politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Sadly, I feel there are still too many bigots and sexists in the US who cannot bring themselves to vote for a woman, esp. one who isn't 'white enough'. That, piled on top of the 'establishment' Dem factions that will do everything possible to subvert a campaign... which will let the right-wingers/fascists drive right up the middle again.
Feel free to prove me wrong, USA. Please.
Copy paste from elsewhere in the thread.
You seem well-meaning, but the racism/sexism card is way overplayed at this point in the game. The two examples DNC sympathisers point to for why an AOC run is a bad idea both lost not because they were women, but because they were utterly terrible politicians. I wasn't around for Hillary so I can't go into too much detail, but Harris specifically did her utmost best to destroy every single ounce of goodwill she had. And as for the racism, well, America did overwhelmingly elect Obama in 2008. Even on the far right you see MAGA elect women and minority politicians they agree with (see: MTG), so there's no way the everyone left of Reagan coalition wouldn't be able to elect AOC due to sexism. It's just a complete and utter non-issue.
You say that, but I personally know people who voted for Trump over Harris specifically because she was a woman. I personally know people who voted for Trump over Clinton for the exact same reason.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with AOC myself and would vote for her, but to pretend that it's a "non-issue" assumes that the average person doesn't care. Many people do actually care, and ignoring the existence of those people is poor strategy. Maybe I'm overestimating the number of people who care, maybe not, but it is unfortunately a real concern that won't magically go away by pretending people, as a whole, are more enlightened than that.
And people voted for Trump because he's rich. Does that mean we only need to run rich candidates. Fuck no. There isn't a large enough group of people who would otherwise vote for someone like AOC who wouldn't because she's a woman. Either her positions are strong enough to win or they aren't. The woman thing is bullshit, and it's just people trying to push for a more generic candidate that doesn't represent us.
I think they primarily voted for him because he hated the same people they did. I don't think him having money had much to do with it. The closest I've heard is "he'll run it like a business" which doesn't really have anything to do with him being rich.
Willing to bet your future and the futures of millions of others on that assumption?
That's not the only factor in winning presidential elections in America.
If she doesn't win then you don't get represented at all.
I didn't say everybody. I'm certain not many people didn't vote for Harris or Clinton because they were women either. It's an equivalent claim that some did. If we can't run women because some won't vote for women then we also need to only run rich candidates because some will vote for rich candidates. Also, the same could be said for black candidates, yet Obama won. Clearly people being bigots is not the reason for a win/loss.
Absolutely. I'd rather bet it on that than another Biden. I have seen incredibly little evidence that women can't win. I've only seen evidence that boring ass candidates can't. 50% of candidates lose (slightly more if you include third parties). The chances that 2/2 women lose is reasonably high, if we look at raw numbers. If we also take into account that Harris had a grand total of a few months to campaign, with a ton of controversy, it's even more likely. Far more male candidates have lost than female, yet no one bats an eye when we run male candidates.
If we're going to elect someone progressive, it won't fail because of some bigots. Anyone willing to vote for a progressive will not care. The only voters who would be "lost" by this are already lost by her policy positions. There's no reason to consider their opinions further.
Oh no! I guess we should pull Biden back in then! We can't have anything good because we need to pander to bigots, who are an incredibly small portion of society!
I mean sure you can find people who think or do basically anything; I haven't seen any evidence that this is a significant group of people, even though if it was it'd show up on polls before and after the election. I'd also bet good money no such evidence exists, because if it did libs wouldn't shut up about it. Meanwhile plenty of evidence exists that the most significant factors in Harris's loss were the genocide and her being a rightwing ghoul.
I didn't disagree with Harris's flaws. But I think you might exist in a bubble, there are a lot of dumb people in the world. I consider you very lucky if you haven't met a significant number of people who voted purely based on sex.
Do I think they're the majority? Definitely not. But the number of people who don't think about Palestine even a little bit is a lot higher than you think. So is the number who think "A woman can't be president, she'll be too emotional and other world leaders will walk all over us". Like I said, there are a lot of dumb people in the world. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
Americans voted for a low IQ felon rapist pedo over highly educated and accomplished women...twice.
What bubble are you living in?
Uh... did you mean to say "Hillary" up there at some point? Because "Kamala" and "Harris" are the same person...
I did, I got distracted mid comment. I edited it.
When the DNC runs candidates who's campaign promises are status quo, corporate subsidies and serving Israel then yeah, the bigot and sexist vote becomes significant. People need to stop using that as a condemnation of the country as a whole. It's a condemnation of the two party system, a corrupt or derelict Democratic party or a "democracy" which is no longer functioning.
Meanwhile candidates who actually prioritize American voters can win without the help of bigots. Obama proved this back in 2008 and Zohran has proved things have only gotten better. Not only did he win without the bigot vote but without all the other piece of shit voters who showed up for Cuomo in the general election.
Harris was a garbage candidate. Biden was a garbage candidate. Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate. American voters as a whole are not responsible for the abhorrent behavior by the DNC and assholes who vote for people like Biden and Cuomo in Democratic primaries.
What you're doing now is part of how the establishment subverts campaigns. They always selectively apply the 'electability' argument only to progressives and insurgents while embracing identity politics for their own candidates. Whenever a progressive of any minority group runs the nation "isn't ready," but when it's one of theirs "it's time."
Exactly. Why is support for Israel, which voters hate, acceptable as a purity test, but Medicare for All, which voters love, is not?
Yes, but also I don't think the Democrats have any stronger candidate to run against Republicans. Most of them can't even meaningfully speak against Trump. If they run another wishy-washy centrist there's a much greater chance that they lose to disillusionment yet again. AOC is the closest they have to Bernie Sanders and they'd either be idiots or snakes to not do so. Personally, she's probably the only potential presidential hopeful out there who I would enthusiastically vote for.
They have proven themselves at this point to be both.
This is a real problem. Who's in the national Democratic pipeline? Biden kind of sucked the life out of anyone associated with him - Anthony Blinken? Lloyd Austin? Pete Buttigeig was the closest thing Biden had to an attack dog, but he keeps losing elections and I don't know what he's doing now. I thought Katie Porter was cool for a while, but she blew her run for senate and is currently choking on a run for governor of California. Bernie's too old.
I don't even know who else is out there.
Tim Walz, maybe, if he quits listening to the neolib assholes giving him shitty advice?
Tim Walz seems to have gotten scared off by his colleagues who were assassinated, and he's not running for reelection as governor and has largely pulled back. He appears to be prepping for retirement at this point
You know, I always thought the prevailing wisdom was that assassination was counterproductive as a political tactic because the faction doing it would lose the moral high ground and galvanize everyone against their cause, but it's funny how that doesn't seem to have been true lately.
I really wish he hadn't stopped calling Vance "weird", that was actually fucking working.
I have no intention of voting for another pro-corporate, "my turn" Democrat. If we don't end up with her, or another actual progressive, I think a whole lot of Democrats will be completely turned off the party
Came here to say basically this but I want to live in a world where it’s not true, and I actively, knowingly choose willful ignorance. I want her to run, I will vote for her, I will get out the vote for her. I think we have to.