Progressive Politics

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 13 points 5 months ago (12 children)

The two women who made credible attempts at becoming president also happened to be utterly terrible politicians, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with the outcome.

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 11 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Because a non-terrible candidate would do popular things they don't want to do? What even is this question?

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I mean it's fucking obviously the latter? What's even your point here?

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 5 months ago*

There is such a thing as forcing elites to make concessions. Not that I think Americans can or will do it, but it's a thing.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

The DNC likely won't push her, they'll push Newsom or Harris (she's already mentioned she's thinking about running again)

parent

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

And they'll say AOC shouldn't run because a woman can't win up until the very second Harris announces.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] PoopingCough@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Because if they can't win with their corpo zombie zionist center-right candidate, they'd rather lose and play feckless controlled "opposition" than do anything to jeopardize their gravy train with a progressive.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago

List the people who voted for Kamala in the 2024 primary.

parent

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Granted, not many have made it to the general election as the candidate of a party with a chance.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] sudo@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago

Maybe they could make a system where people can vote for who they think would be a good candidate for the party, and then the party members can agree to vote for that candidate

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

If we get another centrist dem, yeah.

parent

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Nah, if Donnie gets to run for a third term, so does Barrack.

parent

[–] chortle_tortle@mander.xyz 3 points 5 months ago

We know that rules only exist for democrats, and that even if they choose to "go low". I wouldn't hold my breath.

parent

[–] LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 months ago (54 children)

Most of our fellow Americans are massively misogynistic and its been highlighted twice in the last 10 years by the fact that Trump won the presidential election against women. I'm saying this as a massive fan of AOC. I identify pretty strongly with her open aggression towards backwards thinking.

hideshow 54 child comments

parent

[–] possumparty@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

Hilary and Kamala were dogshit candidates.

parent

[–] LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 months ago

Hard agree.

parent

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 35 points 5 months ago (11 children)

I disagree, I think Hillary and Kamala were bad candidates and covering it up with blaming it on misogyny is actively harmful.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Hillary and Kamala were bad candidates. I didn't cover that up because I agree. They were the equivalent of a hangover fart in a sauna far as presidential nominations go, but I disagree that their loss wasn't spurred at least partially by a growing amount of misogyny in society.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

"Growing amount of misogyny" compared to what time exactly?

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Compared to when a centrist woman was running. Americans are only conveniently bigots against whichever progressive is running at the time. Sanders in 2016? "75 is too old! No one will vote for him!" Biden in 2020? "How DARE you say that 78 is too old!"

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Ah yes and those teenagers vote in elections right? It's not the boomers who mainly vote?

parent

[–] LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

There's also a not insignificant amount of millennials that are becoming more misogynistic and pessimistic due to the loneliness epidemic coupled with popularized misogyny on social media. Look, if you want to totally ignore the ground swell of underlying issues that got us to where we are, you're more than welcome to. It worked so well when we ignored former Confederate supporters and open racists for a hundred years.

parent

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

I'm not the one ignoring the reality of the situation, blaming voters for not electing bad candidates and blaming it on misogyny is idiotic and unhelpful.

The reality is the majority of the US has always been misogynistic and those are actively being stoked and amplified by a confluence of factors mostly down to the fact that peoples lives are getting worse /harder and being told x/y is the problem when the true problem is capitalism and its effects/capture of our government.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago

Blue Maga always says that and yet they never put forward better candidates to solve the unelectability issue.

parent

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 months ago (5 children)

This is such a bad, and bullshit, take. Half of male candidates lose too. The odds of 2/2 female candidates losing is pretty damn high, and one of those candidates didn't even have 99% of the campaign, and she still wasn't that far off.

Those two candidates were just shit candidates. They were even more shit than the average Democrat candidate. They didn't lose because they were women. They lost because they campaigned on status-quo, neoliberalism, pro-corporate ideas that inspired no one. AOC isn't that. The only thing they have in common is being women, and it's a complete fabrication to say there's any solid evidence those other candidates lost because they're women.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Biden actively pilfered Bernie's platform after winning the primary, so he was a forward thinking progressive compared to Harris and Hillary. Harris in particular explicitly ran to the right of Biden; she wasn't exactly subtle about this. Perhaps more importantly, however, he had COVID on his side. Plenty of voters (33% of all voters and 57% of Biden voters) considered competent handling of COVID one of their two most important issues when voting; if COVID hadn't happened or had happened under Biden's watch Trump would've wiped the floor with him.

parent

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Ah, yes, because Biden had such radical forward thinking progressive views.

Biden ran on a lot of progressive policy. Childcare, revisiting the public option, family leave, rescheduling cannabis. They were all lies that killed the party's credibility and made the 2024 bid a hard sell even before the genocide, regardless of which democrat was the candidate.

parent

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Biden was able to run on a "lesser evil" platform. He won because he wasn't Trump. Hillary or Harris could have won in 2020.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago* (26 children)

Factually incorrect, as evidenced by the fact that Hillary won the popular vote.

The problem isn't running women. It's running women who are unscrupulous and/or shitty at politics. Harris couldn't even make it out of Iowa in 2016, so it was evidently a stupid call to let our brain-damaged former president anoint her as a successor without a primary.

hideshow 26 child comments

parent

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 24 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Beware of ANYONE going around spouting the “we can’t run AOC because WOMEN ALWAYS LOSE! Just look at the LAST TWO TIMES!” bullshit

As if Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were perfect candidates offering anything more than “imagine how bad Trump would be!”

“The Most Lethal Millitary”

“Nothing will fundamentally change”

“Pokemon Go!-to-the-polls”

I mean come the fuck on.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago (4 children)

"Pokemon Go to the polls" was just a silly meme. I think voters wanted somebody to the left of Obama, and Hillary felt like a big step back to the '90s.

Dissing Bernie's platform didn't help. One key moment I remember was her saying that Medicare For All was something that would "never, ever happen". Instead of adapting her platform to win over Bernie's voters, she just dismissed it completely as foolish pipe dreams. Just really tone deaf and smug about it.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

One key moment I remember was her saying that Medicare For All was something that would “never, ever happen”.

I honestly hope it happens in my lifetime. Just for the sheer delight of gloating at centrists that the default is no longer "siphon your paltry amassed wealth to billionaires and then die."

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Freeposity@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago

Secretary of State is a position where you are supposed to represent the agenda of the president. Knowing former secretaries of state and being able to get information from them is an important part of having that job... if you're a serious person, it is a serious fucking job.

It's so bizarre to me that people don't realize what it means to work in these cabinet positions. Or at least what it used to mean. This cabinet is not focused on competence at all, but rather on social media, self aggrandizement and gossiping about and undercutting each other.

parent

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Agreed. It's like people think these candidates were above reproach despite the very obvious flaws.

parent

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Centrists are happy to hold back all women in order to stop one woman.

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Popular vote doesn’t win elections and red state men don’t vote for women.

Red state men don't vote for democrats either. Maybe you should try to win gettable votes instead of making excuses for shutting out candidates you don't want.

I say this as a huge fan of AOC

Anyone else not buying this?

parent

[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

George W Bush once said that if the popular vote mattered he'd campaign in Texas.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No shit it doesn't matter, but it does demonstrate a flaw in LDF's point.

parent

[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

Not really. That's kind of the point of the quote. If the popular vote actually counted it would radically change the way elections are run and campaigned in. There's no telling how that election would change if the popular vote mattered.

That election is pretty interesting for instance because Hillary made massive mistakes in not campaigning in certain swing States. Or at least campaigning enough. Michigan being the main one. Now maybe that means in a universe in which popular votes mattered she would win. Or maybe it means in a universe where popular votes matter, Trump would campaign in places that he didn't before and get a lot more votes. The entire concept is altered dramatically by that key fact.

Either way the point is you can't just assume it would be the same because clearly it would not.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

Always with the platitudes.

You were fine with democracy being flushed down a toilet when Hillary was rigging primaries against Bernie or when Dems sue Greens off the ballot at the state level.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 10 points 5 months ago (1 child)

I mean you also see conservatives vote for people like Boebert and MTG. Misogynists, surprisingly, will reliably prioritize their other ideals over whether to put a woman in power.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

If we for some reason need to run against Trump again in 2028 do you feel confident beyond doubt that swing state voters are going to support AOC or any other female candidate?

Women won senate races in three of the swing states Kamala lost, so clearly gender wasn't the problem.

I am confident beyond a reasonable doubt that AOC would beat Trump, if only because Trump would be an incredibly weak candidate. I'd love for him to try.

I'm also confident that the Democrats are at risk of losing an entire generation (both in the short and long terms) the longer they keep offering uninspiring candidates and refusing to give any policy concessions to the left, especially those popular with young voters.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Sure, and that's valid, I'm just not sure who that white male version of AOC would actually be.

I think people put to much weight on two data points. Relevant XKCD.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

The way I see it, there's an ever-widening gap between what is considered permissible or possible within the existing system, and what actually needs to happen to avert collapse. How much the DNC is willing to allow and what messaging a candidate goes with may matter just as much as who the candidate is.

Note that as a commie I expect most politicians to be self-serving opportunists and I'm skeptical that it's at all possible to bridge the gap between what's possible in the system and what needs to happen. But tactically speaking, they need to find someone who will at least promise to try to do good things rather than just maintaining the status quo.

And if Trump gets the outrageous military budget he wants, I'm not sure I'm going to envy whoever inherits the debt crisis. They need to call out military spending as the source of the problem and strongly condemn the Iran War. What we absolutely don't need is someone doing austerity policies and trying to balance the budget by cutting social spending even further, which I expect to be the DNC's agenda, and it'd be the fastest way to lose what should be a layup.

parent

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Progressive candidate? Excuse.

Repeat.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

I think it's more along the lines of Hillary and Kamala were just too meh of a candidate to actually get people out to vote. I think AOC even though generally not as big tent as the previous two will still perform really well because of the amount of billing willing to go out and vote for her.

parent

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Now that people are talking about a progressive woman running, women can't win. Until such time as Harris announces her candidacy for 2028, then we all must get in line to vote for genocide again.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And she's not running now so I'll appreciate it if you don't try to pre-emptively lecture me about how I need to vote for genocide again.

parent