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.
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.
Pendulum effect
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.
I would start spending money in the US again
Simpsons predicted it.
As you know, we’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump
AOC President with Bernie as Senate Majority Leader.
How?
Fuck this noise stop pushing her for president. One she needs to push out Schumer and run for Senate. Second no way would she win the primary at this time. She will get the Bernie Sanders treatment and lastly against the current Trump administration to deal with in 2028? They would probably assassinate her before they let get anywhere near the white house.
Also I worry she would pull a Obama act and run progressive but turn to the right in the end.
I just have no faith in the DNC and believe we only going turn things around with revolution nothing else. Voting out fascism is not going happen.
You are applying the corruption of past political dipshits to someone who has shown no indication at all to be corrupt. She has been extremely consistent, and you have no reason to believe that she will change.
Regardless she isn’t going get pass the primary if she runs.
They(MAGA adverts) giving her free publicity here as a radical leftist (along with Bernie.)
I primaried for Bernie. AOC would get my vote.
I voted for Bernie twice, donated and door knocked. I will do the same for her, but the results will be the same unfortunately the DNC is captured.
I remain hopeful of a progressive resurgence.
Gerrymandering can become dummymandering if they spread the red too thin.
Hopefully it won’t be excessively bloody, but they seem to already be onboard with that. So it’ll probably become necessary.
I actually agree. I think she should openly challenge Schmuck for his seat, and make him fight for it, or quit. Then go to work in the Senate, destroying any attempted MAGA SCOTUS or Cabinet appointments.
Tear up the Senate for a term or two, and then start looking at a presidential run, or a Cabinet post, depending on the timing, then a presidential run.
Or just stay in the Senate, and run your own joint. It’s a whole separate branch, after all, equal to the president. It would be good to have someone running it who isn’t afraid to remind them of that.
She’s smart enough to navigate a track like that.
That what I believe too.
I think she’ll make a great president someday, but let her get some deep experience first.
Absolutely! Me too.
Also I worry she would pull a Obama act and run progressive but turn to the right in the end
I’ve never seen any indication suggesting that would be the case. In fact, I think if she had some weight behind her, she’d be likely to go more to the left.
This whole post is politically incoherent. She’s both too radical to win/survive and a secret moderate, while electoral politics is both a waste of time and it’s her duty to challenge Chuck Schumer.
She’s both too radical to win/survive
Right wing blue conservatives that dominate th3 democratic party
and a secret moderate
Leftist’s correct take. Its not a secret, her voting record is public.
Its almost like different people will have different opinions while commenting in one thread. Not everyone is a bot thats here to Correct The Record.
too radical to win/survive
This sounds like the attitude that is turning a lot of people off the democratic party lately. The US political right might brand her radical, but a lot of what she advocates for is just common sense and how first world countries work.
A lot of people would also argue that the time for a moderate approach is over.
I’ll admit I’m not an expert on AOC’s entire political career, but I have read that her legislative achievement aren’t very impressive. Perhaps her place should be in the public focus, pushing policies and initiatives, while others might be better suited to the legislative positions to support what she’s publicly advocating for.
Literally no one’s legislative achievements are impressive. Being able to pass anything either requires a large majority and a full party effort or for it to be a non-controversial bipartisan bill. It’s not a body where individual lawmakers make legislative achievements.
Perhaps her place should be in the public focus, pushing policies and initiatives, while others might be better suited to the legislative positions to support what she’s publicly advocating for.
Like as president?
Like as president?
Yes. That’s exactly what I meant.
deleted by creator
op is literally doing the opposite of licking boots, do you actually know what youre talking about?
deleted by creator
are you still stick on red v blue?
how them boots taste?
They would probably assassinate her before they let get anywhere near the white house.
I believe this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
She’s not even running.
What are you talking about? The headline clearly says she’s winning the election.
Nate Silver endorsed this polling in 2024? That makes me trust it LESS not more 😭
The polls are all over the place, but this one seems was 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.
Oh, so we’re going for a 3rd Trump term then?
If you’re going to casually toss out statements like that, you might want to elaborate on your reasoning a bit.
America is too racist and bigoted as shown by the last 2 Trump wins
I hear you, and it’s a fair claim to make. But you can’t assume people will be able to fill in that gap accurately unless you say what you mean. Especially in an online, text-based forum that’s likely full of trolls and bots. That’s probably why you got downvoted to oblivion.
It’s not the end of the world
Did you completely forget about 2 terms with Obama? Turn your head sideways and let the bong resin flow out of your ear. It might take some time
I forgot Obama was a woman and ran against Trump. Damn, I guess you’re right.
No, he had a black Muslim African father, an active campaign to paint him as not-American (with a heavy subtext of not-white), and the middle name Hussein when trying to succeed the War on Terror president. And Republicans (including Trump) tried their damnedest to make that define him. And then Democrats won a supermajority.
Obama had way more to overcome, but all that stuff is irrelevant if you have charisma and a popular platform.
Obama had way more to overcome
AOC is
-
A woman.
-
Not white.
-
More left leaning than Obama. Centrists don’t like that.
-
Younger than any other elected president ever.
-
Is not quite as personable or charismatic as Obama. She can’t reach as many people.
She absolutely has more working against her than Obama. I don’t think you grasp just how many Americans simply won’t vote for a person with a vagina to be president. And in all the right geographical places to prevent it from happening.
None of that at all compares to being a black “non-American” “Muslim” post 9/11. And it’s irrelevant, because even thinking demographics is the guiding light for potential Democratic voters is just demonstrably untrue.
None of that matters if you’re charismatic and have a good platform that speaks to a brighter future. Those two traits are worlds more valuable than what all you hand wringers dredge up whenever the black man or the Hispanic woman start capturing people’s attention. We heard all the same things in 2008.
None of this is really about any of that, it’s all just #3. Obama and AOC both campaigned on moving left, so all the blather from centrists about civil rights and “the future is female” evaporates in an instant and they reveal they’re all just mini Steve Bannons looking for whatever naked bigotry they think can foreground to prevent progress.
-
Did you mean to say “sexist” instead of “racist”?
OBAMA HAS A PENIS.
America is much more open to a black man with a penis as president than ANY woman. And that black man with a penis had to be the most intelligent, personable, and charismatic black person with a penis ever to get elected.
Run the same losing strategy that has lost the last two times we’ve tried it and we’ll lose again. Simple as that.
Given the choice of a Nazi pedophile or … a woman, the former has proven to be the choice twice already.
Exactly what I’m saying, but you get upvotes and I get down votes
Hey man, just let people continue to vote on a strategy that keeps losing.
If we keep attempting a losing strategy, it’s bound to work eventually, right?
History has proven again and again that the first woman to win will be a conservative. With more of the blue collar union guys starting to vote conservative, this becomes even more probable.
Even so, I really hope I can look on this comment 3 years now and be proved wrong.
the first woman to win will be a conservative
Sort of like how Colin Powell was our first black president?
These people proactively enforcing the preferences of bigots just act like Barrack Hussein Obama never existed.
I think there’s a real serious argument that “conservative” can mask “woman” or “minority” to counterweight nativist bigotry. And you might see this in politicians like Jodi Ernst or Sarah Palin or Dianne Feinstein or Kamala Harris even, where tacking to conservative rhetoric offsets the presumption that you’re a bunch of bra burning far left feminists.
But the idea that you can’t run as a conservative Democrat and win high office? Really requires you to just gouge out your eyes before glancing at any historical text. God forbid you lay eyes on a biography of Hillary Clinton.
She’s the only one I’m voting for. Don’t be afraid to vote for her, many others will, your vote will not be wasted.
She’s the only one I’m voting for.
Are you saying that if she doesn’t make it to the general, you’re not voting in the general?
Cuz that makes you garbage if so.
Yea, but it doesn’t make me garbage, it makes the system garbage. Electing a true progressive in 2028 is our last chance to avoid a revolution.
Then you better show up to the primary
I think she actually has a good chance. She would get a pretty good turnout from energized progressives, but she would also get the gooner votes. How could a Republican beat that?
How could a Republican beat that?
Maybe the same way they ran a felon rapist pedophile insurrectionist low IQ loud mouth loser who won against female candidates…twice.
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.
Many = the author. Every time.
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”.
Harris was progressive? Really?
Progressively endorsed by Dick Cheney
Excited to see George w bush on the campaign trail with Gavin Newsome!
It seems American voters want right wing vs far right.
You think Walmart Americans thought this deeply? She lost because she is annoying.
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
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…
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.
The 1.5bn spend is the DNC payday.
We’d prolly know for sure if they released the report. Ken Martin needs to be fired.
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.
You’re in the trap unfortunately
Just bad luck a woman has never been president in the US in your mind?
I’ll pray for you
You and all the other rednecks in that backwards country. May your God have mercy as long as you pay him every week.
Lord have mercy on this lost sheep
The sample size isn’t that large. I do think people are sexist (which just seems incredibly obvious) however both Clinton and Harris did run in bad environments for Democrats. Clinton followed up a two term Democrat which usually favors the opposition in the US, and Harris ran during high inflation which the Biden administration spent two years denying and gaslighting people about.
I think Clinton also would’ve won if that asshole Comey hadn’t sabotaged her at the last minute.
Most incumbents globally lost in 2024. People are too focused on the micro and not the macro in this thread. And Biden set her up to fail in so many ways.
I’d like to see a woman run in a more favorable environment, which I think 2028 will be, because I think she could win even if she got fewer votes than a man would.
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.
Women won 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.
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
It’s more like the tenth that sometimes vote simply weren’t excited enough.
Everyone looks at the third that didn’t vote as if it would magically change everything. But even if they did vote it wouldn’t change the outcome all that much. It’s like everyone just ignores the Law of Large Numbers.
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.
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).
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.”
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 😘
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”
Only on Lemmy
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.
You mean like calling Sanders “Bernie”? Funny how you changed it to Sandersbros so you could defame people without immediately looking like an idiot
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.
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?
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.
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.
Exactly. People forget that Biden in 2020 under performed polls, and it’s pretty clear that absent COVID he would have lost.
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.
They fucked over Hogg too, don’t forget
Yeah, it was shown in NYC as well, vote blue no matter who only goes one way with them
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.
I’m pretty sure it was the opposite. I still voted for her cause Trump was worse. But I felt then like I do now. She’s a Republican. Her policies are conservative and Republican.
Agreed she’s Republican Lite. Socially liberal but fiscally she acts far more like 1980s republicans.
Socially liberal
And just like most “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people, she just thinks we should “follow the law” about trans people.
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.
its almost like all legacy media is inherently fascist
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.
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!
The democratic party funded by AIPAC will rather see Trump for a third time than having AOC as president.
Gotta get the red Dems out.
It would be easier to start a new party at this rate looking at where that money comes from… I say knowing there is still no direct alternative despite decades of trying from other minor parties…
AOC is doing her best to keep friendly with the J-Street Israel lobby lately.
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?
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.
Fair point, but it feels bad to accept.
Ideologues that vote solely on what genitals a candidate has
Even the chuddiest chuds I know don’t express anything remotely like that opinion. Racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia are all either open topics or simmering just below the surface of political discussion, but not the sex of a politician. Nevertheless, the hand-winging centrists are sure there’s a wellspring of otherwise gettable voters that are driven by that single issue. And its salience magically rises and falls depending on whether there’s a popular female progressive.
This is why you lose elections
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought your original response was mocking that take. I try to assume good faith so someone writing that sincerely didn’t make sense.
Or something more nefarious at foot.
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
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
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
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).
If she throws her hat into the ring I fully expect the DNC to sabotage her at every opportunity.
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.
Jefferies will never recover from the AIPAC Shakur nickname. Absolutely wrecked him.
Meanwhile, we all want AOC and Bernie. If Bernie wants to VP, I’m all in.
He’s too old.
i dont care about his age, but his position on Palestine has always been weak and shameful. im not an AOC head, but im hoping for her at this point too.
Yeah, just let him be VP for as long as he is useful. If hr wants, I’d vote. But better someone else like AOC who can look out for the present and future of our country. There have to be others like Bernie who can do good for us and not start wars.
He can be in the cabinet, but he’s too old to even be the VP.
I’d also vote for Bernie (VP or Pres.), still. But, I think there are younger progressives that could fill the role quite well.
I’d even take someone more centrist for the VP role, since that might make it easier for them to attract (Super)PAC monies.
Yeah, there has to be someone out there who is presidential grade and not a total asshole or a party bitch. You know like “we’ll raise your taxes to build schools, but we’ll raise them triple to billionaires” vs “what schools? You look Hispanic we’ll send you to Honduras but after a 3 year sentence”.
In this moment, any candidate who receives super PAC funding from corporations or Israel is a bad candidate.
Centrism is dead. The right is dying. This is a time for moving towards socialism.
We are still a FPtP system, you don’t get to write off the majority, if you want to gain political power through elections. Right+Center > 50% of electorate.
Taking resources away from “bad” organizations, and using them for the socialist project is a good thing. The trick is not given them (as much) value in return.
Right+Center > 50% of electorate.
You’re wrong, but of course you’re welcome to your opinions.
Wow, what a surprise, someone who believes that two party politics is representative of the left/right of politics is wrong about things.
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!
Bernie 2.0 incoming, who’s ready for Gavin Newsom to be president?
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.
Fingers crossed that this won’t turn into a Bernie situation. If we get past the primaries, fingers crossed this won’t turn into a Obama/Fetterman situation.
