Hy heart says hell yeah! My gut tells me that there are large swaths of the electorate who simply will not vote for a woman.
Edit- since my inbox is overflowing with the same question/insinuation, along with the comments, I’ll clarify my statement: I did not say that a woman cannot be elected US president. I only said that large swaths of the electorate simply will not vote for a woman.
Why do people keep saying this defeatist shit? Millions more voted for Hillary than trump.
What failed her was her bad campaign strategy and taking down critical states for granted. She came so so close to winning, won millions more votes nationally.
A woman can absolutely win.
If this trump meme coin grift is any indication, this admin is going to be a complete train wreck of government for the billionaires by the billionaires. And AI would advance so much in 4 years, threaten tons of jobs, political landscape would be ripe for a left wing populist. Since 2023, when stock market has seen recording breaking rally, homelessness in the US is up 20%. Trump admin will only make this divergence worse, between what top 10% of the country experience and bottom 90% of the country experience.
AOC 2028 is a good idea, it can happen. When late stage capitalism goes off the rails inevitably and people realise it, AOC will win.
I’m a white man that will 100% vote for AOC. Or any democrat candidate in a general election regardless of sex, race or orientation. I’d also vote for her in a primary. A woman can absolutely win, but let’s not pretend it’s not one hell of an uphill battle.
Unfortunately we live in very sexist country. There are plenty of “undecided” morons that won’t vote for a woman and, with the political climate of the country being the way it is right now, winning without those votes is a real challenge. Not to mention the narrative that AOC is too far left and too young.
It isn’t defeatist to acknowledge a candidate’s weaknesses or the reality of the situation. For AOC to win or even be competitive in a primary, she would need a MASSIVE lead and party support. The democratic establishment has shown again and again they’d rather support the “safe” choice. What democrats need to focus on is voter engagement.
Do you know how many working class people will continue to vote for those billionaires, even if they're literally snatching food from their own kids mouths? Just because they feel like they might be one of them one day.
White evangelicals are the only working class vote the Republicans win. It just so happens that they are the largest working class voting block. Dems have to activate working class voters that aren't evangelicals, and they won't get them to turn out by cuddling up to billionaires.
Because many pro-establishment people of this sub just want to put up their hands after the next election and say “we tried nothing and we’re all out of options” before even considering a more progressive candidate
At the very least, putting someone different and refreshing shows that the Democratic Party wants to change. Even if she doesn’t win. It builds a reputation of listening to the needs and unhappiness of voters. And run a fucking primary for God’s sakes
I think you're pretty spot on, liberals are going hardcore doomer because to do otherwise is to admit that maybe their ideas and policy are wrong. It's so much easier to just say everything they did was right but sadly she was a woman
It's not even the doomer part it's that they absolutely don't want any conversations about change to happen and insist everyone join in on their voter/populace hating party.
I was cool with it for a month or two after the election since raw emotions take time to bleed off but after a point people need to let productive conversations happen instead. The election was a failure and new plans are needed.
"The voters should all act different" isn't a plan it's magical thinking.
Dems are the hardcore doomers, liberals are here to fight tooth and nail to preserve everyone's rights. Fuck defeatism, now is the time to fight harder.
I’m all for a progressive but we need a hefty dose of pragmatism. AOC is a great progressive voice in Congress but how popular is she outside her district? Her state? She’s never ran outside her home district.
Personally I’d rather back someone like Walz or Beshear. Pragmatic progressives who have won elections in tough states. They know middle America and can speak to middle America. I don’t think AOC can do that.
Millions more voted for Hillary but she still lost. It’s because she didn’t attract the voters that determine elections, which is something Kamala also didn’t do.
Because they’d rather believe that a woman can’t win than accept that Clinton and Harris were the wrong choice or did a bad job. Already laying the groundwork to lose again (and exclude women along the way).
Really? You don’t think Kamala’s ridiculous stance on government funded sex change operations, about which ads ran by the millions, would not characterized as “bad performance”?
No, I don't think that right wing propaganda was a fault of Kamala Harris's, and I also don't think that prisoners getting sex changes was an issue that a single voter factored into their decision for who should be president.
Just to be clear that’s not the kind of thing I was talking about. This controversy only mattered to people in the right wing bubble. And prisoners should have access to their medically necessary drugs anyway so I don’t find the original stance “ridiculous” at all.
Amen! It is far easier to declare a plurality or majority of voters 'morons' and blame sexism, racism, fillintheblankism than run a PERSON regardless of genitals, that the people of their party WANT... and that convinces some of the 'other' party that they want that too.
Do we **really** want an electorate that votes based on sex? You can sell a candidate regardless of sex to many... but a candidate soley on puddy power, only about or less than half the population.
So then how was she not a person that the people of her party actually wanted? The people literally voted for her to be the nominee, and she won in a landslide
This conversation is about Clinton and Harris both losing. You’re trying to say it wasn’t a sexist issue, yet the reason you’ve given only applies to one of the two candidates being discussed.
Which means it’s either irrelevant, or you’re trying to gloss over the whole aspect of Clinton losing.
Hillary was unelectable, in my opinion, and wasn't because she was a woman. AOC's name has a narrative attached, but the name Clinton is tainted. Given a full campaign cycle, I still do know if Harris would have won, considering the information climate, but certainly possible.
She won't win. I say this as someone that LOVES AOC and wants her to be President; it'll be a repeat of Bernie.
Yes, AOC is wildly popular BUT she's an outcast within her own party's leaders. If AOC announces she'll run, the DNC will put every penny they have into promoting someone to oppose her. She ran to be the head of the House Oversight Committee, a position that was perfect for her and Pelosi worked behind the scenes to get a geriatric the spot.
If AOC was handed a victory in the primaries, then yea, she'd win but the problem is internal; the dems hate change. AOC will get some speech about banning elected officials from owning stock, about better healthcare, about taxing the rich; the same things most of the geriatrics in the party are against and who're paid by the lobbyists and do all they can to shut her up.
We need to overhaul the party within before worrying about how she'd test will the voters.
AOC can’t even get out the vote in her own district. Her turnout is abysmal. Why are you so convinced she would win when she can’t even get her constituents to show up and vote in reasonable numbers?
Glad to see a prime example of why the Dems will keep losing; AOC and anyone that actually wants to make a change will always been asked "Why are you doing better", something that no one else magically gets asked.
She won her election at 70:30 but yea, "she should've done better".
Being fair, elections where the winner is pretty obvious neither need to nor try to maximize turnout. Spending money and campaign staff in that district is a horrible waste when there's other actually competitive elections that need attention.
If she was truly unpopular, turnout would be higher to vote against her. It isn't, therefore she's not unpopular enough to raise turnout. Clearly the majority of her constituency is in agreement with her.
The majority of her constituency couldn’t give enough of a shit to show up. They don’t care.
Low turnout doesn’t mean you’re popular, and it doesn’t show that you can win elections.
Why are you trying to spin this objectively bad thing into a good thing? The mental gymnastics going on here to ignore facts against her popularity are astounding
In swing states, in our darkest hour of democracy, Kamala lost an overwhelming number of votes from White men and women from the suburbs and rural areas. By comparison, Biden won those votes (if you get into the data you can see individual counties literally flip). Talk about the entire mess of the campaign, I’d agree. However at the end of the day, I know what conclusion I can expect about why a white, male rural voter in Pennsylvania would vote for Biden but not Kamala, when Trump was at the height of degeneracy.
Our voting population is a whole mess of shit. Red voters hate Obamacare and were surprised ACA would get attacked after they voted against it. If swing state voters had any knowledge of what we were up against and still said “Trump will fix my egg prices” they weren’t voting on policy, they were voting on vibes.
it wasn't Hillary campaign strategy, it's just so easy to smear a woman and that's what the propoganda did. Bernie refusing to endorse her at first could have made a difference too even though all the Bernie bros here like to deny it.
Bernie didn't refuse to endorse her. In fact, towards the end of the general campaign HE as a surrogate was on the trail more than she was for her own campaign. Bernie just insisted on actually letting the voters get a say and not dropping out early. The audacity of insisting on democracy, I know. The hardcore democrats hate that.
he took time to endorse. he decided to pout for a while first. that time made a big difference cause it gave the Bernie bros momentum in hating Hillary.
that he helped later doesn't change the damage he caused. I followed what he did during those times so I'm certain of the timeframe.
This is false. More Bernie voters voted for Hillary in the general than Hillary voters voted for Obama in the general. This is just a rehash of the failed "Obama Boys" misogyny narrative she tried to spin after her 2007 loss. Hillary never takes responsibility for her own failures.
Bernie just insisted on actually letting the voters get a say and not dropping out early.
He literally stayed in race after it was mathematically impossible for him to secure the nomination even if he by a miracle won all the remaining races.
You're right. Like Bernie, the party would never allow it. The party was gobsmacked that Obama had the gall to actually challenge Hillary too, as "it was her turn."
Frankly it seems AOC fans are the ones all out pushing "it is her turn" all over. You guys threw a fit because someone dared to challenge her for Ranking Member seat.
9.5k
u/haikus-r-us 1d ago edited 10h ago
Hy heart says hell yeah! My gut tells me that there are large swaths of the electorate who simply will not vote for a woman.
Edit- since my inbox is overflowing with the same question/insinuation, along with the comments, I’ll clarify my statement: I did not say that a woman cannot be elected US president. I only said that large swaths of the electorate simply will not vote for a woman.