Independent Senator Bernie Sanders floated Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a potential presidential candidate in the 2028 elections, saying that even though it's "her decision to make," she is a "very, very good politician."

Speaking to Axios, Sanders said that he has been "out on the streets with her" and noticed how she responds when people come up to her. "It's so incredibly genuine and open."

Ocasio-Cortez is seemingly positioning herself to run for higher office, whether it is challenging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for his seat or to make a run for president.

top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 37 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I appreciate Bernie for being an adult and helping to boost up the people that will be here after him.

Most every other politician, when they aren't cramming their unqualified, entitled broodspawn where they don't belong, is gnawing off limbs trying to make sure they're entombed with their positions like the pharaohs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    It really is something that a black man elected as POTUS managed to get somewhat decent affordable healthcare for all. Really goes to show a lot of politicians, regardless of beliefs, are only serving their own interests and of their donors.

    The American people are just a byproduct. When will the masses learn we are engaged in a 2 front war: Republicans that became Nazi's over a dpan of a few decades and the Ownership class making regular citizens fight amongst themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 219 points 1 year ago (46 children)
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    I don’t think it’s a matter of her being ready, I think it’s that she has a real chance of beating schumer, whereas with the presidency, I’m not even sure she could even manage to win the primary. If an old white dude like Bernie couldn’t beat Hilary and Biden, what chance does a Latina woman in her 30s have?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If an old white dude like Bernie couldn’t beat Hilary and Biden, what chance does a Latina woman in her 30s have?

    I mean, if you completely ignore the DNC doing everything legally in their power to get in the way of Bernie and force feed Hilary in the first place... because they can't allow anyone vocal about actual progressive ideas in a position of party power... yeah that's what it looks like. But that's a pretty big thing to just ignore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Honestly, I think she has a great chance. People didn't not vote for Hillary because she was a woman. It's because she represented the establishment and inspired nobody. People didn't not vote for Harris because she was a woman. It's because she represented the establishment and inspired nobody.

    AOC is a candidate who seems to actually represent change. She seems to listen to the desires of the people and follow that. She doesn't just do what the donors demand. She has a chance because she does inspire people to see what could be, not just to repeat what is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So then why did anyone vote for Biden, who represented the establishment and inspired nobody?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Because it was 2020 during the height of a botched Covid response and a few months after George Floyd. And Biden barely won. If you do the math, it was about 21,500 people across three states that determined the outcome, where them voting for Trump instead of Biden would have been an electoral tie that would have been decided by Pence. That's a technical margin of 0.012% that Trump electorally lost by.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I'm not a political analyst, but my guess would be hope that he would be better. He proved that he wasn't, which allowed Trump to come back because, despite everything, Trump did make promises to change things for regular people. Yes, they were lies, fear mongering, and about attacking a made up enemy, but he at least said something to make people think he would help them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Because Biden was representing the establishment when they weren't in power and the Republicans were actively blowing it. And he did a lot worse than he should have. That shouldn't have been a squeaker election.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If Mamdani is an indication of anything, people will vote for leftist economic populism despite there being racial divides.

    In the past few weeks and months, we saw in New York City that the majority of Jewish people still support Israel over Palestine. Yet, Mamdani has consistently pulled a plurality of Jewish support with double digit leads over the other candidates.

    What this means is that Jewish people are just like any other American, and they are feeling the effects of this shit economy caused by Trump. Mamdani represents a bandaid to that more than the other candidates, so they're going with that and ignoring Mamdani's anti-Zionist and anti-Israel policy.

    I don't think it matters what candidate you push a campaign for if they run on Left populism. As we've seen with Platner in Maine, though, being a white male veteran doesn't hurt either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Mamdani is running for mayor of NYC.

    NYC has had a majority (not a plurality) of votes go to Democrats in the presidential election back to 1952 and the last time republicans had a plurality was 1924. NYC is, sadly, not representative of the US as a whole. Also, he was going up against a man who may have surpassed ted cruz in terms of "unlikeable mother fucker"-ness

    As we’ve seen with Platner in Maine, though, being a white male veteran doesn’t hurt either.

    Platner is... a giant fucking mess. He has more red flags than fucking fetterman did (fun fact: He was batshit insane as far back as when he met Anthony Bourdain...), one of which being the nazi skull tattoo he had on his chest for 20 years and only removed once he was forced to during his, what, 3 months of a political career? Not to mention him having willingly joined Blackwater and his VERY questionable statements on sexual assault and his use of homophobic slurs as recently as 2020.

    But, he kissed Sanders's ring so he has the "socialist" vote and establishment Democrats support him for whatever reason (which should raise a LOT more red flags but...). And while I am not invested enough to personally verify, a few colleagues I have out in Maine insist that Smith-Rodriguez was basically the same platform but with actual details and action plans but eventually pulled out to support the mayor (?) on the grounds of platner's horrific stances on sexual assualt and her being a victim of assault in the military.

    I don’t think it matters what candidate you push a campaign for if they run on Left populism

    Editorialized that a bit but... I think that is the real key. The vast majority of people don't actually care about policy or even basic human rights. They just want populist candidates. And that is not just limited to the US.

    Which REALLY fucking sucks because... I've been incredibly critical of AOC's career and I think she was THIS close to wearing clown shoes with the rest of The Squad. But she has demonstrated that she has strong political acumen. And when she does do shitty stuff, she actually owns up to it on social media/direct to constituents videos.There is always the need for MASSIVE grains of salt with any politician but... AOC seems to kind of be exactly what we should want out of a democracy. Someone who cares and has grand ambitions but also understands they are a servant of the people and speaks to The People.

    She just was born too late considering both sides are very much at "I can excuse being a Nazi but I draw the line at... I'll get back to you on that"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're right about NYC. But wins add momentum, which builds and proves the DNC wrong.

    The more and more I hear about Platner, the less I'm willing to defend him. He'll capture liberals, sure, and I prefer to have grace for people if they've shown that they can fix their shit and atone for what they've done in their lives, but he sure ain't the perfect candidate. You're right that we don't want Fetterman again, which is why we need to be critical of Platner here and now and not Vote "Who" No Matter Who like many liberals are doing now. If he keeps making bad decisions, like Kamala did as soon as her 2024 GE campaign made it to the DNConvention, then it'll suck. Janet Mills is an option, but she's not perfect either.

    If Platner can have good messaging discipline, keep his campaign to Leftist economic popularism, come out with policies that support that agenda that he'd like to see implemented in Congress, and stay woke, I think I might throw him more support. But these things build. Trust needs to be built. And we all know that trust can be destroyed faster than it can be built.

    Americans want populist candidates, and Leftist economics are popular.

    AOC has a good track record. I want to see her because the leader of the party. I think the establishment Dems and DNC ignore the reality in front of them that their underlying base is changing views (against neoliberalism), and AOC should lead that fight. I think she'd be better for SML instead of President tho. Because of what we said about NYC and NYS, because of how it votes differently from the rest of the country, I think she has a safer bet to oust Schumer and gain even more national notoriety as a SML. She'll be setting the stage for the Dems, and hell, has more of a backbone than Jeffries ever will.

    Lots to be excited for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Yeah... I am pretty sure "willingly joined Blackwater" and "had a nazi tattoo on his chest for 20 years" automatically kicks him off to "broke" with a shade of "holy fucking shit". And while I do think people can, and should. be allowed to change, all signs are he very much hasn't. Still using homophobic slurs as recently as 2020 and his defense of the nazi skull boils down to "I am a military historian AND terminally online but I have never seen an SS outfit or the Mitchell and Webb meme"

    At best he is a deeply stupid person who should not be allowed anywhere near office. More likely, he thinks voters are deeply stupid. Just a question of whether he is a fetterman/sinema in disguse.

    (Also apparently he says his stance on Israel and genocide is basically Kamala's? Which is even funnier that there aren't the "I refuse to vote for genocide, period" crowd out attacking him...).

    But, he is popular and that is all that matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    To be a latina woman in her 30s would be a definite pick for a presidency over a geriatric male (let's be honest, I like Bernie Sanders but he is very old).

    For such a job you'd want someone in their prime age with sharp attention span, with a forward-looking vision, not back. With multicultural experience to better communicate with the rest of the world.

    I'm not an American so I can't vote but I would definitely pick her out of those two.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Bernie’s problem was that he wasn’t a democrat. I voted for him but I know a lot of people, like my parents, who are center-left who simply refused to vote for somebody who didn’t caucus with democrats. These are the same people who are already looking at people like Newsom.

    Edit for clarification: I understand that the Bernie is considered to caucus with the democrats because he generally votes with them. However, those who used the term disparagingly as I referenced above don’t believe independents can caucus with any party and used that as an excuse to refer to him as a DINO and not caucusing or being required to caucus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That and honestly I do like governors as canidates as they have more direct experience running a government. In the last election I was excited waltz was the vp. Granted the presidency is more about who you select to run the agencies which is one of the many reasons trump sucks so bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I'm sure just one more centrist moderate trying to appeal to Republicans will definitely work this time...

    In all seriousness, we (as Americans & people world-wide) desperately need genuine Progressives like AOC & Bernie. They are the only ones that consistently hard work hard to advance big, bold action that would actually help improve working people's lives!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It makes me so mad because AOC is exactly the kind of candidate that Kamala tried to cosplay as for her campaign.

    It's so frustrating to see people drool over the fake as fuck version of AOC yet say AOC isn't presidential material.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Yeah, and it's been shown that establishment democrats don't really have the appeal they need to do so. No one gives a shit because they aren't representing their desires. They're representing, at best, status quo. If you haven't noticed that's not exactly popular at the moment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    that’s not exactly popular at the moment.

    That's exactly the question. I personally thought in 2024 that a paedophile, senile 80yo felon who already lost an election (even from the incumbent position) already wouldn't be exactly popular either, but here we are.

    US presidential elections are so unpredictable, because there's only two actual candidates in the race, since there's no run-off or anything like that. There's no real way to know what's exactly popular at the moment until it's too late.

    Did Harris lose because she's a black woman? Did she lose due to unpolar positions? Did she lose because of poor campaign management? Did she lose because russian bots helped Trump? Did she lose because people "had enough of woke"? Did she lose because people just love dementia?

    It's really hard to know, and likely its all of the above to certain degree.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Has it? Biden thoroughly beat Trump. The Kamala was thoroughly beaten.

    Biden is very much so establishment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Biden barely won. I don't know what alternate reality you're remembering, but that was a squeaker of an election hinging on a margin of less than 50k votes. GA, AZ, and WI were all won by less than 1%, and flipping them would be a loss.

    That was closer than Trump's win over Clinton.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes some swing states were close, that's basically every election.

    Now if you look at the numbers Biden had 306 electoral votes while Trump had 232. GA has 16 electoral votes, AZ has 11, and WI has 10. If Biden lost all 3 of those states and Trump won them instead it would have resulted in a 269 to 269 vote tie in the electoral college. Meaning a vote in the House of Representatives would decide the election. Which was majority Democrat, meaning a win for Biden. So even in a made up scenario Biden still wins.

    And we're not even talking about the difference in popular vote which was significant. Sure it doesn't always decide the election, but I believe it provides a good gauge on how the American people feel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    No, it really isn't. 50k votes between win an loss is the closest election in decades. Closer than when Trump beat Clinton, and way closer than Trump beating Harris. Not since Bush v. Gore has the margin been closer.

    The reason why a tie is a loss is that it's not a vote of the representatives as a whole, it's a vote of the states, as decided by the reps. Republicans had a majority of reps in 26 states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Fair enough on the contingent election. Something only possible if you change 3 whole state votes. Seems pretty unlikely to me.

    If we go down that train of thought the there's no reason the states that barely went Trump could then go the other way.

    Which is why the popular vote is the more important metric for determining how the American populace as a whole felt about the canidate. Especially considering that election had one of the largest voter turnouts in US history

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    We want this madness to end and to do that we need to appeal to the same sort of folks who buy Chevy Equinoxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fuck em and fuck that weak shit.

    The neoliberals fucked up and can get out of the way forever or we might as well ride this bitch of a species screaming into the abyss.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    At the end of the day, the POTUS is not just a party leader, it is a national (formerly world) leader. That involves being able to at least get SOMETHING out of the other side... unless you are just going to be a fascist dictator apparently.

    But you can be damned sure that the news media would immediately attack any Democrat who tried that and lead the lynch mob themselves. So we need someone who knows when to "reach across the aisle" and when to say "Fuck off" because they have enough votes.

    Traditionally? The Senate is a great place to learn how to do that. Because there are only 100 (actually 101) people and almost everyone is an established politician, you have to do a LOT more negotiation to get anyone to vote against party lines (usually by benefiting their constituents). Whereas the House is, historically, where randos show up and we are just lucky if they don't eat crayons on camera. So "protest votes"/"meme votes" are more common and they are a lot more likely to break party lines because they know they are going back home next year or trying to join a lobbyist firm.

    ANY Democrat would be better than the rapist in chief... maybe even fucking fetterman. But a stronger AOC can do a LOT more good down the line... if there is a down the line.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    You guys don't want change you want you return to the status quo.

    You have to win to change things bruh. If you can't focus on that even a little and focus only on what you want in a perfect world , then it doesn't matter you want because you'll never win.

    All else being equal a white man less than 65 who believe 95percent the same things as AOC will get at least 5 percent more votes just like that, which is the difference between winning and losing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Under the Constitution of the United States, a person must be aged 35 or over to serve as president. To be a senator, a person must be aged 30 or over. To be a Representative, a person must be aged 25 or older. This is specified in the U.S. Constitution.

    The US Constitution does not specify an age requirements for one to serve on the Supreme Court.

    There are no specified age requirements to serve in a presidential cabinet —Wikipedia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
    [–] 90 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Support for what ever she decides is next, although I feel like the senate would be a better step. However the democrats dont really have a face to back that isnt some centerist that thinks its ok to play with the bully after they have taken your lunch money or someone that is older than Wonder Bread (tm).

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Imagine if AOC remained SML as long as Moscow Mitch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I'm not sold on his face, but I do like the way Pritzker swings a bat. He's a bit centrist, but at least he's a fighter. His problem is he's a billionaire. But as a stop gap, I think he could work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    At this point, he is a billionaire by choice. He could donate to groups that work towards equitable living for the marginalized, but he doesn't. He only has a couple billion, but that's enough to make a very real impact for a lot of vulnerable people. This is very nearly the trolley problem. He can do nothing and let a lot of people die or he can intervene and save most but not all.

    As Rush said (the band, not Limbaugh lol), If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That is also the philisophical crux of The Witcher series (books and games, not the TV show now starring the least-hot hemsworth)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    The show was such a disappointment. There was solid source material to work off of, and they just shit all over it. They did Henry Cavill dirty, and dragged the witcher IP through the mud so much so it will probably never be put on screen again to present the actual story.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Id argue that he made a choice to use that as a cushion to allow him to devote himself to public service. I dont k ow if that is true, but my u derstanding is that he inherited this money. Doesnt mean he hs the same mindset of the person who accumulated it in the firstplace. Sins of the father and all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Agreed, but my point is that most of us don't get to just choose to be a billionaire. He does. Because he could choose to fund different things or donate to groups and he chooses not to. I'm not indicting him on exploiting people to amass that wealth, but he has chosen to keep billions of dollars for himself when he could be putting a lot of his money towards fighting the very things he says we need to fight.

    That doesn't necessarily make him a bad person; he just could be a whole hell of a lot better. I could donate more and don't because I'd like to one day maybe be able to work less than full time before I die. He could have decided to never work a day in his life and instead opted to work a public service job, so props to him for that, but there's still more I think he ought to be doing in these dire times.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    They are going to basically offer her Chuck's Senate seat, unopposed, as long as she doesn't go after the nomination that they have already awarded to Newsom. He's the Next One Up!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Nooooooo!

    He literally pushed to make being unhoused a crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Newsom is fine. The right smears him and California almost as much as they did HRC. Don't go along with their propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    Look at this point you could literally run George Washington himself as a Democrat and MAGA wouldn't vote for him.

    Also, compared to the current guy, a rancid portion of tuberculotic lung coughed up in a pool of fetid blood on the floor of some 18th century eastern European sanitarium is a "very good politician".

  • source
  • [–] 118 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    I would like to say: clinton didn't lose because she's a woman, she lost because she's a sleazeball. harris didn't lose because she's a woman, she lost because she was courting the right wing for some reason. AOC can win because she's not a sleazy right winging neolib. I'd vote for her for president.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Both Harris and Clinton position themselves as more of the status quo. Trump both time always positions himself as an outsider who taps into to racism and white rage. The only time you can win off a status quo type deal if the Dem admin was doing amazing during when they had power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yea, republicans piss on you and say it's that guy, Dems piss on you and say it's raining.

    Atleast piss in my mouth and we'll all be happy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What you said is true. But any woman, even a great one, is going to have a tougher time than a man would. Sexism is still a problem in this country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Sexism and racism. It's absolutely foolish for anyone to think that Americans won't abstain from voting, or worse vote against a woman or a non-white person. It's abysmal to think about, but it's true.

    If a woman or a non-white person runs, there will be a subset of the population who refuse to vote for them specifically because of their race or gender.

    It's why the republicans always run an old white male asshole, because no one refuses to vote for old white male assholes specifically out of principle, but a large amount of people (larger than you or I would likely think) will absolutely vote against a woman or a non-white person specifically due to their race or gender.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's like you guys forget that Barrack Hussein Obama lead us to the largest victory in recent memory. The black guy with the Muslim name less than a decade from 9/11. He just never happened because if you tried to account for him, your whole theory would look like a steaming load.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I didn't say that they couldn't win, just that it was an additional hurdle a white man wouldn't have. But I appreciate your strawman all the same, it is almost halloween.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ok, some won't, but not enough to prevent a black guy with a Muslim name from leading us to a supermajority win. If that's your theory, then it's worthless because it's too little to matter when you put up an actually talented politician with an inspiring message. We should just do that, then we won't have to wring our hands over whether you think they're demographically optimal for the bigots in your head.

    People had the same "what about the racists" message in 2008 and they all fell flat on their faces when the election happened and it had no meaningful impact. Obama won freaking North Carolina. The only Democrat to do so in the last 45 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    she lost because she was courting the right wing for some reason

    That certainly had a decent effect. She was an easy target. She's not white, she's a woman, Right there you lost almost the entire right. She was trying to court the Jews when Israel was ready to go to bed with trump. She was a 11:59pm changeover for a sick president that was already making some questionable calls. Most of what she was doing wasn't wrong or bad, but it was easy to attack and impossible to defend.

    2025 Project was being installed and is being orchestrated by professional incredibly well funded politicians with incredible levels of oligarch backing. No matter what she would have done, anything but an all out blue wave would not have stopped them.

    But it won't matter in the next election, they're ready to read from the Russian playbook. It'll be a mock election. Most of the republicans and a lot of the dems are complicit. Even if the left were to get in (0 change imo) they would just call in some left sleepers to switch the power back, we're well and properly baked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but don’t underestimate the role of misogyny. A commentator on a podcast i listen to was in the US in the run-up to the last election and they said that something they heard over and over again in the people they talked to was variations on “i hate Trump and everything he stands for, but i couldn’t trust the country to a woman”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I had one friend like this. Basically all he talked about was how much he hates Trump, then come election he said he wasn't voting at all because "Trump is bad, but Harris is worse because she's a woman".

    In the sake of honesty, it wasn't just that. He also said a few times that she's worse than Trump because she claimed to be from a working class family, but almost always it was that she was a woman that was his reasoning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "Trump is bad, but Harris is worse because she's a woman"

    It is stunning to imagine somebody actually saying this out loud, conscious of what they are doing rather than mindlessly acting on biases without introspection like a normal moron.

    But somehow I also have zero surprise about it. Even if it's just a fake story you made up for Lemmy it doesn't matter because it's genuinely a mundane everyday concept in so much of the country. (middle aged USian white dude from a conservative family here, it's been a long time but I've heard it all)

    I feel like I've gained a new understanding of quantum superposition!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My SO phrased it as "I don't think I can vote for a woman for president." and so they didn't vote at all.

    An issue with the presidential race isn't getting the republican vote, it's getting the dems to actually show up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I'm curious, what gender is your SO?

    I'd assume a guy, but conservative culture and media convinces a lot of women that they themselves are made from lesser stuff and should generally be deferring to the men anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I just don't believe them anymore. I think they always wanted this and were embarrassed to be fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Now that you suggest the idea, I wouldn’t be surprised. I’ve since booted the guy from my life (or at least as much as I could) but I wouldn’t surprised if this was the case based on some of the things he’s said.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't know if AOC is the right pick but I do know she's closer to the target than Gavin Newsom. Nothing against him, but the Democratic party needs a candidate that can inspire people.

    But that's getting ahead of things. First the american people need to primary ~50% of sitting democrats in the midterms.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago*

    Lol the DNC has chosen Newsom as the new golden boy.

    The DNC would run the corpse of Hillary Clinton again before letting a progressive have power.

    I would love for AOC to actually be allowed to be voted on, because she would probably win the popular vote like progressives almost always do.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›