• Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 hours ago

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

  • Gork@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    My right-wing friend finds AOC hot so he might actually vote for her if she runs.

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Zohran Mamdani is just the democratic primary if I understand correctly. He’s not the mayor of New York yet.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 hours 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
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours 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
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours 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
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 hours 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).

          • Draedron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary

            Twice americans chose the fascist over the woman. Now Americans won’t have free elections anymore so they will never have a female president unless her last name is Trump maybe. So I guess they got what they wanted.

          • bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Sure, there’s other factors, but even if they were exactly what voters wanted, there would be a stigma around it. I mean, even women hate women and actively vote to sabotage their own Healthcare so it’s not really based on any logic. Maybe in 20 years when the olds are gone, and IF the youngs don’t get brainwashed by Tate types, there could be a female president.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.

              Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours 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
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours 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.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours 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
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours 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
            1
            ·
            5 hours 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
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 hours 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
      6
      ·
      7 hours 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.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        I remember bullshit like this being spewed about Obama, too. “Obama is too green!” “a black man could NEVER be president. We have never had one before, after all!” (Or are you too young to remember that? I forget there are adults on here now who weren’t even 2-years-old when he was elected.)

        … Cue him defeating 2 white successful men by large margins. Doh. Think this through and stop parroting wedge-driving sexist gatekeeping conservative propaganda.

        • bestagon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Also Hillary was a famously unpopular candidate and still won the popular vote, and there were maaaany confounding factors to a weak democratic race in 2024 apart from Kamala’s gender

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            She was at one point one of the most popular politicians in America, actually. She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders. People decided she was awful once she started running for president and Social Media campaigns told everyone what to think about her.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                My point being that no matter who we run there will be vicious smear campaigns attacking their character.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Actually Bernie Sanders was outperforming Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Trump poll after poll.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders.

                  If Sanders outperforms Hillary with the general population against their competitor, then they are not “alongside” — Sanders is, in fact, ahead.

                  Word definitions matter!

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          How many black candidates lost to white candidates in a post-primary presidential race?

          That’s right, zero.

          How many female candidates have lost to male candidates in a post-primary presidential race?

          Two, or in other words, all of them.

          You can make an argument to say that there was racist gatekeeping back when Obama was running, and that was absolutely true, but we never actually had a situation where a political party fronted a black man and lost. We actually do have data that shows that America rejected a female presidential candidate twice. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that America simply isn’t socially developed enough to be capable of looking past the misogyny and we should take that into consideration if our goal is to win.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Ar… Are you really going to use Samples N=1 and N=2 as some sort of statistical relevance? Wtaf?

            This logic is most asinine. By that logic, the vast majority of Presidential losses were of white men, and my sample is higher!

            Two non-charismatic inauthentic candidates lost, and race and gender had little to do with it because the bigots already coalesce under the maga banner; the problem was that their lack of vision, charisma, authenticity led to the reachable swing-voters either sitting on the couch, or voting for Trump on failed perceptions that he was better for the economy.

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

              When your logic is absolutely ignoring entire swaths of reality, I think its interesting for you to try to attack someone elses logic.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Idk if it’s too early to talk about it, but part of the process is definitely weighing the pros and cons.

  • Cocopanda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    She should run for the senate seat when chuck leaves office after he finally comes to his senses.

  • nthavoc@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Look … not that I have anything against women running for president … but … if we haven’t learned twice from the shitty decision making of the voter population, 2028 is not the year to test if the US can get its first woman as president AGAIN. I’m going to chalk this up as democrats just can’t stand to win and the media needs to stop encouraging that line of thinking. We’ll be lucky if there even is a 2028 election. Also, did everyone forget AOC is not in the good graces of kingmaker Pelosi?

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 hours 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.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    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.

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

    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.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours 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.

  • intheformbelow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    20 hours 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
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 hours 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?

      • KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours 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
          ·
          7 hours 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.

      • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 hours 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.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        13 hours 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
          5
          ·
          11 hours 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.

      • It'sbetterwithbutter@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours 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.

    • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours 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.

  • PastafARRian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    I think the only legitimate chance Democrats have is Luigi Mangione. You have to fight fire with fire. He’s young, smart, charismatic, from a well to do background, and not even a felon like our current president. Also brave unlike our Republican chickenshit losers. Sanders as running mate.

    • kukui@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      He’s young

      Right, so we need to wait 8 more years for the “only legitimate chance Democrats have” to reach the minimum age to assume office?

      • PastafARRian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        It’s very possible Trump could be the eternal president, even after he dies. Would it make a difference if he’s alive or just a concept?

    • toppy@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • PastafARRian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        47 minutes ago

        I’ll bet $1000 that we’ll slip into fascism unless we vote Mangione as a write in. Nobody else has the guts to stand up to these thugs. The guy is paraded around like he’s guilty, and stands tall.