Why AOC should run for president in 2028
https://www.salon.com/2025/06/30/why-aoc-should-run-for-president-in-2028/Open linkView original on lemmy.world815
Comments331https://www.salon.com/2025/06/30/why-aoc-should-run-for-president-in-2028/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
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.
NYC does not extrapolate out to the US, or things would look very different these days.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I don’t think we should risk another 4 years with GOP/Trump candidate based on your opinion.
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
Not according to the election results.
Doesn’t this increase the chances of a leftist losing?
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!
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.
And specifically NYC, not even the state.
And specifically only 15% of registered DNC voters who participated in the primaries.
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.
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.
So what? Run her anyway. There's this thing called the window of discourse.
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.
And your solution is to vote for the people who are doing nothing to stop the fascists, instead.
Bold strategy.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Prepare yourself for the “Status Quo-mo”
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.
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.
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.
Walz/Cortez 2028 take my vote all day long.
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.
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'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".
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
If you see bigotry but refuse to fight against it, you a coward and no different than the bigots.
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.
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.
Racist and sexist because you believe other people are doesn't make you any less.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yeah my bad you need guillotines first
Instead what we have are Republicans trying to outlaw ranked choice voting... They've already had right wing media brainwashing the people into believing it's a really bad thing...
Republicans are trying to outlaw voting. Unless it is for their candidate.
Ranked choice only goes so far when the electorate is batshit insane and willfully ignorant.
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.
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.
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.
We absolutely don't know anything of the sort. Centrist assholes just cling to that excuse to avoid acknowledging that focusing on appealing to conservatives and pledging to maintain the status quo is a failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state_and_government
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.
FTFY
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.
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.
The democrat leadership did everything in their power to stop bernie in 2020 they will do the same against AOC
Agreed, no reason to give them reprieve. Let them try again and this time the gerontocracy is weaker then it has ever been.
It's "Democratic" when used as an adjective.
Don't use Rush Limbaugh-speak. (May he rot in hell.)
"I'm a Democratic" isn't a good sentence.
"I voted for the Democratic candidate." Accurate but feels off.
Do you know the difference between adjectives and nouns?
Yes, and I'm not the one dictating how people should use a language.
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.
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.
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
yeah, senator sanders would like a word.
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.
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.
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.
I come from a town where most of the Democrats that end up running are classical liberal Catholics, and break with the party on abortion only.
Because of that, the only candidates that end up making it past the primaries are some of the lamest, idiotic, or occasionally actual criminal jackass candidates you can imagine.
The DNC has basically handed unicameral seats, the national congressional seat (the only one in the state that's actually contested) and the mayoral seat to conservatives for 30 years.
When popular candidates do make it past the primary and refuse to be pro choice, they magically see their national funding dry up.
To be clear, Omaha is at the very edge of the Bible belt, this is a Catholic town. Most Democrats here are Catholic. These are people who are fervently anti conservative, anti trump. These are the majority of the blue dot voters.
I'm not saying this is rational, or good. I'm not saying that the DNC should come around on banning abortion. I am saying that by enforcing national policy on down ballot races, they're shooting themselves in the foot in regions that would otherwise reliably support them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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'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?
So long as the donor checks keep clearing, establishment Dems are happy to play spoiler for big business and let Trump destroy the country.
Until the money is worthless and they realize they're the frog in the saucepan.
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.
It is Americans as a whole. 1/3 of then didn't even bother voting.
They get what they have coming to them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My results were so good, I even listed some things they didn't tell me about
So they only tested him to see if he doesn't need full time care? So they checked if he can wipe his own ass and dress himself? THATS the baseline to be the POTUS?! Holy shit, that's some baseline. At least give him a driving test. 🤮
Look up the Mini Mental, and that is basically what he aced.
Yep, "very difficult" things like copying a shape and labeling everyday items. This is similar to the "test" that Trump was given.
We would've seen this coming had his zygote been able to brag about being the last one standing - aka the only "viable" candidate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Credentials are not what make a good candidate.
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).
She would have been better than tan Hillary, she was exactly 35. An establishment centrist was proven a bad choice in 2016.
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.
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.
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.
Didn't the Dems run on 'anyone but Sanders' and they propped up Clinton instead?
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.
During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.
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?
Yes, it could, which is why (IIRC) 16 US states now have laws that partially or fully ban ranked choice voting.
land of the free, laws specific designed to ban people's choices.
was nothing real?
Electors are not granted proportionally. If the Democratic nominee gets 30% of the vote in a state, AOC gets 30% of the vote, and the Republican gets 35% of the vote, all the electors are Republican.
do some states have paetial wins? if its 50% each candidate gets half the delegates?
Two states allocate votes by congressional district, but that's just first past the post at a smaller level and the spoiler issue remains. You need proportional representation or some actual form of transferable vote to avoid it.
TBH, I got the idea, I knew there's loads I don't know, and choose to post instead of asking chatGPT. prefer answer from real people.
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.
unfortunately I don't think that's possible without ranked-choice voting. we desperately need ranked-choice voting in order to make more than two parties a viable option
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.
An even moderately progressive speaker would be monumental, but unfortunately we the people don't pick the speaker.
People in america still believe there is going to be an actual election in 2028?
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.
Simple. I'm voting AOC if her name is on the ballot. Take my vote AOC!
Hope you enjoy losing by not learning anything from the recent past.
No, I don't. All I'm saying is she's awesome. I propose that the people want someone who is different and probably the only people who are currently very public that people might want to vote for would be Bernie and AOC.
But probably new names would be best. New names that are not polarizing and that attract Republican vote. There have to be normal people who are currently Republican but would vote democrat if the right candidate came along. Why not test the waters now. See if AOC is electable if she's not, then definitely do not look inside. Look for new people.
They're kinda clipping their own legs with their pessimistic nihilism in this. I get it, woman prez scary to put up for a candidate right now. But the attitude should be more like "HELL YEAH THAT WOULD BE AWESOME" from sympathetic constituents. It's about sending a message, a strong one. The apathy reads like self fulfilling astroturfing to me.
Luigi Mangione is fine. But he has no experience. What will he bring during discussions ? AOC is ok for president post. But she is not that popular. I mean even Bernie Sanders has not become president despite being in active politics for so many decades. But let's see what will happen in USA after Trump steps down when his tenure gets over.
I'd argue he single-handedly saved thousands of lives via a single action, and if we let him do more, he could save many more.
He's got a particular sort of experience that only recently became valuable in a president. The Supreme Court says that during official duties the president is legally immune for all crimes. Give that man immunity and let's see where things end up.
Right, so we need to wait 8 more years for the "only legitimate chance Democrats have" to reach the minimum age to assume office?
Luigi, allegedly, doesn't let the rules get in the way of doing what's right.
would that mean the US would have a good chance at having free/universal healthcare?
My right-wing friend finds AOC hot so he might actually vote for her if she runs.
HELL YEAH THIS COUNTRY NEEDS AOC
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
Nothing to do with racism and sexism . Your electoral system simply suck. Hillary won the popular votes and harris lost by only 2.3m it;s nothing for a population of 340 millions
So one just lost, and the other lost because of the vote distributions were not in her favor: sexist/racist state electoral votes were needed that she didn't get. I stand unrefuted.
How do you distinguish voters who vote against them because they are racists and sexists and those for other factors?
Because they are sexist and racist, and no other factor has ever mattered. They will claim all kinds of other reasons, but they're lying. We've seen it time and time again: they'll complain about something that a Dem does, but not when a Republican does the same thing or worse, so you know it's all actually about culture war BS, which comes down to racism and sexism with the GOP.
You sound like those people who claim that anyone opposing Israel is automatically antisemitic. Yes, many anti-Israel individuals are antisemitic, but the majority are not. Similarly, while there are certainly people who didn’t vote for Harris or Hillary because they are sexist or racist, most people had multiple other reasons for not supporting them.
They all just took a year off with Obama apparently. The dedicated bigots already have their party. They're not needed for Democrats to win.
Pretty much.
If it was just a feeling with Hilary, then it's absolutely true with Kamala.
The excuses like "Kamala is pro-cop!" Or "Hilary is evil", while it can be true, is also what sexists latch on to avoid being called sexists.
And for icing on the cake, a bunch of hispanic dudes voted for Trump and then are getting deported. Sexism runs so deep that it clouded their own survival.
You remind me of people calling anybody criticizing Israel anti smite. While it true that sexists would use it most people really believe that they can't support them for their policies and priorities
Yep — because she is a woman, people with create reasons why they can’t vote for her. Hilary and Kamala were both fine politicians. Most that did not vote for either of them are just afraid to confess they’re real beliefs, so they just pick a narrative and run with it because it makes them appear more sophisticated than a “I hate women” statement.
Sure, you couldn’t possibly wrong and support shitty policies. It’s everyone else who is bad and wrong.
Nailed it.
Run every time and educate every time till the win and then win again.
Unless you're planning on taking up arms, we have to assume there will be one until there isn't.
I love AOC but I don't think she'll win. She needs to focus on Schumer instead. Rn the DNC is in a death spiral and is in desperate need of new party leadership. She's the one for that. Newsom will likely be the 2028 candidate. Which yeah it's gonna suck to have to bite our tongue and back him but if it gets us out of a maga dictatorship then I'll gladly do it.
She should run for the senate seat when chuck leaves office after he finally comes to his senses.
Clinton / Harris did not lose because they were women. They lost because they either were a neoliberal shitbag (Clinton) or could not convince people that they were not a neoliberal shitbag (Harris).
We elected a black man after years of people saying America was too racist to ever do that. There are a lot more women in America than there are black people, and it turns out that running as a progressive is pretty popular.
We don't need to play this stupid guessing game about what genitals or skin colors will win elections. We already know the policy positions that win elections we just categorically refuse to run on them.
That's a narrative pushed here a lot, but I haven't seen good evidence it is true.
Wasn't Obama a neoliberal shitbag by your standards?
Obama ran on Change, closing Gitmo, and universal healthcare. That he governed as a neoliberal scared to change anything doesn't change what people actual voted for.
And then in Obama's second term he just had the incumbent's advantage. Then neoliberal Biden, VP to Obama, won on change again. Then Trump won on changing back.
You may just be rationalizing because you don't like neoliberal, so you think no one does.
I don't like neoliberals, but my comment only referenced them because you defined Obama as neoliberal when his first campaign was very much not. That's what people voted for. And of the elections after that, the only one that couldn't be easily described as based on "change" was Obama's second term against Romney, who is himself sort of the antithesis of change.
That's a fair assessment, actually. I think many voters often want change or don't want change, and they don't really consider which direction the change goes.
If anything bad is happening, whether it's the current administration's fault or the previous, they'll be interested in trying something different.
The swing voters and the non-swing but intermittent voters will just take gut checks about how their life is going and figure out which side wants that to change. Each side, when they're up for change, will pretend their chosen policies will fix everything, and enough people don't really have the wherewithal to recognize whether it's actually going to do anything.
The truth is, for both sides, usually it won't, because even the good stuff is usually tinkering on the long term or hoping that business subsidies trickle down to regular people. Before Trump mostly nothing happened to really impact people's lives, and Trump's stuff is all terrible. So the same stresses that prompted them to believe the other guy's changes would finally do something are still there and they're now looking for a new lie to believe in.
He acted like one once he got elected but that's not what got him elected. His campaign was very different from his Presidency.
He campaigned as a socialist, he turned-coat a few months into his first term.
Yes they did.
He's a man.
There is a large swath of our populace living in the right geographical areas that will NEVER vote for a woman to be president. And that includes a lot of women. AOC will not win the Electoral College. Half the country wants to burn her at the stake for being too liberal. She can't reach those voters. She won't win.
That's the same kinds of things they said about Obama. All you're basing this on is your feelings. Call me when AOC or another progressive woman loses a general election.
Pritzker is good, as evidenced by the "Pritzker sucks" signs found across rural Illinois. My concern would be who would replace him as governor.
More like how there should be a coup now. lol.
She should definitely run, but Democrat will certainly find a way to fuck it up, just like they did with Bernie.
Gerontocracy cannot be allowed to continue to dominate Democratic party primaries
Save us aoc your our only hope
"After Zohran Mamdani's win, Trump reveals how scared he is to face Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"
Yeah, because she would be running against Trump... That's a really silly take.
No.
I like AOC and I think she has demonstrated that, of the entire "Squad", she actually knows how to be a politician and when to fight and when to bite her tongue.
She has zero chance of winning. First, this country has demonstrated that it will NEVER elect a woman. But second, she is still too young and the DNC will never give her that "Obama Moment" where she can win over the entire country in one speech. And third... republicans hate her so much that she would get shot at every single week AND would actually care about the people who took bullets for her.
Nah. I want AOC to stay in Congress. Not sure if she is more valuable as a Senator at this point, but she is increasingly showing she is well suited to being the politician who rallies and guides the other politicians. A Pelosi but not 90 years old and constantly pushing centrist viewpoints.
She is picking a fight with the billionaire oligarchs and unfortunately it seems like a losing battle. Democrats and republicans alike will campaign against her.
Zohran Mamdani is just the democratic primary if I understand correctly. He's not the mayor of New York yet.
She has no path forward clearing primary to fight for presidency.
Imagine a primary with AOC, Pete Buttegieg, and maybe a third younger candidate....
All could be really exciting to see advance, but they'll split the vote and open the way for some stupid fucking corpse to win.
I hate this system.
You are also forgetting the SuperPACs
fucking citizens united fucked up the US.
Do they not have preferential voting in the primaries?
Is this a specific NYC democratic party thing?
I am not from the US.
The primaries for president are run differently. They're proportional, but not evenly. There's minimum amounts to get any delegates and then some confusing weighting that gives more delegates than simple division to those who get more votes. And then at the convention, those delegates can then vote for anyone if their candidate isn't going to win.
So there's a spoiler effect, but not nearly so prominent as FPTP. And the way primaries work, poorly performing candidates will generally just drop out. Not to mention "young people" aren't really Buttigieg's constituency. He basically tied with Bernie in Iowa.
This voting system does not spark joy (thanks for the explanation!)
It very much does not. I think it's designed to make the nominee look like a runaway victor rather than to fairly gauge the opinion of the primary voters. They want the primary to come to a decisive end as soon as possible and the consequence is voters not really understanding whether it's ok to vote for your favorite or to immediately start voting strategically (the answer depends on how well you think they'll do). If it was straight proportional we could just vote how we wanted and if they didn't win their delegates could still influence who did.
You are, unfortunately, right.
Right now, the ticket I think has the best chance of winning is Buttigieg/AOC. I think the DNC knows they need to go younger and have someone who can stand up to a bully in an eloquent and calm manner that will win over reasonable people. And I think AOC probably knows that the only way the DNC is letting a democratic socialist on the ticket is if they fall in line a bit and not come off as a firebrand who has to fix everything with drastic change and would be willing to go incrementally in the left direction. The DNC would be wise to energize the Bernie youth vote they abandoned last election cycle, but they definitely won't give her the keys or their blessing alone which blows. This ticket gives you appeal to the youth, to the rational elder folks like even my 70 year old lifetime republican father who hates trump, the gay community, city folk, country folk, and of course veterans too. Pretty solid combo if you ask me.
Buttigieg is one of the better politicians I've ever seen. He's more well spoken than AOC. He's more prepared for questions. Calmer.
But this is America.
There's a very large swath of this nation in the right geographical areas that will never vote for a homosexual or a woman. Neither of them will win the Electoral College.
"Why AOC should've run for president in 2024"
She should definitely run but also let the people choose from a valid primary.
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.
Anyone suggesting a woman to run for president hasn't been paying attention to the average "on the fence" voter.
I will be a touch disappointed if there is still a us in 2028.
I don't think that the us is worth saving at this point.
As much as we'd all faun over the fall of the US empire, I don't think fascism in the US would work out well for anyone.
Well its here, and I can hope/dream its the dumb type of fascism that collapses under its own weight.
I'm still (probably naively) hoping people wake the fuck up and resist like their lives depended up it.
Oh yeah, but watching this from outside is leading me to believe that there is no unifying force in the usa. Also it seems every american thinks that they are in the majority and that someone will swoop in anyday now.
Really at this point the damage is done. Rule of law is gone, international relations permanently damaged if not out right destroyed, literal masked goons on the streets picking up undesirables and 1000 other indications that the usa as a nation is done (at least as a free one).
Depends if the corporate shilling is in order?
I don't understand what people aren't getting here.
The last two female candidates to run for president, who were extraordinarily more qualified than their opponent, were denied in favor of a felon rapist clown.
If that isn't proof that this nation is not ready for a female president, I don't know what is.
I voted for both those female candidates. I am not against a female president. But can we exist in reality for a moment and acknowledge that if we run AOC, we're going to lose, again? Because America isn't ready for that shit. You will not capture independents with a female candidate. You will not capture disenfranchised Trump supporters with a female candidate. You will not win. A mayoral race is not the same as a presidential race and Mamdani is a man and that's the country we live in.
Edit: Scroll through this comments section. This is a liberal sub. And even here it's 50/50 about AOC running for president. She won't win guys.
She wouldn't win. The U.S. has shown the world twice that it would rather elect a convicted felon dictator over a women. The U.S. is fucked.
I think running another woman to get absolutely trounced by the populace is a poor choice. I don't believe the people are ready for it yet, that's how we ended up with this. Kamala was a good candidate, but with the wrong chromosomes for a very specific swing vote.
AOC with Harris for VP and Sanders for Dept. of Health.
Why Harris?
Secure "democrat" funding for the campaign, Sanders is too old and "too commie".
I feel like your (the US') only hope is a proper grassroots campaign.
Preferential voting or bust.
Because it's really going to be bust, at this rate.
Ask yourself a question: why can't a woman become a preacher, priest or pastor? All major US religions indoctrinate their followers from birth with the teachings that god does NOT permit women to exercise authority over men.
So if Christian and Catholic men and women believe in a core set of values and reasons for why women are not allowed to take leadership roles over men in the church, what makes anyone think they don't or won't apply that same logic to leadership at the political level, or ANY level?
Christians won't let a woman lead their church, but they somehow will be OK with electing a woman into a much higher role, one that can make decisions that affect all churches/the entire world? I don't see it.
I would love AOC as president. Unfortunately, she's a woman and she's a minority, and this country is just too racist and sexist - and stupid! - to elect her.
All those things but mostly stupid
It’s a sad but proven truth that the USA is not ready for a woman president.
I voted for both Hillary and Kamala. But I’m open minded. Too many Americans simply are not.
There is a clear prevailing consensus in the USA (not a correct or good consensus, but nevertheless it’s here) that woman should not be leaders. Even a large percentage of women believe in this.
We NEED to change the consensus. How do we change the consensus? It’s clear that pushing the envelope by making a woman the presidential candidate has not worked. The patriarchal front is dug in too deeply for such a frontal assault.
I believe the first woman president of the USA will be a woman VP who takes over after the president is removed, for whatever reason. A “side door” approach.
I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong. But I think AOC running for the presidency will put another Republican in the White House.
Of course the US is ready. Hillary won the popular vote. Don't use idosynchroncies of our electoral collage be what determines what US is ready for.
Kamala actually won the popular vote too. By a fairly small margin, but she still got more actual votes than Trump. But then there's the electoral college... Our constitutional dinosaur that has now failed the American people 3 times in the last 7 elections.Ok, apparently I'm working with out of date information. As late as January I was hearing reports that the popular vote was slightly in favor of Harris. But that appears to not be the case.
Then again, "Elon Musk, he knows those computers so well..." Who fucking knows. Not like Republicans are above breaking the law.
Huh?
If you're saying the reported numbers are inaccurate due to election fraud, fine. Absent that, you are mistaken.
Those idiosyncrasies are what made a felon rapist clown fascist win over highly qualified women...twice.
She won't win. Enough people in the right geographical areas are simply not ready for a female president and will happily vote for a fascist instead to prevent it from happening.
It's not a fluke that of the 3 times Trump has run, he has only lost to a man.
Welcome to America.
One of my conservative friends (also a woman) said the same thing: women shouldn't be in power. Stunlocked me for a second.
That's why conservative women exist. There's a known phenomenon where the victims of abuse are often the most vociferous defenders of their abusers.
Culturally you see this in things like the defenders of hazing but there's plenty of science on the topic to back up the observation.
The thing about that, however, is those votes aren't something you were going to win, ever, and it's not something you should chase.
It's religion, not politics, that does this to women
That's how Canada got its first female PM, and it has not resulted in any more. I don't really think it's going to have the feminist effect you are hoping for.
My honest opinion is that both Clinton and Harris lost to Trump because people wanted Trump. Biden won despite being a paper bag because people realized they hated trump. Then they forgot about it.
She has a lot going against her, even if people don't think there's a patriarchy issue.
She's very active politically and very vocal. Immediate resistance from conservatives.
She is no friend to AIPAC. She'll lose a good bit of the Jewish vote
Policy-wise, she's decently progressive. She'll be easily demonized by the right-owned media.
Voter Suppression. Even if we get a fair election, as soon as the right loses, they'll martial law up and claim fraud, and you better believe they'll find what they're looking for if they have to make it themselves.
AOC has already demonstrated her extreme willingness to fall in line for the DNC. She will not bring change.
Neoliberals are still openly hostile towards her.
Queen Neoliberal Pelosi spent more time in the lameduck period undermining AOC's committee appointment than Trump's Presidency.
That's good enough for me as a leftist knowing the context that she really is about as left wing as our pathetic, deluded, propagandized, under or miseducated populace could ever elect as we are.
I don't have any hope anymore, this nation died under Reagan and it's just a slow falling corpse as far as I'm concerned, but for anyone looking to cling to at least borderline rational hope, someone in her position is your best bet, because she's a known name, that matters in our shitty celebrity obsessed culture, she proves every day that a leftist can be professional and govern, that matters because leftists are painted as anarchist boogiemen without a plan in most American news media, and she's photogenic and naturally charasmatic, which shouldn't matter but sadly does.
There isn't an individual to the left of her that I can think of that could conceivably get elected President in this cesspool of willful ignorance and systemically stoked division of the poors, can you? Even her becoming President would be a moonshot. That isn't a knock on her, she's one of about 4 members of congress (or executives in the fortune 1000) I'd give a glass of water to if they were dying of thirst, that's a knock on our gold plated shithole and people, not her. She's a diamond in the rough.
True. But she won't win a presidential election.
I agree, but I don't think there'll be another real election here for a long time if ever, and I'd rather vote for her than another hypercapitalist enslaver with pride ribbons(D) to stop hypercapitalist enslaver with scapegoats(R) yet again as I've done my entire life in our descent to oblivion. There's not really rational hope either way. The capitalists won and have us by the balls in every way, including tens of millions of deluded minds that have learned to love and defend the Massas and their "free market" directly against their own interests.
Climate change is going to end planetary scale civilization in 50 years max, probably 20-30. It's blowing past all projections because we were conservative and both couldn't and didn't want to consider the runaway effects. I honestly think Kamala was my last pragmatic funeral dirge vote. Give me something to vote for and I'll show up. I haven't had a federal level candidate to vote for in a general in my entire life though. I doubt AOC will become the first after the DNC uses every lever to end any primary run.
I disagree. Mamdhani has shown it possible to not compromise on basic human rights.
AOC has crossed the line and there is no going back. The mask cannot be put back on.
There is no harm in allying with her but she should not be the leader of the progressive movement.
Stop with the women.
Should it matter it’s a women? No. But the reality is it does to too many people and it’s another uphill battle.
Dems will never win an election again if they prioritize trying to win the votes of ""centrists"" who are too sexist to vote for a woman.
Michelle Obama. Less baggage (for better or worse). More beloved.
Whhhhaaaaa..... So instead of an elected offical who has been making headlines weekly for the last 6 years, but the unelected wife of the president from 12 years ago?
No. Heck no. No more political dynasties.
Worse politics, plus her favorability would drop as soon as she became an active candidate.
Lol no.
Another neoliberal.