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.
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.
…when i was growing up, my well-meaning parents pulled me aside to express their concern over a jewish friend dating a black friend; aghast at their comment, i immediately confronted them over its apparent racism, and they replied that they had nothing against it personally, but were instead concerned about what other people might think…
…they’re f*cking balls-out fascists fourty years later, and i want no part of them in my life…
…to anyone tempted to compromise their own best interests on behalf of what other people might think: don’t give them that kind of power over you, or they’ll drag you down in it…
Run every time and educate every time till the win and then win again.
She should absolutely run. I don’t know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.
Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.
I don’t know if she should win the nomination,
Her winning the nomination would be Schumer and Pelosi’s worst nightmare. They would 100 percent rather lose to Trump than let that happen.
Maybe we’ll luck out and those two will be dead by then.
they’d actively campaign for mango mussolini’s third term before they let AOC win the nomination. fucking ghouls.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Ranked choice only goes so far when the electorate is batshit insane and willfully ignorant.
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…
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?
Delegates 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Walz/Cortez 2028 take my vote all day long.
Losing the nomination would not be the end for AOC. But as a champion for the “Democratic Socialist” wind of the Democrats there’s really not a better candidate to speak at the primaries and ensure that even in a primary loss the eventual winner adds parts their goals to the administrations goals.
This is why the “Christian Conservatives” always run a few candidates in the Republican party, and why they’ve always got a spot in the Republican party platform.
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.
(the closest we’ve ever been was Sanders, and the DNC ensured that he was not going to be on the ballot.)
Ah, yes, when the DNC forged millions of votes to make Sanders lose. Twice.
Fuck’s sake. Show up for the primaries next time, goddamn you.
Less than 30% of voters voted in 2016 primaries
Also voters: “WHY ARE THE NOMINEES SO BAD?”
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
There’s way more evidence that Americans want far left policies
Not according to the election results.
Problem is that Americans are soooooooo politically uneducated it’s scary
Doesn’t this increase the chances of a leftist losing?
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!
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.
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.
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
maybe let the people who actually vote for the party decide who they prefer as candidates
Those people said “Clinton” and then “Biden”. Both over Bernie, who was far more charismatic than both and with a fucking spotless record, unlike both.
Not sure that the primary voters’ll be delivering a progressive savior unless the demographics of who votes in Dem primaries changes radically.
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.
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.
This is the type of thinking that will keep the status quo the status quo.
“Things can’t change oh well!”
Prepare yourself for the “Status Quo-mo”
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.
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.
A woman candidate is a non starter.
This. This right here. This is what people are going to have to start accepting.
We heard throughout the entire campaign “Biden too old!”. And to be fair, he was. That debate performance proved it. But here’s the thing. Once his replacement was announced, people suddenly stopped having a problem with age, because they ran right back to Bernie Sanders. Suddenly, age wasn’t nearly as much of an issue any more. The voters ultimately stood up in one voice and said “We’d still vote for a really old man or at least let another old man with dementia return to power before we vote for a black woman”. It’s like the voters demanded someone younger, saw the DNC endorse Harris, and said “No, not like that!”
The Gaza excuse doesn’t make sense either, because Trump was actively campaigning on glassing the place and turning it into beachfront property. Never mind the fact that Harris was in a lose-lose position with regards to the war (Had she turned and supported Gaza, she’d have lost significantly more Jewish voters and the race would have been an even bigger Trump victory), but even if you believe she’s “supporting a genocide”, the fact of the matter is that Trump’s position was not only to support it, but to speed it up. You can’t claim that you didn’t vote for Harris over Gaza while allowing someone who you damn well know is going to be even worse for Gaza to rise back to power. Again, this doesn’t make the last bit of logical sense. Another excuse for people who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black woman and needed an excuse to either convince themselves or their social circle to justify it.
What else was there? “Well, she wasn’t clear on some of her economic policies”. Literal quote from news reporters on the Harris/Trump debate where Trump’s answer to an economic policy question was “They’re eating the dogs! They’re eating the cats! They’re eating…the pets!”.
Or “They’re all just handpicked by the corporate elite”. Or “we’re trying to send a message to the Democrat party to put forward better candidates”. Or my personal favorite “She campaigned with Liz Cheney that one time…”.
Or whatever other excuse people keep coming up with. Not a single one of them has ever been able to answer the question of “Even if you believe that, how does allowing Trump return to power make it any better or advance your position?”
The fact of the matter is that Democrats have their own share of low-key racists and bigots. They’re just not as open about it as Republicans, and still prefer to hide behind whatever convenient excuse they can come up with. But they’ve twice over proven that, for all their bluster about age and progressive values, they’ll gladly allow an old white man with dementia to return to power before they ever consider voting for a woman. I’ll echo the exact same thing you said. I don’t like it, and you don’t have to agree with it. But reality is what reality is. If the Democrat party puts forward a woman or minority in 2028, especially after 4 years of Trump stoking racial tensions, they’re going to lose. Full stop. This country is not willing to accept a woman President. Heck, I’m willing to bet that Obama was a fluke and the voters won’t vote in a minority as President again, at least not in my lifetime.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nailed it.
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.
As a non-American, electing AOC as president would be the way to speed run the repair of America’s reputation internationally.
I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don’t really care about fixing our international reputation atm. I’m worried about stopping the country from falling apart first. We can fix all the international stuff after.
I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don’t really care about fixing our international reputation atm. I’m worried about stopping the country from falling apart first. We can fix all the international stuff after.
This will be a rather gentle rebuke:
AOC being elected president would not only be the most direct way of making the day to day lives of all Americans better, it would be the quickest route to restoring America’s status on the world stage. It would all happen simultaneously.
I agree but the issue is her actually winning. I feel like america broadly is still too racist and too sexist to elect her. Obviously I would love to fix both simultaneously but I’m trying to be realistic with the info we have now. Maybe something changes between now and then and I would be happy to be wrong but rn that’s kinda where things stand.
I can only speak from the outside, as Americans need to decide for themselves if they’re worth saving.
Ofc. I’m not expecting people to know everything about what’s going on here. Everything these next 4 (?) years is gonna be a uphill battle here. Rn we’re literally seeing policy that could lead to the balkanization of the usa. The ability to file a fair injunction against Trump is officially gone here. Red states will get preference from the courts while blue states will fight constant battles to get anything through. I am interested in repairing our national image but there very well may not be a nation to repair the image of in coming years. People do care it’s just that they don’t care enough to do what actually needs to be done.
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.
Yep, and they must be forced to change, as they will fight anything that threatens the donor class that keeps them fat and happy.
The only way to defeat the DNC is from within… by dragging the party to where it must be… in the same way MAGA reshaped the Rs and wrest control from Bush-era neo-cons like Romney and McConnell.
Primary the DNC’s 3rd way neoliberals at every level and chance you get (i.e. AOC, Rashida Talib, Zohran Mamdani, etc.), boost the good candidates on social media and at the same time try to teach others how to think critically so they don’t just slop up and regurgitate whatever narratives the consent-manufacturing billionaire-owned networks push out.
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.
…but they won’t work against a specific candidate either.
Absolutely demonstrably untrue.
They will definitely work against specific candidates.
They will change rules and ask super-delegates to ignore voters and choose their preferred candidate, the news networks most closely aligned with the DNC’s goals will literally put a camera in front of an empty mic stand for 40 mins rather than show the candidate they don’t want. They will compare that candidate winning states during the primary literally to Hitler saying it’s like “the fall of Paris” or compare the supporters of the guy whose own extended family was murdered in the Holocaust to “brownshirts.”.
They will support anti-choice Ds over progressives in primaries while claiming neutrality.
The DNC isn’t representative of its constituents. They are the rich’s secondary defense against “the left” (meaning anything even slightly to the left of 1990s Clinton policies).
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.
Thank you for offering more context to help folk understand things are improving. I don’t mean to sound doom and gloom. It’s great to hear things are getting better.
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.
This DNC won’t help any specific candidate in a primary, but they won’t work against a specific candidate either.
The same group of people absolutely shitting themselves over Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of NYC won’t work against any specific candidate in 2028? Did we completely forget about 2020, when Obama got half the field to drop out after Super Tuesday to pave the way for a guy in fifth place? Or 2024, when Dems forewent having a Presidential Primary entirely so they could fumble between a geriatric genocidal bum and his Cheney-loving VP?
We’re on a huge inflection point
In 1972, Richard Nixon made the case for his reelection by invoking the second derivative of inflation. He stated that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing.
This is the inflection point the American liberal party has reached, in the year 2025. Things are so incredibly bad that a Cuomo can’t walk off with a high office in the finance capital of the world. The increase of fascism is decreasing.
We can not afford to roll the dice on neoliberalism again
This won’t be a diceroll. The preponderance of Democrats are firmly in the tank for some ideological mix of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. One of the great “successes” of the Democratic Party over the last 20 years has been to draw a big chunk of the economic conservatives out of the Republican Party and into their own.
From Kristen Gillibrand to Kristen Sinema, from Hakeem Jefferies to Henry Cuellar, from Michael Bloomberg to Rick Wilson, this is a party overflowing with Bush Era “compassionate conservatives”. AOC has no path to a national platform in 2028. Y’all are going to be stuck holding your noses and voting for Gretchen Whitmer/Pete Buttigieg while shouting “Vote Blue No Matter Who” in another three years.
But maybe we can get Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman their house seats back. Maybe we can get a few more Mamdanis into the big city mayorships. Then talk about what a minority of leftists in the Senate could look like in another ten to forty years.
deleted by creator
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.
I’m really sorry to say that AOC stands a snowball’s chance in hell. Look around and ask yourself whether this country would ever, ever, EVER elect a woman. It’s really that simple. It’d be great if we lived in a more progressive country, but we’re going to have to be crafty clever to get what we want. Nominating a woman for the highest office of our land is a choice we can keep making, but we’ll keep losing and the GOP will continue to erode the country.
Look around and ask yourself whether this country would ever, ever, EVER elect a woman.
Kamala and Hillary combined had zero charisma, ran policy Dem voters hated…
And still almost won.
So yeah, a charismatic woman with popular policy would win.
You can put whichever woman you want there on the top of the ticket — they will lose every time in the current landscape of the US. We need a different strategy for now.
Source: Trust me bro. I’m super sexist and also friends with super sexist people and I can tell you that my super sexist bro’s yearn for tax cuts for entrepreneurs who run a business for 3 years in a disadvantaged neighborhood. Trust me bro.
deleted by creator
Sexism run deeeeeeeep in this country.
It’s not that big of an issue.
When you run Kamala and Hillary, sexism is an easy excuse. Neoliberals will never blame a loss on their policy, even though everyone is outright saying it’s due to policy.
Someone who identified as a trans-racial Martian could win a general if they also had a progressive platform, charisma, and authentic delivery.
Like, if sexism was such an issue, she wouldn’t poll so well
My wife argues that the only reason dudes support AOC is because she’s fuckable which is a whole other level of sexism and patriarchy.
People ignore how many women hate women.
Lots of them have the mindset that every woman is completion, just like lots of men see it.
Women (not dissing your wife) can be fucking awful.
And just like some men can fall victim to that line of thinking and say prejudiced shit without meaning to, so can women.
Like, sure, it’s undeniable that AOC is attractive. But I’ve had loads of platonic friends who were more attractive than she is. Above all else we’re all just human, it’s fucking played out to assume physical appearance is always the most important quality.
Baddies can be more than one thing
deleted by creator
The patriarchy is insane in the USA.
Two of the last three presidential elections have had a woman candidate…
There was a laundry list of valid policy based reasons why the last two women lost, and they barely lost.
How the fuck does that make you think no woman in America could manage a win?
Spoken like a man.
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
screeching that she’s “NOT qualified for office,” that she’s “stupid” and the “dumbest,” while defending his own intelligence by noting he “ACED” a cognitive test doctors use to determine if an elderly person’s dementia has gotten so bad they need to be put in full-time care
God, this guy loves bragging about “acing” his cognitive tests.
Dr: “Ok, you passed: you have normal, average, cognitive function”
Trump: “Just ACED my cognitive TEST. The DOCTOR SAYS I had the MOST BEAUTIFUL, most TREMENDOUS results in history, ever. He says ‘I see people take this test all the time, and your results are the greatest’”
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.
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.
