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.

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.

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.

Walz/Cortez 2028 take my vote all day long.

You could say also they’d rather select that than a qualified “person”. Should no opposition ever run again? Or is it clear that she was not chosen because of her gender? Maybe so, but that feels to me like it completely overlooks that there could be anything about her personality or positions responsible.

I’m not comfortable saying AOC or any other woman is a non-starter because other women have failed. A lot of people have failed before and at some point perhaps one will be selected. I think she would be a good choice, and more appealing to many than Kamala, I suspect.

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.

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.

They've shown they don't want to vote for hope-extinguishing establishment dweebs.

A woman candidate who's actually good would do great.

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.

If you see bigotry but refuse to fight against it, you a coward and no different than the bigots.

Maybe people didn't vote for Clinton and Harris because both are complicit in war crimes?

You are correct.

Anyone downvoting you is just ignoring reality.

There's a reason Trump has run 3 times and only lost once and it was to a man. A significant portion of this country in the right geographical areas will never vote for a woman to be president. And that includes a ton of women. And half of the country wants to burn AOC at the stake for being too liberal.

She can't win the Electoral College.

You want to get Bernied again? Vote for AOC.

In our cast system she is way low in the hierarchy. Not even Hispanics would vote in the majority for her.