• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    7 days ago

    NGL I’ll take any blue tie but we’ve already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.

    • theparadox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates’ loss vs. Trump.

      • Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an antiestablishment era.
      • Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
      • Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.

      I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like “socialism” scary) but most Democrat politicians aren’t willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I voted for the female candidates, they both lost. The gender divide in congress is 7:18, only 28% of elected federal representatives are women. Gen Z voters were divided along gender lines between Trump and Harris. I don’t know how to fix this problem, but ignoring it is not the solution.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.

          • A majority of registered voters are women.

          • A majority of actual voters are consistently women.

          There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.

          There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.

          This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.

          • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            There is zero evidence a woman cannot win.

            I’ve got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress’. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

            We’re not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We’re talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.

          • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      Exactly.

      Americans chose a felon rapist clown fascist over HIGHLY qualified women. Twice.

      America is not even close to being ready for a female president.

      If we want to lose again, run a woman. That’s the shit reality in this shitty country.

      Not to mention AOC is still “green”. Clinton was a Senator, a Secretary of State, and ex-first lady. Kamala was a VP. AOC is just a member of the House.

      People need to stop fantasizing and get real. It’s also WAY too early to seriously be talking about this.

  • Devolution@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    AOC is a fantastic candidate in an ideal world. But she won’t win. She’s too divisive for Conservatives and moderates and I don’t expect progressives to actually vote; complaining is easier than showing up.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 days ago

    During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.

  • nthavoc@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 days ago

    Look … not that I have anything against women running for president … but … if we haven’t learned twice from the shitty decision making of the voter population, 2028 is not the year to test if the US can get its first woman as president AGAIN. I’m going to chalk this up as democrats just can’t stand to win and the media needs to stop encouraging that line of thinking. We’ll be lucky if there even is a 2028 election. Also, did everyone forget AOC is not in the good graces of kingmaker Pelosi?

  • Gork@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    My right-wing friend finds AOC hot so he might actually vote for her if she runs.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I don’t understand what people aren’t getting here.

    The last two female candidates to run for president, who were extraordinarily more qualified than their opponent, were denied in favor of a felon rapist clown.

    If that isn’t proof that this nation is not ready for a female president, I don’t know what is.

    I voted for both those female candidates. I am not against a female president. But can we exist in reality for a moment and acknowledge that if we run AOC, we’re going to lose, again? Because America isn’t ready for that shit. You will not capture independents with a female candidate. You will not capture disenfranchised Trump supporters with a female candidate. You will not win. A mayoral race is not the same as a presidential race and Mamdani is a man and that’s the country we live in.

    Edit: Scroll through this comments section. This is a liberal sub. And even here it’s 50/50 about AOC running for president. She won’t win guys.

  • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ask yourself a question: why can’t a woman become a preacher, priest or pastor? All major US religions indoctrinate their followers from birth with the teachings that god does NOT permit women to exercise authority over men.

    So if Christian and Catholic men and women believe in a core set of values and reasons for why women are not allowed to take leadership roles over men in the church, what makes anyone think they don’t or won’t apply that same logic to leadership at the political level, or ANY level?

    Christians won’t let a woman lead their church, but they somehow will be OK with electing a woman into a much higher role, one that can make decisions that affect all churches/the entire world? I don’t see it.

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    “After Zohran Mamdani’s win, Trump reveals how scared he is to face Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”

    Yeah, because she would be running against Trump… That’s a really silly take.

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Zohran Mamdani is just the democratic primary if I understand correctly. He’s not the mayor of New York yet.

  • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    I think running another woman to get absolutely trounced by the populace is a poor choice. I don’t believe the people are ready for it yet, that’s how we ended up with this. Kamala was a good candidate, but with the wrong chromosomes for a very specific swing vote.