The DNC is not gonna be happy about this… 😆
Sure they will be. They’ll look at the poll results, throw them in the garbage, and run Newsom like they were already planning to
They weren’t happy about Bernie and look at the fucking mess they caused.
They’re gonna have a harder time painting all progressives as sexists and racists when we’re going apeshit over AOC. I like her even more than Sanders.
The DNC is currently up shit creek. Many other major Democratic organizations are out fundraising them by a wide margin. Many “true blue” Democrats are pissed as hell at DNC leadership and how utterly spineless and opaque they’re being. I don’t think we’re going into this next election cycle with a DNC that’s powerful enough to thumb the scales in that way
They are protecting the Epstein class
I.E. protecting themselves.
It’s well past time to ride roughshod over them.
If I can humbly suggest another solution . . .
They’re going to love having a fresh face to attract people to the party, donate lots of time and money, and stick around to get scolded with “Vote Blue No Matter Who” when progressives are rug pulled in Iowa and New Hampshire.
“Vote Blue No Matter Who”
I thought this was over after the DNC ran a spoiler candidate in the NYC mayoral race.
God if she had a chance.
She does have a chance. Progressives are actually winning primaries now. People are sick of choosing between psycho magats and backstabbing “moderates”
Fuck the DNC man. Fire the establishment. Get progressive blood in there
the REVOLUTION is finally here!
oh oh oh OOOOOHHH!
Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive, and that Ocasio-Cortez could face the same problem.
Who’s this “many”? Kamala lost because of her Joe Biden neolib policies, her hard heel-turn to the right, and her “nothing will change, we are the most lethal military” stance on the Middle East.
Instead of reassuring the masses who she thought were a shoe-in, she tried to appease the “I’ll never vote for a black woman” crowd, which alienated the former and would never have worked on the latter.
It was either the greatest miscalculation ever, lead by Third Way focus groups, or someone tugged the leash. Either way, with the GOP rat fucking that was almost certainly happening to some degree.
Pretty shitty of Newsweek to pretend that progressive policies are unpopular with a majority of Americans.
Personally, I think it is because there was no Democratic Party primary. Biden stole the time that any potential candidate could have used to prove their mettle to voters.
Yeah, I would also actually lay more blame on Biden over Kamela, despite Kamela being a pretty terrible candidate
DNC has already shown they aren’t taking that as the lesson learnt. They won’t even release the 2024 autopsy cause they don’t like what it says
It was obvious the party was cooked in 2018 - when, in response to regaining power after losing in a great upset to an insane game show host, they kept the exact same leadership.
No, she lost because she was black and a woman. People always underestimate just how racist and sexist the US is. Don’t fall into this trap.
The polls say otherwise. She was leading after her announcement, when she was still talking about healthcare reform, economic justice, taxing the rich, etc. For about three weeks.
Then she talked to her business rep corpo brother, and shifted gear to espousing pro-corporate policy, defending the wealthy, calling leftists Bernie bros, etc, and fell behind.
I agree that Palestine made little difference, btw. It cost her around half a million votes, but she lost by three times that. That’s looking at state by state, too.
She lost because she turned herself into Biden 2, instead of what people wanted her to be, which was Obama (until he became President. He lied very well, then governed well enough that we forgave him for being friends with the corps).
Women won senate races in three of the swing states she lost and a Hispanic man won a fourth. It’s hard to imagine an explanation more out of line with actual evidence.
It’s possible that it she was a white man, and absolutely nothing else was different, that she very well might have just barely eeked out a victory. That’s still a failure. It should have been a blowout. It was a failure of a campaign, racism and sexism against the candidate by the general public was a component, but the least relevant one.
Yeah. Her argument was that she was Joe Biden, but younger and more diverse. But Joe Biden was LOSING. Even before his debate performance. And he only barely won in 2020, which also should have been a blowout.
It’s not the blackness or the femaleness, it’s doubling down on shitty uninspiring politics. An old white male Joe Biden was going to lose even worse than the middle aged black female Joe Biden.
Exactly. People forget that Biden in 2020 under performed polls, and it’s pretty clear that absent COVID he would have lost.
I agree, even if Biden was 20 years younger I think he would have won. If he was 20 years younger and female and Indian he would have lost just as Harris did.
It was definitely policy that hindered them, but also the sexism and racism.
No, she lost because she was black and a woman.
“Kamala Harris ran the perfect campaign, she was just stabbed in the back!”
KHive is the new Freikorp
Maybe if the Friekorps confined itself to shit posting on Facebook
I dunno, they seem to have had at least half the Trump assassination attempts so far?
You couldn’t mention her name around here without a bandwagon of “She’s the literal genocide queen and a vote for her is a vote to murder Palestinian children.”
Since you mentioned the name, I did notice quite obviously the disrespect everyone had toward Kamala Harris in the news and online comments simply due what they called her.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
I suspect it was either due to her being a woman, or due to her being Indian (Kamala sounds a lot more foreign than Harris).
It was always “Kamala vs Trump” never Harris vs Trump or Kamala vs Donald.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
Because that’s the more unique and thus memorable part of her name. Just like “Bernie” is more memorable than “Sanders”.
It wasn’t a sign of disrespect, sexism, or othering to call Bernie by his first name, and it wasn’t in the case of Kamala Harris either.
Anyone who says otherwise is likely grasping at straws to explain away the fact that it was mostly her policy positions and allegiance to Biden, corporations, and Israel over the people she was SUPPOSED to represent that lost her the election rather than bigotry.
I assumed it was the woman aspect, hadn’t even considered the foreign aspect.
https://news.asu.edu/20170721-solutions-asu-mayo-study-how-female-doctors-introduced
I have a really hard time remembering how to pronounce her first name because I know someone with the same spelling but different pronunciation, (and I read the news, don’t watch it) so to avoid saying it wrong I only ever said Harris.
That sounds exactly like something those Sandersbros would do, they’re basically indistinguishable from r/TheTrump.
I mean, she did support the genocide. Which murdered tens of thousands of Palestinian children. What is your point?
Thank you for illustrating my point. And I’m sure you feel like Trump is doing a fantastic job with human rights, at home and abroad (when he comes up for air while gargling Bibi’s balls, of course).
And I’m sure you feel like Trump is doing a fantastic job with human rights
Why don’t you just go have a nice tea party with the little strawman you’ve created?
The only thing Trump is doing a great job at is destroying the US. Whether that’s good or not, debatable.
Yes! Thank you. This is exactly my point. You’ve illustrated it perfectly 😘
But “around here” is representative of what? 5% of voters? 16% of democratic voters max? Let’s not pretend Lemmy users represent a sizable number of democratic voters.
Only on Lemmy
Case in point: your bullshit comment.
“Oh, it couldn’t possibly be her shitty policy positions; it had to have been because of her race and gender!”
Fuck all the way off with your soft bigotry of low expectations.
A THIRD of people, only slightly smaller than the third that voted for Trump, voted for Harris based on the fact that she WASN’T TRUMP. Another third didn’t vote because they felt her stance on Israel wasn’t enough to offset that she wasn’t Trump. I don’t feel it had anything to do with her race or gender.
Pretty crazy to write that the third that didn’t vote, did so because of Israel lol
Yeah, that’s not true.
But if it was, then you need to be asking why, in an election they claimed was existential, the Democratic Party anointed a black woman to run as their candidate against Trump.
Because that’s the conclusion of the excuse you’re making - that the Democrats can only nominate men, or they’re choosing to lose.
No no, that’s the trap of their narrative. “The Democrats are always just bending over backwards trying to promote minority candidates even when the deck is stacked against them, because they’re just such true believers in progressive ideals.”
The reality is, by playing up the “progressiveness” of a candidate’s inherent characteristics, they can be quietly used as a vehicle for conservative policies that make their donors happy. This is a strategy that’s very played out around the world, even Pakistan once had their own version of Margaret Thatcher, and Japan just go theirs recently.
From the perspective that progressive politics are completely off the table, picking a minority candidate was a tactically reasonable choice. A candidate’s race and gender are about the only “concessions” they could give to the left, while courting their donors.
But the problem with that is that second-wave feminism, the kind that tends to see Thatcherites as a win, never caught on in the US like it did in the UK, and third-wave, which is more popular these days, accounts for that failure and focuses more on systemic issues and policy than individual leaders.
But any strategy that might work to get progressives to bend the knee to neoliberalism will be tried again and again, and if it fails they’ll just chalk it up to sexism or whatever other bullshit.
You don’t think they chose to to loose? No matter how you look at it seems they made a poor choice in retrospect. Anyway, I didn’t say a black woman couldn’t win or that a smart choice would be to pick the candidate based on race or gender. I do think that no poll will ever show the laten state of racism in the US though and that this sadly probably hurt Kamela and helped Trump. There’s a reason politicians in the US hardly ever even talk about a platform anymore. Most people vibe vote from a very uneducated position and didn’t know shit about her thoughts on Isreal.
She came out look ling like Darth vader in one of the televised things she did and did the war hawk dance. Fuck off forever, you lost to Donald Fucking Trump after spending 1.5 billion.
its almost like all legacy media is inherently fascist
Many = the author. Every time.
they do this every time though. The centrists fail, so obviously the answer is more centrism.
More centrism to the right, of course, never to the left.
Yup.
However, the immediate effect of not voting for the lesser evil is either not voting, meaning the right wins, or voting for candidates with no chance of winning, taking votes away from the more left ones and allowing the right to win. “More right” is better than “all the way to the far right.”
If you’re not going to change direction, the speed at which you’re moving right isn’t really important. You’re getting there anyways.
It is important, because continuing that way isn’t a foregone conclusion, despite you acting like it is.
Sure thing Charlie Brown, one day you’re gonna kick that DNC football!
In fairness to Newsweek, based on the sentence before this, I think they mean, “many in the party establishment,” not, “many people in general.”
She brings significant energy to the primary among younger voters, but some in the Democratic Party establishment believe her progressive policies could alienate swing voters in the general election. Many believe Harris lost in 2024…
Essentially, she showed herself as who she truly is: an establishment Democrat more intent on maintaining the status quo instead of listening to the left and helping push the party further towards progressive policies and reshaping the party into something that represents the modern constituency.
Yeah that.
Harris was progressive? Really?
I remember during the Trump/Harris debate when Israel came up and they both took turns declaring they could suck off Israel harder than their opponent.
I do not consider Harris a progressive.
We’d prolly know for sure if they released the report. Ken Martin needs to be fired.
There are many contradictory opinions on why Harris lost. These opinions usually boil down to “Her policy positions weren’t close enough to my policy positions, and that’s why she lost.”
And every other leftist on this site seems to believe that she would have won, had she just pandered to them more. Completely ignoring the fact that leftism essentially doesn’t exist in this country, and Lemmy isn’t an accurate representation of American voters.
Well, it’s pretty obvious that running for the Liz Cheney voter did not work.
It’s hard to tell if allowing Cheney to campaign for her helped, hurt, or had very little impact at all. I suspect the latter, but we’ll never know because we can’t rerun the race.
Again, looking at the 2024 race, it is obvious it did not work. Because she lost. And badly.
In that sense, everything she did “didn’t work.” Centrists will site her progressive policies as the culprit and say those didn’t work, because she didn’t win. The fact is, neither of you know what the but-for cause of her loss was, but you want to believe it was the one that serves your position.
You did fall out of the coconut tree
Yeah, major miscalculation for sure
Having seen it with Gore, Kerry, Obama (post win), Clinton, and now Harris, it’s not a single mistake. The Dems would always prefer to lose to the right than win to the left.
Biden had COVID, so it’s just outside the norm.
Right, because there is no proper left in this country, and Democrats are centrists who want to continue the status quo
Yup, and so they ratchet in what the right has done. As the status quo is not a static thing.
Meanwhile 5 minutes later you’ll be blaming the Gaza non-voters for her losing without a hint of self-awareness.
She literally campaigned with Liz Cheney. Too progressive? Lmao no one believes that shit except brainwashed magats.
Crazy how every rag shifts between blaming gaza voters for her loss while simultaneously claiming Harris was “too progressive”.
It seems American voters want right wing vs far right.
THERE IS ANOTHER ELECTION BEFORE THAT.
It’s two years away. It’s not even the next election! And this is all presuming that there even is another election, which is far from given.
There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.
There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.
Speculation on the 2028 presidential race began five minutes after the 2024 polls closed.
The Forever Campaign is much like the Forever War, in so far as it is a suffocating political miasma that strangles any other conversation.
They run polls on potential 2028 primary candidates all the time. This was the first one AOC has led in. It is notable.
The point of these polls isn’t to predict who the Democratic candidate for president will be in 2028. The point is to gauge what the Democratic primary electorate is currently feeling/prioritizing. They’re moving away from “just give me a safe white guy who can win the general” and toward “give me the most progressive one you got.”
It’s just a buzzworthy headline, just for people to click so they can get more ad revenue.
What are you talking about? The headline clearly says she’s winning the election.
She’s not even running.
So what? There’s nothing new about presidential primary discussions in a midterm year. I’ve been following politics for thirty years and the speculation always starts around this time.
And there’s nothing wrong with it tbh. The candidates have to start preparing now. That’s just how the primaries work.
The democratic party funded by AIPAC will rather see Trump for a third time than having AOC as president.
Rather than having a woman as president*
They’re run 2 candidates that lost to the GOP that were women already. Where is the idea that the Dems won’t run a woman coming from?
Fair point, but it feels bad to accept.
Well, perhaps it is concern that the Dems shouldn’t run a woman, not that they haven’t. The reality of the situation is that there is still plenty of closeted (some less so) misogyny among Democrats such that a woman is going to have a harder time winning than a man (all other things being equal) in the general. Add a racial minority, socdem, and 8 years of GOPedo vilification on top of that and you have an even harder path forward than Clinton or Harris, especially if the GOP nominee in 2028 is an outwardly reasonable, straight, white, male. I still think that the GOPedos stole the 2024 election, but I also think that their steal may not have been successful if a straight, white, male had replaced Biden instead of a brown woman. Not that I want any of this to be true, but I think it is where we are currently.
I mean there are a lot of men who don’t want that.
White women voted for Trump. Does that mean there’s lots of white women who won’t vote for a woman?
Yes, but I’m just pointing out people are fucking sexist here
Or something more nefarious at foot.
Why the down votes for this comment?
Cuz they already ran a woman for president, twice. So saying the dems don’t want a woman president is just categorically false.
Bold to assume that’s what I was saying 😂
Men don’t want a women running this country sadly
Ok sure but the question was “why is this getting downvoted?”
Or, maybe, people who will vote for a Democrat don’t want a neoliberal centrist?
Biden barely won even with COVID, and he ran to the left of both Clinton and Harris.
They don’t want to admit this country is sadly bigoted and a lot of men don’t want a woman running the country
AOC is doing her best to keep friendly with the J-Street Israel lobby lately.
If she throws her hat into the ring I fully expect the DNC to sabotage her at every opportunity.
They’ll play nice and keep it on the down low and then pull some Obaman, secret, backroom Super-Tuesday fuckery to steal the momentum and likely nomination from
SandersAOC and give it to a center-right, corporatist shill like Buttgiggle or Shamala.One party state where everyone has to get through the republican primaries? Big problem!
Two party state where everyone reasonable has to get through democratic primaries? Totally cool, totally legal.
Super excited to watch the blue conservatives show us how to really get that incremental change when there is a one party system. Ready to take notes!
They will destroy her, she’s worse than Bernie because she’s not in her 80s, so they will sabotage her in every way possible. It’s almost as if their entire scam depends on it keeping people like her out of office. They will at least be sure to keep her out of any leadership role.
I’d love to be wrong, as an Independent I will vote for her over any other person serving in office now. At least she’s held an actual job.
The Democratic party is a private institution and won’t be swayed by anything as silly as votes.
It isn’t because she isn’t in her 80s, it’s because she poses the mildest possible threat to entrenched ruling class interests who own and control the entire media landscape, from CBS to CNN to Twitter to TikTok.
The wealthy ruling class would rather move towards fascism than socialism because fascism benefits the ruling class and socialism is a step towards dismantling the ruling class.
I am so tired of elections being between corporations and oligarchs. Its not better just because it has a PR campaign behind it for a board rather than an individual who is wealthy. It only ever works for the wealthy.
Let’s just hope the primaries are definitively clear…
Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive
What are they talking about
They’re drinking the kool aid.
Harris lost because she never should have been nominated. Before she was nominated she was polling at 2% among Democrats. Nobody wanted her. And her campaign offered zero new ideas or new energy or new solutions, basically promising to be Biden 2.0 (just without the trust carried over from Obama’s presidency). Obviously that didn’t work, and (just like Hillary), ‘I’m not Trump’ wasn’t enough to get her elected.
Her being progressive had NOTHING to do with it.
There’s also the unfortunate consideration that she’s a woman. A black woman. That’s like playing on hardcore+ permadeath mode when it comes to elections…
I wish it wasn’t that way but it’s the reality in the US if you want a meaningful shot of winning… There is an unfortunate amount of voters who just won’t vote for a woman or a POC…
Edit: it seems I triggered a lot of people intent on shooting the messenger. I should make it clear I don’t believe this myself, but it seems a lot of people are unused to seeing opposing views on this backed by sources.
Speaking of which, after reading some sources, it sounds like education is a pretty strong counter to these biases, although it needs to start a long time before an election. You don’t do 4 years of education in the 8 months leading up to the presidential election… It needs to start now.
i reject this stance. the same thing is said about a black president. and women make up 50 % of the vote base.
especially since this is a talking point of operatives who seek a gender based wedge.
and also moot when there were a lot of issues whith both women candidates who were the democrats primary candidates in the last few presidential elections. these issues supersede all other reasons. the internal reports point to the backing of a genocide and aligning with establishment democrats, the ultra wealthy, and her “tough on crime” stance that is by design targeting minorities.
AND AND she lost by a narrow margin, male nominees have lost by FAR MORE then she did
do not accept such arguments
Yeah rejecting it doesn’t make it false… Just because 50% of the voting base are women doesn’t mean they’re feminists. There’s a lot of internalized misogyny.
Obama was a bridge too far for a ton of American voters and he was only a well educated light skinned black man… He still ticked all the other boxes for an American president. A female president is beyond the pale for a lot of Americans.
The Democrats are welcome to deny reality, ignore candidate popularity during primaries, kill all other candidate potential, and then lose the presidency again and act confused about why that happened… I guess the big thing they have going for them is trump isn’t allowed to run a 3rd time so the trump cult candidate will be a weaker option compared to trump himself.
what makes it false is the idea that she lost because she was a woman.
the numbers do not agree
it is a sexist point because it pushes the thought that democrats can not run female candidates if they want to win.
this is provably false, even considering misogyny. and like i said, is sourced from political operatives looking for a wedge. misogyny is just not that influential.
Harris was polling to win the election, up until the listed slights against the progressive base.
you can see that even within the democratic party a push to reaffirm conservative power by reassigning failures of the party on such things like inclusiveness, sexism, racism, ect. they attempted to hide the result of their internal investigation that counters their talking points.
it is also a thought terminating accusation with no one to blame and fights against progression in this regard. and should be shouted down when ever and where ever it crops up.
I don’t believe this either. Her polling was dead wrong up until the last minute, same with trump but the warning signs were there early. I don’t think it was reflecting reality so it’s a bad measuring stick for the situation. Also, don’t shoot the messenger here I’m not supporting this but it’s an important aspect of why she lost even if you disagree with me…
Edit: I’m going to copy one of my other comments with sources below to support my argument, and why this should be brought up and identified.
Here’s an article on what I’m talking about
When voters are presented with evidence showing that women political candidates garner just as much support as men in U.S. general elections, voters’ intentions to support women presidential candidates increased by about 3 percentage points, the researchers’ data showed
If they aren’t shown and it’s normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it’s a headwind…
There’s also the belief I’m talking about where people say a woman can’t win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)
There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.
There’s also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.
We theorize that one driving force is a paradox among Democratic primary voters: namely, that Black women are seen both as more liberal and less electable. Using two different survey experiments, we show that, while most Democratic primary candidates benefit from perceptions of being more liberal, this cannot be said for Black women due to beliefs that they are less likely to win in the general election.
These issues need to be:
A) recognized as real.
B) dealt with through education and normalization.
Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it…
Sexists love to say it is everyone else’s reasoning for the way they speak.
You are currently the one telling people that their gender or skin color stops them from doing what they want. You are being part of what crushes them.
I’m not saying I like it or want it to be that way. There are a lot of people who prefer to ostrich about the problem than deal with it. Would me having said nothing or deleting my comments be better? Would me doing or saying nothing about the problem help to solve it?
No but bringing that up distracts voters from the real, bigger and more legitimate issues. In 2028 a progressive black woman, or any other woman of color could win if they atleast act like they have good policy and optics like Obama. I firmly believe it and it wouldn’t be that close. Compare that to someone like Newsom, who leftists don’t even like, who we will probably get.
They are a big issue. It’s one of the biggest influences on a political campaign for president by a black woman candidate. I’m going to copy paste from my other comment below
Here’s an article on what I’m talking about
When voters are presented with evidence showing that women political candidates garner just as much support as men in U.S. general elections, voters’ intentions to support women presidential candidates increased by about 3 percentage points, the researchers’ data showed
If they aren’t shown and it’s normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it’s a headwind…
There’s also the belief I’m talking about where people say a woman can’t win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)
There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.
There’s also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.
We theorize that one driving force is a paradox among Democratic primary voters: namely, that Black women are seen both as more liberal and less electable. Using two different survey experiments, we show that, while most Democratic primary candidates benefit from perceptions of being more liberal, this cannot be said for Black women due to beliefs that they are less likely to win in the general election.
These issues need to be:
A) recognized as real.
B) dealt with through education and normalization.
Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it…
Edit: grammar
… our research finds that voters also withhold support for women candidates because they perceive practical barriers to women successfully attaining political leadership positions. We find that providing Democratic primary voters with evidence that women earn as much electoral support as men in US general elections increased intentions to vote for women candidates
This is supporting what others are saying, that this is a perceived weakness on women. The article you linked provides evidence that women DO earn electoral support, the sentiment that you’re sharing here is that this is just a big NO for women, when it’s proving the opposite, as the other person said you’re removing all the nuance and specifics of the links you’re sharing
Not saying you like killing people while shooting then in the head doesnt make them any less dead or you any less guilty. It is just an easy excuse for you to continue your actions without dealing with your own morals.
You want to act like you think critically? Do it. Right now you are adding to the message that people will read and hear that says they are less than and you will claim its repeating it for no ones benefit but the truth as if the truth agrees with you.
You want to deal with the problem, work on dealing with it, instead of bowing down and getting out of the way of it.
Here’s an article on what I’m talking about
When voters are presented with evidence showing that women political candidates garner just as much support as men in U.S. general elections, voters’ intentions to support women presidential candidates increased by about 3 percentage points, the researchers’ data showed
If they aren’t shown and it’s normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it’s a headwind…
There’s also the belief I’m talking about where people say a woman can’t win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)
There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.
There’s also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.
We theorize that one driving force is a paradox among Democratic primary voters: namely, that Black women are seen both as more liberal and less electable. Using two different survey experiments, we show that, while most Democratic primary candidates benefit from perceptions of being more liberal, this cannot be said for Black women due to beliefs that they are less likely to win in the general election.
These issues need to be:
A) recognized as real.
B) dealt with through education and normalization.
Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it…
And trump was shown as losing every election in the polls.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Studies about about how people think other people will feel from 500 people on Amazon’s slave labor website falls distinctly in the third category.
Humans are silly apes looking for purpose and answers and we get what we put out. And for some reason when women run they seem to win at the same rate as men. Almost like it can’t be simplified to math about racial disparity.
Next you can pull out some calipers and talk about how head size correlates to evolution and superiority, but you are only doing it cause someone else offered to separate them out for you. Nah, I’m done hearing you excuse away your original line of “well shes a black woman so its basically impossible for her to win”
It sticks out like a sore thumb. Define “many”
Does that mean “my editor and his owner?”
It’s the same "many many very important people " that trump throws in to his word salads to give the impression of authority
It is BS. She lost because she is dumb politically. Obama won because people viewed him as a progressive.
American people outside of very specific online bubbles aren’t, on average, moral or smart people. The amount of “Well, I hate Trump and I voted Biden, but I wouldn’t vote for a radical socialist communist who is, you know and you know” that I’ve heard both from inside the US and, which is very surprising, outside of the US, is both deeply concerning, and made me lose all the hope in the north American continent.
Voting patterns repeatedly show that those people are more prevalent and/or active than normal humans.She grew a Cheney off her elbow.
Skimmed other replies… What I didn’t see…
This quote is actually TRUE. What it doesn’t capture is that it was an intentional smear campaign. People on the left knew she was a center-right Democrat in a similar vein to Biden. But on the right, no matter who runs on the left, they will ALWAYS paint the Dem opponent as too progressive, and people on the right believe it.
That’s the point… Rather than cowing to that pressure and running people less and less progressive, run an ACTUAL progressive.
Maybe this is a weird semantic difference.
If she lost more people by being hawkish and right leaning than she lost by being too liberal with social policies that nominally leaned left then that means she was too far right as that lost her more votes than her left leaning policies.
well, the winner was a far right wing pedo fascist, felon, sex offender, pretend christian , so in order to win, you have to be closer to that.
She needed to grab 'em by the dick, shoot someone in times square, and go bankrupt a dozen times after leaking a video of her having sex with a 15yr old and she’d be a winner for sure. These are the core values many 10s of millions of American voters support after all.
No, he just obviously hates current america as much as the average american does now. They just can’t place it with “why” with also their patriotism and he gives easy people to blame and radical change to look forward to.
Its not complicated. People need feel seen and to hope. Even if it s a bastardized version he still gives it to them.
oh that? those are just lies. :)
It was mostly sourced from her 2020 campaign that were fodder for commercials. Then there were stuff like her going off on Tulsi Gabbard about not being a democratic party team player that made her look too centrist and establishment for people further left. Another common fodder for commercials are stuff like how the democratic party only cares about black guys with stuff like that 10 point plan for black men becoming wealthy. That stuff would be open to everyone because it’s just marketing really, but the lack of marketing to non-black people is fodder for marketing the democratic party as not caring for any other minority group along with white people. I don’t remember that commercial people hated that was shaming men to vote Harris in some way. That was good fodder for conservatives to paint the democratic party as anti-men
deleted by creator
I’d laugh so hard if the backlash against trump was an AOC presidency!
And I would NEVER let any maga family live it down. Everytime would be like that Asian surgeon from Scrubs.
I should watch Scrubs again
New season either just came out or is about to.
AOC President with Bernie as Senate Majority Leader.
Well, there is a thing called counterculture. One generation didn’t like the prevailing culture they grew up in, and so they go against it and set new values. This then leads to the following generation disliking that new culture and go against it.
Rinse and repeat.
Counterculture requires the existence of a monoculture.
Since the 2000s, there’s ONLY split cultures that all consider themselves countercultures. Hell, Republicans think they’re rebelling against the elites and deep state.
Pendulum effect
LoL, pendulum? What is the clock laying on its side or something?
Simpsons predicted it.
As you know, we’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump
I would start spending money in the US again
We generally need like 50 more AOC’s please.
AOCs as far as the eye can see!
A chicken in every pot, and a AOC in every political seat!
And free ponies for all!
50 more locked in votes to prevent strikes? I get that she is better then the dinosaurs, but have higher standards people!
Ok. Propose your alternative.
Butch Ware
Yeah he’s running for CA Governor but idgaf I’ll vote him for president
With a name like that I don’t care what his politics are, he’s my guy.
His politics are cool too
and he raps and could bench press Gavin Newsom
I don’t trust any politician or political party, but I’ve briefly met him in person and he seems like a kind and genuine guy
Don’t forget voting to arm the genocidal occupation of Palestine and constantly reaffirming its “right to defend itself”
imagine a world where she’s the least progressive politician. That world includes her, and I’m cool with that
Democrats are starting their primary already? Must want to try and get people to vote in the midterms.
No, it clearly states in the article that this data was from a poll conducted by AtlasIntel, a Brazilian marketing company. They also point out that not a single other poll has gotten these results. This post is very misleading. But people see a headline they like, and they upvote/comment without bothering to read the articles.
If you wanted people to read the article, why didnt you post it in the comments?
The link to the article is literally at the top of the page you posted this comment on. Just scroll up. Why do I need to post something that OP already posted?
How odd…a candidate that seems to give a shit about us is leading.
Don’t worry, some dirt will be invented, and unfounded rumours will be spread, well in time for her to lose.
Mamdani proved that harsh and cunning compaign against someone can help
She goes independent, splits the vote, President Donald Tr*mp Junior.
That’s assuming we’re not under martial law.
I have zero hope she’ll win the primary, but I’d bet money she’d win the general if she got to it. The next problem after that though is if she ends up being president in 2028, she’ll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.
We’d see her win and the american left would get the largest blackpill ever as she gets fucked over and gets barely anything done, is blamed, and then we get Cyber-Trump in 2032.
she’ll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.
Using the Trump precedence, she can ignore Congress and SCOTUS.
Shes going to need to get really creative for that to work. Trump manages to do shit without congress because of corruption, corporate backing, and being nihilistic, impulsive, and being surrounded by yes men.
AOC would be entering a hostile environment and likely wouldn’t be able to tame it, would try to be careful not to do more harm than good, and would be surrounded by well meaning but likely stifling voices of bureaucrats/proceduralists, scientists, and dissenting activists, etc. And she would try to actually listen to all of them, slowing her down and making her easy to undercut by snakes.
And she can start by having Thomas indicted for his obvious & open corruption.
but I’d bet money she’d win the general
What in the last 10, if not more, years of American history makes you think she’d win the general?
Most democratic voters who always vote blue don’t care whether they’re a moderate or leftwing. The ones that are more likely to refuse to vote are the lefties, and while there are some lefties who dislike AOC, most of them would be willing to vote for her and might even be excited to.
Centrists, apolitical, indie voters are all dumb as rocks and don’t pay enough attention and generally just vote on gut feeling. Thus the anti-incumbancy bias will favor any democratic candidate the shove out in 2028.
Make no mistake, the Democrats can still lose, because they’re Democrats. Its just 2028 specifically favors them enough and AOC would move them to be even more favorable, thus worth betting on.
Centrists, apolitical, indie voters are all dumb as rocks and don’t pay enough attention and generally just vote on gut feeling.
You require their votes to win any election. Your party is at 30%, just like Republicans; Independents are now 40%.
Why some Democrats think insulting the majority of the electorate will do them any favors is beyond me… where I’m from, that’s the exact opposite of smart. But I’m sure you’ll figure it all out, professor.
Why some Democrats think insulting the majority of the electorate will do them any favors is beyond me…
Because that’s what they’ve done to us for decades. It’s only wrong and stupid when we do it?
You require their votes to win any election. Your party is at 30%, just like Republicans; Independents are now 40%.
I don’t require anything. I’m not democratic leadership or a politician, I’m just providing an honest analysis.
If independents and the like are going to change their vote because someone said mean words they simply are petulantly fucking stupid and deserve whatever grifter rightwing politician they get. Like Trump for instance.
Why some Democrats think insulting the majority of the electorate will do them any favors is beyond me… where I’m from, that’s the exact opposite of smart. But I’m sure you’ll figure it all out, professor.
I’m not seeking favors. I don’t give a fuck if democrats win anymore outside maybe some minor material benefit to general well being as a citizen of a country full of morons. Eventually blue states will end up having all the economic leverage anyway, so I’m moving to one as soon as I can (or maybe even eventually out of this shithole country entirely if I can afford to)
You deserve Trump. You deserve all the bullshit he has brought. Go ahead and vote Republican, I do not give a fuck lol. Let the federal government collapse so the blue state economic powerhouses can balkanize and take the proper reigns of government away from fuckwits and fascists.
deleted by creator
I love her but I would rather to have her remain in legislative branch. She does amazing works in committees and more. She can do more for goods in legislative branch (years) than she would in executive 4-8 years plus being resisted by propaganda).
The cynicism is strong with this one…
Indeed. See the literal first word of my profile’s description.
AOC vs Rubio, you’re getting someone of Hispanic heritage whether you like it or not!
lol … what is this comment?
AOC hasn’t even said what role she’ll be putting her name in for in 2028 yet, has she?
No one on the list has.
genuinely she’s the only worthwhile candidate I can imagine. I really hope she does it.
Well her or Bernie. But… you know, age and all.
Yeah no one would vote for an old guy
He was pushing it the last time he ran
I agree but I heard him in a recent interview and man is it wild how much sharper he is than Biden and Trump
Hey, I’d still vote for him… he’s proof that it isn’t an age problem when it comes to understanding today’s needs.
He is way smarter than Trump (low bar) and has much better instincts than Biden (low bar), but time is a bitch. The presidency is a 4 year assignment and the next term starts in 2.5 years.
Trying not to idolize any politicians but I think he’s too good a person to run at his age. I’d be surprised if he did it. Look what Ruth Ginsberg did.
I’m consistently surprised at how differently people can behave at their ages. We sometimes have someone come in and look like they’re struggling to think and function and they’ll be 50, and then someone else comes in looking dapper and fit and even attractive and they’ll be like 85.
I’d still vote for Bernie, but I don’t think he wants to run again. I’d also vote for Sen. Warren.
I generally don’t (think I) vote based on demographics. I am more interested in platform (primarily) and past performance (secondarily).
The polls are all over the place, but this one seems more believable than anything with Harris leading. AOC-Buttigieg-Newsom as front runners at least seems like the opinions of real people actually thinking about the next primary. Harris leading just screams people who don’t recognize any other names. You just don’t come back from a failure that catastrophic.
You just don’t come back from a failure that catastrophic.
Harris did terribly in the previous primary.
She is in the “other candidates” section below the “major candidates” section.
Harris losing in 2020 wasn’t a catastrophic loss. She just quietly slid into irrelevance and a different Democrat won both contests. None of her supporters suffered for her loss. Nearly every Democrat has suffered for her failure in 2024.
Part of me hates to see her try. As long as she is straddling the line between serious presidential candidate and popular US House member my head cannon reasons there is still some sanity in some small part of our political institutions.
Watching her actually seriously try to get the top job and watching the DNC ruin her for it would be so depressing.
