanders lose. Twice.

            Fuck’s sake. Show up for the primaries next time, goddamn you.

            • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              I love when people use the results of the ratfucking to try to prove there was no ratfucking

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                I love when people use the results of the ratfucking to try to prove there was no ratfucking

                Oh, great, we’re back to the “Every poll was forged in a massive media conspiracy to cover the DNC’s vote forgery” hours, it must be 2016 or 2020 after Super Tuesday.

          • UsernameHere@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t think we should risk another 4 years with GOP/Trump candidate based on your opinion.

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              I don’t think running another center right candidate like we have since FDR will work. There’s way more evidence that Americans want far left policies. Problem is that Americans are soooooooo politically uneducated it’s scary

              • UsernameHere@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                6 days ago

                There’s way more evidence that Americans want far left policies

                Not according to the election results.

                Problem is that Americans are soooooooo politically uneducated it’s scary

                Doesn’t this increase the chances of a leftist losing?

                • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Not according to election results?!

                  When choices are far right and center right, center left and far left voters just stay home.

                  And no. Educated people vote left at a much higher rate!

      • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days 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
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days 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.

      • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 days 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.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 days 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.

      • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 days 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
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days 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
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days 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.

        • ShoeThrower@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          And your solution is to vote for the people who are doing nothing to stop the fascists, instead.

          Bold strategy.

          • Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            False dichotomy.

            The U.S. has proven a woman can’t win because the U.S. is a bigoted shithole with a flawed constitutional system.

            The alternative is to vote for someone who can win and can beat the fascists.

            Assuming there are free and fair elections in 2028. A big if.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days 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.

      • greenfire@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 days ago

        maybe let the people who actually vote for the party decide who they prefer as candidates, rather than having the gerontocracy alone dictate that choice

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          maybe let the people who actually vote for the party decide who they prefer as candidates

          Those people said “Clinton” and then “Biden”. Both over Bernie, who was far more charismatic than both and with a fucking spotless record, unlike both.

          Not sure that the primary voters’ll be delivering a progressive savior unless the demographics of who votes in Dem primaries changes radically.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days 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.

    • the_q@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      This is the type of thinking that will keep the status quo the status quo.

      “Things can’t change oh well!”

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      The fact that Harris got as close as she did with so little time proves that she didn’t lose because she’s a woman. She lost because her policies sucked. Run someone who is honest and trying to help the people and I’d bet they do well, man, woman, or otherwise (OK, maybe a trans candidate actually couldn’t win for now).

      The people saying those two lost because they’re women are ignorant. They lost because they were shitty candidates. More men have lost than women, and no one says it’s because they were men. It’s just an easy excuse to ignore that people don’t like corporate ass kissers who fuck over the average person to help the rich.

      • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Another factor which IMHO led to her lose was that she didn’t primary. So all the anger against Biden mostly transferred onto her. His blinding support to genocide, his greediness for the presidency, his support for big businesses, him breaking the railway workers strike just eroded any goodwill he did have.

        He did good things but optics of these didn’t let good deeds to shine. They did cast a shadow over Kamala’s campaign too.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days 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.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 days 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.

    • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days 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.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        6 days 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
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

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

        /s

      • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Are we forgetting that even as a corporate puppet establishment Dems AND a woman, Clinton got like ~4 million more votes than the Dipshit did. People DID vote for her. It’s just our broken as fuck since 1929 electoral college that prevented that from counting.

        /#UncapTheHouse

      • peregrin5@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You’re a fool if you think that’s the reason why.

        The average American voter doesn’t give a shit about brown people dying in the Middle East.

        It’s only about your football team winning, oh and women are too “emotional”.

    • Marthirial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days 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
      4
      ·
      5 days 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.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      A woman candidate is a non starter.

      This. This right here. This is what people are going to have to start accepting.

      We heard throughout the entire campaign “Biden too old!”. And to be fair, he was. That debate performance proved it. But here’s the thing. Once his replacement was announced, people suddenly stopped having a problem with age, because they ran right back to Bernie Sanders. Suddenly, age wasn’t nearly as much of an issue any more. The voters ultimately stood up in one voice and said “We’d still vote for a really old man or at least let another old man with dementia return to power before we vote for a black woman”. It’s like the voters demanded someone younger, saw the DNC endorse Harris, and said “No, not like that!”

      The Gaza excuse doesn’t make sense either, because Trump was actively campaigning on glassing the place and turning it into beachfront property. Never mind the fact that Harris was in a lose-lose position with regards to the war (Had she turned and supported Gaza, she’d have lost significantly more Jewish voters and the race would have been an even bigger Trump victory), but even if you believe she’s “supporting a genocide”, the fact of the matter is that Trump’s position was not only to support it, but to speed it up. You can’t claim that you didn’t vote for Harris over Gaza while allowing someone who you damn well know is going to be even worse for Gaza to rise back to power. Again, this doesn’t make the last bit of logical sense. Another excuse for people who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black woman and needed an excuse to either convince themselves or their social circle to justify it.

      What else was there? “Well, she wasn’t clear on some of her economic policies”. Literal quote from news reporters on the Harris/Trump debate where Trump’s answer to an economic policy question was “They’re eating the dogs! They’re eating the cats! They’re eating…the pets!”.

      Or “They’re all just handpicked by the corporate elite”. Or “we’re trying to send a message to the Democrat party to put forward better candidates”. Or my personal favorite “She campaigned with Liz Cheney that one time…”.

      Or whatever other excuse people keep coming up with. Not a single one of them has ever been able to answer the question of “Even if you believe that, how does allowing Trump return to power make it any better or advance your position?”

      The fact of the matter is that Democrats have their own share of low-key racists and bigots. They’re just not as open about it as Republicans, and still prefer to hide behind whatever convenient excuse they can come up with. But they’ve twice over proven that, for all their bluster about age and progressive values, they’ll gladly allow an old white man with dementia to return to power before they ever consider voting for a woman. I’ll echo the exact same thing you said. I don’t like it, and you don’t have to agree with it. But reality is what reality is. If the Democrat party puts forward a woman or minority in 2028, especially after 4 years of Trump stoking racial tensions, they’re going to lose. Full stop. This country is not willing to accept a woman President. Heck, I’m willing to bet that Obama was a fluke and the voters won’t vote in a minority as President again, at least not in my lifetime.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Not a single one of them has ever been able to answer the question of “Even if you believe that, how does allowing Trump return to power make it any better or advance your position?”

        Cause it’s not about the one person you are arguing with but the hundreds of thousands who won’t say anything and vote against all that anyways.
        That one person didn’t allow trump to come to power they just raised a voice for why they believe all the silent voters are voting the way they do and standing up for it to be heard by someone that will hopefully listen.

        I’m willing to bet that Obama was a fluke

        If the Democrat party puts forward a woman or minority in 2028, especially after 4 years of Trump stoking racial tensions, they’re going to lose.

        Racist and sexist because you believe other people are doesn’t make you any less.

        • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          Cause it’s not about the one person you are arguing with but the hundreds of thousands who won’t say anything and vote against all that anyways. That one person didn’t allow trump to come to power they just raised a voice for why they believe all the silent voters are voting the way they do and standing up for it to be heard by someone that will hopefully listen.

          So? All this means is that there are a whole bunch of people who refuse to answer how allowing Trump to return to power advances their position.

          Racist and sexist because you believe other people are doesn’t make you any less.

          I’m not the one who has to dig up a whole bunch of flimsy reasons why I didn’t vote for Harris.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 days ago

            No you are just the person who thinks black people winning office positions is a fluke cause they could never do that properly.

            I’m not gonna argue with you further cause you are so up your own butt and think somehow you are the only person breathing fresh air.

  • mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      6 days ago

      We tried. I watched rank choice requests fail time and time again, because people vote against it thanks to smear campaigns.

      My buddy is in a city with rank choice, and after the most recent election, there was a push to get rid of it again. You can tell by who.

    • shirro@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ranked choice is bare minimum for a democracy these days. Whatever ancient shit the US has doesn’t count anymore. Also get rid of the elected tyrant bullshit and upgrade to parliamentary democracy. Then go for mixed-member proportional for extra credit. Also get rid of voting machines and do it all on paper.

  • Salamence@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    The democrat leadership did everything in their power to stop bernie in 2020 they will do the same against AOC

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 days ago

      Agreed, no reason to give them reprieve. Let them try again and this time the gerontocracy is weaker then it has ever been.

    • Wiz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s “Democratic” when used as an adjective.

      Don’t use Rush Limbaugh-speak. (May he rot in hell.)

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Then why did you add an “a” in front of an adjective? It’s either “I’m Democratic” (adjective) or “I’m a Democrat” (noun). This isn’t dictating language, they’re two different parts of speech. The name of the party is “the Democratic Party” and its members are “Democrats”. They’re proper nouns, not linguistic styling. There is no “Democrat Party”.

              The people who try to rename the party aren’t doing a whoopsie, it’s a conscious effort by conservatives to say the thing in a dumb way for extremely dumb political purposes. It takes effort to do that.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

  • intheformbelow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s the Democrats. They still haven’t realized that the game is over. Nobody’s playing by the rules. Why would they start during an election?

      • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 days ago

        So long as the donor checks keep clearing, establishment Dems are happy to play spoiler for big business and let Trump destroy the country.

      • It'sbetterwithbutter@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        The democrats have handed Trump the country on a plate. As a non American I’ve been saying the American “Empire” will fall eventually, I never thought it would be to a fascist, and with a wimper.

      • KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        It’s the Democrats.

        It is Americans as a whole. 1/3 of then didn’t even bother voting.

        They get what they have coming to them.

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

          Yup.

          Our system is fundamentally broken, but the bottom line is Americans failed. It was entirely possible for us to stop all this and we chose not to. Shit electorates make for shit countries.

          We’re going to be circling the drain for the foreseeable future.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s the Democrats.

        It’s the people blaming the politicians instead of doing something about it.
        But almost no one cares until they get ICe’d. That’s human nature for you.

        • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          Both are happening.

          It’s important to understand what went wrong so when you with on a fix, you won’t make the same mistake.

          People can both bitch about politicians and also help fix the problem.

    • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      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.

      • csverdad
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Does it matter at this point? Seeing how fundamentally rotten every other part of our government has become is what’s really broken my heart. The president didn’t make all of these lawmakers roll over, the supreme court blatantly disregard the constitution, or these hate-filled minions put panty hose over their faces and go around kidnapping their neighbors. The president isn’t making people stand by filming all of this madness instead of doing anything to stop it.

  • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    As a non-American, electing AOC as president would be the way to speed run the repair of America’s reputation internationally.

    • Karrion409@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • Karrion409@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

            • Karrion409@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              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.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        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.

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    All the fucking second-order sexists here saying we can’t elect a woman because two of the worst female candidates ever lost.

    These are the same people who said Obama couldn’t win because he was black. Not that they were racist, no they love black people, but they just want to make absolutely extra sure we don’t actually try to elect one. Because they imagine their neighbor/uncle/coworker would look at everything going on and think “none of that is important, no black presidents”. They’re not racist, they just advocate for racism. And with this most facile of analyses they’ll believe themselves to be politically savvy realists rather than reactionary children.

    This is the cowardice that dooms liberalism. At every opportunity they want to worry about what their opponents will like and time after time will try to blame strategy or immutable characteristics for the failures of their do-nothing policies. Politics is about change. When people’s lives suck you don’t try to tell them we’ll keep doing the same things. And whether the person talking change is a charismatic black man or a clown show, or even… A FEEEMALE, they’ll vote for them.

    • ...m...@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      …when i was growing up, my well-meaning parents pulled me aside to express their concern over a jewish friend dating a black friend; aghast at their comment, i immediately confronted them over its apparent racism, and they replied that they had nothing against it personally, but were instead concerned about what other people might think…

      …they’re f*cking balls-out fascists fourty years later, and i want no part of them in my life…

      …to anyone tempted to compromise their own best interests on behalf of what other people might think: don’t give them that kind of power over you, or they’ll drag you down in it…

      • thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        My ex wife is indian, I’m white, my kids are mixed race. When i lived in louisiana, my son’s pre-school teacher took me aside and told me “I’m not racist, I just feel bad for him. He’s not going to fit in because of his background”. She then segregated him from the rest of the class and sat him at a table where it was just him and one other non-white kid. the white kids were at other tables, physically pretty far from where he was sitting.

        Fuck people who say shit like that. They’re absolutely just as racist as the overtly racist fascist pieces of garbage running the US.

      • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Ah, I see you’ve met my mom. She’s overly concerned with the opinions of others, to my and my siblings’ detriment. Meanwhile, I have a “I don’t know them, why should I care what they think?” attitude, which made my youth with her so very fun /s.

        Her brain is clearly still locked into an old society’s ways. The things she thinks would be humiliating are things that nobody would bat an eye at today, like wearing pajamas outside. She’s got her “hidden” racism too, of course. She’s made comments about my partners “having dark complexions.” I eventually went off on her, calling out her racist thoughts, and she’s shut up about it since. Or at least, she’s shut up about it when I’m around.

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      You’re not wrong. Obama won because he was a corporatist and easily manipulated and ran on empty slogans, so he had the backing of the mainstream. Harris did too, but AOC won’t have that backing.

      That also means she could run on actual popular policies. Something Trump did. His voters now kinda got the same scam with him than the progressives got with Obama lol.

      But there is deeply entrenched propaganda in the media and the minds of people. Like you’d need a movement that comes together. But you can see the liberals in this thread would balk at any tankie demanding and end to US or EU imperialism lol, just like they will balk at putting another women on the ticket.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      because two of the worst female candidates ever lost.

      One was a Senator, Secretary of State, and former first-lady. The other was a VP. AOC is just a member of the House and half the country wants to burn her at the stake for being so liberal.

      She won’t win.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      “This DNC won’t help any specific candidate in a primary”

      I’ll believe that when I see it.

        • HeyListenWatchOut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yep, and they must be forced to change, as they will fight anything that threatens the donor class that keeps them fat and happy.

          The only way to defeat the DNC is from within… by dragging the party to where it must be… in the same way MAGA reshaped the Rs and wrest control from Bush-era neo-cons like Romney and McConnell.

          Primary the DNC’s 3rd way neoliberals at every level and chance you get (i.e. AOC, Rashida Talib, Zohran Mamdani, etc.), boost the good candidates on social media and at the same time try to teach others how to think critically so they don’t just slop up and regurgitate whatever narratives the consent-manufacturing billionaire-owned networks push out.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            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.

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          Actually they stopped claiming that during the Bernie-Hillary primaries. It’s part of why the candidates

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

    • HeyListenWatchOut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      …but they won’t work against a specific candidate either.

      Absolutely demonstrably untrue.

      They will definitely work against specific candidates.

      They will change rules and ask super-delegates to ignore voters and choose their preferred candidate, the news networks most closely aligned with the DNC’s goals will literally put a camera in front of an empty mic stand for 40 mins rather than show the candidate they don’t want. They will compare that candidate winning states during the primary literally to Hitler saying it’s like “the fall of Paris” or compare the supporters of the guy whose own extended family was murdered in the Holocaust to “brownshirts.”.

      They will support anti-choice Ds over progressives in primaries while claiming neutrality.

      The DNC isn’t representative of its constituents. They are the rich’s secondary defense against “the left” (meaning anything even slightly to the left of 1990s Clinton policies).

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        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.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          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.

          I’m sorry are you referring to Lee Saunders and Randi Weingarten who are the leaders for the unions for state, county, municipal employees and teachers respectively, which are more than 3 million working people?

          Who complained that Martin is not doing enough to fight the current issues and think he is focusing to much on raising money, (a thing he just bragged he managed to do the most of for a 4 month start) and that it doesn’t bring voters back.
          Who were removed from their committee seat like everyone else that backed a different party chair than Martin?

          I’m sorry but I am not optimistic on Martin and I don’t think I can see how especially after he just cried that David Hogg ruined his chances to be a good leader by saying we should support more younger progressives.

        • HeyListenWatchOut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Thank you for offering more context to help folk understand things are improving. I don’t mean to sound doom and gloom. It’s great to hear things are getting better.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        Nope

        I just understand that while that was going on the current chair was running Minnesota.

        And we can look at that track record, that ran all the way up to assuming DNC chair…

        And his actions since…

        And logically conclude blaming the current DNC for that old shit makes as much sense as boycotting the Cincinnati Reds cuz Pete Rose didn’t call your mom back after a date.

        The person you’re upset with has no affiliation to the current organization you’re boycotting.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You’ve only been here for three days so you don’t know, but the user you’re replying to was notorious as an emphatic, outspoken critic of the DNC before the change in leadership. It was at the point where half the stuff he said was easily mistaken for tankie anti-Democrat trolling.

        If he, of all people, says it’s better now, I, for one, believe him.

    • blakemiller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • blakemiller@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            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.

            • blakemiller@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              What are your thoughts? Do you think there’s a liberal female candidate that could beat the GOP challenger in 2028?

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                AoC. Literally any “female” with good policy since much like Clinton and Harris, their gender was the least important part of their loss.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        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

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            6 days ago

            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

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            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?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 days ago

            Weird how sexism is only a reason a woman can’t run when she’s a progressive…

            Also weird how the people saying a woman can’t run are the ones calling people sexist for saying a woman can be president.

            Anything except admitting neoliberalism is dead I guess