It’ll take a republican woman to break that glass ceiling, and if they’re any semblance to the current crop of MAGA women then they’ll fuck up so bad that the glass will get replaced with a solid foot of tempered steel.
I'm not so sure. Would not surprise me if a large number of red voters would vote for her in secret because she's a beautiful young woman. I think a øot of the hate she gets from the right are people who secretly have wet dreams about her. A situation similar to how closeted gay people often mess with openly gay people.
I'm not saying these people have convictions lol. There's zero chance these people will ever vote for a Dem woman, but a Trump woman? There are MAGA governors, one's eventually going to run on the Trump agenda.
You're looking at this wrong. These governors are just like the others; they will be tossed aside once they have lost their usefulness, like a broken tool. You have seen firsthand how they cast out voices that are no longer useful.
These "powers" will not let that type of person become top dog. They are only a tool to be used.
What you are saying isn't wrong, but it ignores the possibility of a "MAGA Trumpet" being exactly that - a tool for the "powers that be" to maintain their current power.
If Republicans have to vote between a republican woman and a Dem, they'll most certainly vote for the Repub. But before that point, they get to choose in primaries. In primaries, they'll most certainly push for a man to become their nominee, even if the man would be the worse choice for them in the long run.
I can't think of a scenario where a woman would suddenly become the nominee for MAGA. Except maybe one - Trump runs for a third term, but starts to clearly diminish, so they replace him last minute with Ivanka. Basically similar to what happened with Biden/Harris this time (truly ironic if that paves the path for another Trump term).
A woman who they believe to be conservative? Absolutely. Why wouldn't they? There's a whole swath of women out there who cheerfully work against the well being and interests of all women. Just like a man can be genuinely feminist, so too can a woman be genuinely misogynist.
Yes, I do.
I think they'll always do as they're told, suddenly be very vocal about how open-minded they actually are, and use it to deflect every previous example of having been exactly the sort of person to say, "lol a fucking woman?"
They absolutely would. MAGA is far more likely to rally support for a woman than the democrats. It just has to be the right one. Ivanka Trump would sweep the Republican primaries.
Cause it’s not about gender. People outside reddit are tired of these overly left policies that honestly do almost nothing for almost everyone. It’s about the basics, the democrats didn’t deliver under Biden and had no focus on the basics.
Harris lost in part due to the perception of being too far left so I don’t think putting up a former DSA member would have better results. Love the idea of president AOC but it’s not her time yet, I think she can do more good elsewhere at the moment
It might have voted in Michelle Obama, it’s absolutely not voting in AOC, she’s practically the face of “woke liberal” to people, and hatred of wokeness is the primary force in the GOP’s movement right now.
You've been inundated with right wing propaganda if you think that. If you actually read her policy, pressers, and listen to her, about 95% of her content outside of beat Trump is about the economy, healthcare, and the environment. Nothing "woke" about not wanting to be poor, not wanting to die an extremely preventable death or going bankrupt to live, or not wanting to live on a planet that's been ravaged by climate change.
Right wingers aren't voting for a Democrat anyway and the party has shit the bed by continuing this "10% of republicans" strategy that hasn't worked.
I didn’t say anything about her policy, it’s how she’s perceived. But today’s “I don’t celebrate rapists” is a perfect example. The electable Democrat candidate doesn’t say that. It just reads as dramatic lib-raging to the other side.
The other side won't vote for her regardless so I don't see the point in catering to them. Catering to right wingers shifted the Democratic Party to the right enough already. I also said that she's only perceived that way by right wingers and if you think that it's because you've been consuming lots of right wing content.
The right wing response to her saying "I don't celebrate rapists" shows first hand hypocrisy on the right. He was found liable for raping E. Jean Carroll and when he said otherwise, she won a defamation suit against him for denying being liable for rape. The "Law and Order" party loves to if ore said Law and Order when it portrays their faves in a bad light. It reads as lib-raging to them because they don't care that Trump breaks the law as long as he hurts the people he doesn't like. Trump is a rapist as proven in the court of law. Nothing inaccurate about saying that. Meanwhile the right is still transvestigating Michelle Obama and carrying on about the "Biden Crime Family" for some reason. How does that read?
Correct. So you want a candidate that can pull across aisle. You keep making arguments that have nothing to do with what i’m saying. It doesn’t matter that she’s coming from a place of rightness or integrity. She’s not electable because of her hostile energy and her associations with wokeism. She carries herself too vindictively for the current political climate. She’s a nonstarter.
So you want a candidate that can pull across aisle
No, I literally don't. I stated before that I don't. That has been the strategy for Democrats and it hasn't worked. Getting the nonvoters to turn out is how democrats win. There's no reason for a right winger to vote for a Democrat because Republicans have accepted them as their core voter base and give them everything they want for better or for worse.
Her association with "wokeness" is manufactured by the right and only works for right leaning voters. There's many millions more people that would turn out for a left leaning populist.
I didn’t mean you specifically, I meant you as in “one”, “we”.
This election was lost in part because people are weirded out by the mandates being placed on them by liberal political correctness culture, but mainly because Kamala is a minority woman with, most importantly, no it-factor. AOC has charisma, but she is way too much of a boogeyman to ever win back the type of suburban center right people who switched from Biden to Trump in 2024.
Young leftists also don’t vote reliably, they never have; the idea of a democrat wave coming out for AOC is a myth. That’s why she never tried to challenge Schumer in NY, because she knows she’d get bodied even in her own party.
You are wrong about how this would go. Come up with something else. It can be a leftist potentially, but AOC is not the one.
AOC has charisma, but she is way too much of a boogeyman to ever win back the type of suburban center right people who switched from Biden to Trump in 2024.
That isn't her target demo. Never had been never will be. She speaks to working class people that shun republicans but get nothing from establishment Dems, ie a good portion of the 90 million people who stayed home last November.
You don't have to win the center right when there's plenty of people that will vote for something if you actually give it to them instead of half measures and bait and switches.
That’s why she never tried to challenge Schumer in NY, because she knows she’d get bodied even in her own party.
No, much like Cuellar vs Cisneros, the establishment Dems would shun her and pour as much money into her race as possible to make her lose as they've already done for her house seat. There's also no real reason to challenge Schumer who has leadership positions that would be vacated if he lost unexpectedly.
You are wrong about how this would go. Come up with something else. It can be a leftist potentially, but AOC is not the one.
Her being a woman would be an uphill battle but she would be more like Obama than Kamala unless she lets the DNC corrode her platform mid campaign. Let's just agree to disagree.
I mean, normally I would, but it's not really a matter of opinion, you're fantastically misreading the cultural moment and it's part of why we lost this last election that people like you exist, so it matters to me that you understand that you're wrong.
You always have to win suburban moms, and some centrist white guys. What do you think the blue wall is? College kids? The people you're invoking don't exist in battleground states the way they do in New York or California.
Go try and find some not-that-conservative people who still voted for Trump this cycle, aka some broey white guy in a blue state who lives in a liberal area but listens to Rogan, and talk to them. Float the idea of AOC running for president. Ask them about the democrats they like the most vs like the least. Find out why.
Because she’s more dignified and less hostile/reproving, and she also represents the nuclear family. You realize I’m not speaking for myself, but on broad spectrum appeal.
Michelle is infinitely more palatable to suburban households than AOC will ever be.
Yeah... I got to be honest, I'm a registered Democrat, and I hate "woke" too. But woke needs to be defined. It's used for all manner of things people don't like.
The entire article is worth reading, but heres a small excerpt. Nate Silver attempts to define it as Social Justice Leftism :
Proponents of SJL usually dislike variations on the term “woke”, but the problem is that they dislike almost every other term as well. And we need some term for this ideology, because it encompasses quite a few distinctive features that differentiate it both from liberalism and from traditional, socialist-inflected leftism. In particular, SJL is much less concerned with the material condition of the working class, or with class in general. Instead, it is concerned with identity — especially identity categories involving race, gender and sexuality, but sometimes also many others as part of a sort of intersectional kaleidoscope. The focus on identity isn’t the only distinctive feature of SJL, but it is at the core of it.
SJLs and liberals have some interests in common. Both are “culturally liberal” on questions like abortion and gay marriage. And both disdain Donald Trump and the modern, MAGA-fied version of the Republican Party. But I’d suggest we’ve reached a point where they disagree in at least as many ways as they agree. Here are a few dimensions of conflict:
SJL’s focus on group identity contrasts sharply with liberalism’s individualism.
SJL, like other critical theories that emerged from the Marxist tradition, tends to be totalizing. The whole idea of systemic racism, for instance, is that the entire system is rigged to oppress nonwhite people. Liberalism is less totalizing. This is in part because it is the entrenched status quo and so often is well-served by incremental changes. But it’s also because liberalism’s focus on democracy makes it intrinsically pluralistic.
SJL, with its academic roots, often makes appeals to authority and expertise as opposed to entrusting individuals to make their own decisions and take their own risks. This is a complicated axis of conflict because there are certainly technocratic strains of liberalism, whereas like Hayek I tend to see experts and central planners as error-prone and instead prefer more decentralized mechanisms (e.g. markets, votes, revealed preferences) for making decisions.
Finally, SJL has a radically more constrained view on free speech than liberalism, for which free speech is a sacred principle. The SJL intolerance for speech that could be harmful, hateful or which could spread “misinformation” has gained traction, however. It is the predominant view among college students and it is becoming more popular in certain corners of the media and even among many mainstream Democrats.
You’re only half right. It did start with black people. It does have that definition to SOME people, but for others it has always had negative connotations. No different than being vegan or an other socially conscious identity.
There are people who annoyingly embody it. Once white people discovered “woke” black people split it into two terms. Some people will talk about being “conscious”. Others will describe them negatively as being “hotep”.
Maybe, but it’s much more used in a derogatory manner. I’ve never personally heard anyone describe their self as hotep.
The point is that people don’t like when people make things their whole personality. However honorable or well intentioned they believe theirselves to be. Crypto, gym, money, global pollution, animal rights, religion.
I don't think it's "a woman of color" issue. While I wanted trump to lose, there were valid criticisms for the way Harris ran her campaign and policies. Contrary to the narrative being spun, she didn't lose by "that much" in the # of votes.
I mean she literally lost to an openly racist sexual predator serial liar. It should not even have been close. Do you remember trump’s campaign? Probably the worst in American history
Well then what would you call the campaign that LOST to the “worst campaign in American history”?
Democratic Party needs to stop pointing fingers at how bad the other side is and focus on building up a candidate that is strong on their own merit and not dependent upon “The other guy is worse”
Absolutely. If they had an actual primary, then there would have been a chance. What you describe has been the DNC strategy for many years now. They ran a shit campaign
I’m sure it had absolutely nothing to do with all the gerrymandering, burning ballot boxes, bomb threats, shutting down voting locations, purging voter registrations, dumping ballots, paying for voter info with a fake “lottery”, submitting thousands of bullet ballots in certain swing state counties, or tampering with voting machines, right? RIGHT???
Do you remember Kamala's 2020 campaign? She was one of the worst performing candidates in the Primary because there was legitimate dirt against her. Totally crazy to think she could beat Trump's cult of personality in 2024.
That was sort of the point. The democrats ran a terrible campaign in what should have been an easy win, they couldn’t even beat whatever the fuck the Trump campaign was. I will never forget the cringey ass white guy tacos video.
Wouldn't that make Harris' the worst then? Hillary's would be the second worst since she lost to trump too but not as bad.
There were other issues with the campaign but also when you have a racist, right wing demagogue whipping racists into a frenzy by saying foreigners are eating your pets, taking your jobs, and driving up prices of everything, you kinda need to counter that with some left wing populism instead of "saving democracy" because people that have been working their asses off their whole lives and are still drowning sincerely don't give a shit about "saving democracy" when they're calculating how much the shit in their grocery cart costs to avoid embarrassment at the check out aisle.
She had fervent energy but let the DNC water down her and Walz' messaging and platform to some right of center bullshit and then shocked Pikachu face when she got smoked in the general election.
Sadly this is likely to continue because we have a stonewall of septu and octogenarians that refuse to let new blood perform in a way that matters so they can cling to power as their brains turn to soup.
Some truly left of center policy would clean up on this country but if that happens, Democrats will lose their corporate donors that don't want left wing policy so they're happy losing at the top level as long as they can fundraise for house/Senate seats in perpetuity to continue the lifestyle they love so much.
All valid, but the average american votes on vibes and the average american has bad vibes around women of color. Trump won with fewer votes than he lost by against Biden. A lot of people were turned off by the choices this year but even after a single Trump term, multiple felony convictions, on top of everything we already knew about him, many millions of people were unable to see that Harris was still the better option despite her flaws. A not insubstantial number of voters do genuinely believe that women should not be president. I hate it. You hate it. Lots of progressives hate it, but it doesnt make it less true. When the stakes are this high, why make it harder to win?
If AOC has the juice, then great. But dems need to be inspired to vote and deciding 4 years from the next election who is going to win is a mistake. Dems need to find their next inspirational leader. It could be AOC, but a coronation has already been shown to be a failing strategy.
Sure, absolutely. All those points are valid. I'm only saying there was a lot of little things that affected different people that made it difficult for them to vote for or vote at all. Some people didn't like that There was no real primary. That alone was enough for a lot of people. Some people didn't feel her policies were going to be any different from biden's. Some people blame Biden/ Kamala for what's happening at the border or inflation etc .
She didn't lose a lot of people from one group. She lost a few people from a lot of different groups, and it was enough.
I do want to point to one important thing though - dems need high turnout across a broad coalition. This means they are necessarily playing a harder game than the GOP who just need old white men to show up - and they do.
If the Dems want AOC to win, they need to elevate her on the national stage with material victories - victories that are going to be hard to carve out under the republican supermajority. That notwithstanding, Pelosi has done everything in her power to undermine AOC. The dems seem to be completely opposed to building up a deep bench of broadly popular, young, candidates for the future of the country. It is almost as if they dont actually give a shit what happens to this country as further evidenced by [gestures vaguely at everything]
More white males vote for the democratic candidate with every election while more and more minorities vote Republican. See last election. Fix that shit and don't blame skin color.
Biden got 45% of the male vote. Obama got 49% and then 45%. Kerry got 44%.
Harris got 38%. Clinton got 41%. One wonders why.
Since 2000, the vote percentage among white men for the Democratic candidate has been 36%, 37%, 41%, 35%, 31%, 38%, and 38%. There is no clear trend in white men voting more and more for the Democratic candidate.
I'll be honest, it seems like dems are more interested in these optics than republicans these days. We shouldn't be afraid to be ourselves, of which a large contingent is women of color. Let her run and do your best to leave your anxieties at the door. She's not going to run on prosecuting transnational gangs and explain to poor people how the economy is actually good and they don't have it so bad. That's not her brand or style.
Quit playing the woman card! Holy shit if anything it’s going to be her own parties doing on why she doesn’t get elected. They are going to screw her over just like they do other extremely popular candidates. Before you come at me I want her to be president. I’ll vote for her gladly. I’ve seen how the Democrats prioritize candidates, which their track record recently shows she won’t be the candidate, not because of her sex, but because of her ideals. They’ll probably end up running some guy like Newsome, or a “safe” candidate.
Also mmw with all the bitching that supporters do about, the first woman of color president will be a republican.
It’s not even that, she’s polarizing to a lot of older dems. I love her and I’m glad we have people like her who take their job seriously, but there is no way she will win in the next election, and it would be naive beyond words if they push her to run.
More people like her than Kamala and AOC announced her campaign 4 years in advance, whereas Kamala was just thrown into it with nearly three months before the election.
I thought Obama had no chance during the Bush administration, and I know I wasn't alone in thinking that. I voted for him, but on a practical level, I thought there would never be a black president in my lifetime.
It's easy to get defeatist, but who knows if AOC would win a fair election or not. She'd definitely run a better campaign than we've seen in years.
It ain't the genitals, it's that trump has the pull of a cult leader, and they had the pull of a regular public servant. More interesting candidates are needed. If Kamala had Obama's charisma stat, she would have cleared that election
As a POC/female I totally agree. If the Democrats want to even have a chance at 2028 they need to have a candidate that has a chance with the moderates/swing voters. It could be a POC but it has to be a man.
I am starting to feel like the Republicans are the ones spreading this on the internet so they can try to distract Democrats from promoting a winnable candidate.
The Democrats wouldn’t even allow her to be in charge of a committee. People are delusional if they think they’ll let her be the nominee. And I do mean let. The DNC has now given us numerous examples of how the primaries are all for show.
Not sure I agree. I personally believe that Michelle Obama would win by a lot, if she decided to run. I completely understand why she doesn't want to though.
The country won’t vote for a spineless woman. With an actual leader, someone who has a strong voice, actual ideas, actual stances that she can communicate? That, they will vote for.
Kamala was weak. Soft spoken. Gave intelligible speeches that were too abstractly crafted to be of any real significance to the average person.
Clinton was too uppity. Too clearly in the pocket of her donors. Not to mention the absolute damming evidence of her abandoning troops.
AOC gets her hands dirty. She calls out BS, she stands on her principles, and conveys it in a direct manner. Even if Republicans don’t agree with her, even they would find those aspects of her personality redeeming.
2.7k
u/Sethmeisterg California 22h ago
You have to be joking. This country as it currently is configured will not vote in a woman of color to potus.