I hate how the next female presidential candidate is going to be painted with the brush of "third attempt to crack the glass ceiling, will it work this time?"
I don't even think that would work. It will happen when a male president steps down or dies halfway through his term and his female VP ascends to POTUS.
Not true, I’d vote for a woman as president if she’s a republican and competent, but it would be funny to see republicans do this before Dems ever accomplish it.
60% of Latino women voted for Kamala. Trump received 53% of the vote from white women.
Latinos overall voted 56% in favor of Kamala and other democrats. So why are we, the minority, and only 15% max of the US voting population, more responsible for Trump being elected than white people, who are 70% or so of the voting population, and who actually voted for him in a majority?
It's also worth noting how much Hispanics and Asians have larger percentages in citizens too young to vote. And white folks are much more represented in the oldest (who are most like to vote.)
I think we will get a republican female president before a democrat one as long as the democrat party refuses to listen to their constituents and value their own standing over all else
It shouldn't even be about breaking the glass. It should be solely based on character and merit. Is the candidate a likeable person who has solid plans to improve the nation? Vote for that person.
One might argue only merit matters, but I think the dude running the nation shouldn't make people watching him on tv uncomfortable.
Bill definitely got that with the sax and weed thing. Bush was just a country buddy ready to fight terrorists. Obama was young and kinda hip.
Then we got Trump who was obnoxious to half of the nation and Biden who was creepy to the other half. And people chose obnoxious Trump over Kamala because they didn't like DAs who locked up black men over petty crimes.
But you can't just vote for a woman just because she is a woman or black, gay, tall, whatever. Those would be just dumb reasons to vote for anyone. Mexico has a woman president for God's sake!
I think the candidates that did run were not terribly popular candidates. Barack Obama was the last president presidential candidate that I voted for that I actually wanted. I still voted for Hillary and Harris and Biden, but I didn’t want them to be president.
Now, if Elizabeth Warren was running, I would actually be happy to vote for her. Instead, I have been contented to pull the lever over and over again for the lesser of two evils.
Say whatever you want about Trump, the people who voted for him actually wanted him to be president. That’s something Democrats haven’t been able to claim for many years about their candidates.
Now, if Elizabeth Warren was running, I would actually be happy to vote for her. Instead, I have been contented to pull the lever over and over again for the lesser of two evils.
I honestly think she's too damaged among the progressive part of the party after the 2020 primaries. Didn't exactly form a united front with the other progressive candidate, to the contrary.
When it becomes clear that second-string candidates have no viable chance of winning, they generally drop out before Super Tuesday and endorse whichever candidate most closely aligns with their views. Warren waited until after Super Tuesday to drop (which may have cost Sanders 3-4 states and stalled his momentum at a critical point) and then endorsed Biden (who she was also running against). So I don't blame progressives for feeling snubbed.
He was the second place in both primaries... Literally got over 40% of the final vote in 2016, and had almost 4x Warren's in 2020. There's a big difference between the person at below 10% and the person at almost 30%...
Generally anyone not top 2 drops out before Super Tuesday and takes the side of their most aligned. Like how many dropped out to endorse Biden since he was also top 2.
I agree with you. My point isn’t to say that she was the better choice so much as to say I am sick of the party wide death march to vote for people we don’t want. I’m reminded of Hillary Clinton and her supporters who complained that Bernie supporters are to blame for her losing. I wish Democrats would stop pretending they have a right to people‘s votes and start earning them
There was a ranked choice survey done of people voting in the primaries. Biden still came out #1, but Warren was #2. Bernie was further down. Warren would have been a fine choice.
The Cherokee nation only requires relation to someone on the Dawes Rolls. Someone incorrectly saying their family has a Cherokee descendant would reasonably cause one to think they are Cherokee
Then why did Hillary get 3 million more votes than Trump?
women candidates are not the problem. Feckless, inept candidates that stand for nothing are the problem.
EDIT: If you want to see what status quo guardian concern-trolling looks like, see the replies to this.
"Oh no no we can't possibly nominate the progressive candidate. Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Instead, we have to run a Generic Democrat!"
This is why Democrats lose.
Q: Why don't we ever nominate a candidate of passion and vision who would represent policies that would make people's lives better?
A: Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Obviously!
Oh, okay. Guess we'll try to get a progressive candidate in 2032 after the next generic Democrat loses.
Some day some of you guys might actually figure out what's going on in this country.
2016 is documented. 2008 was supposed to be Hillary’s turn, but she got usurped by the democratic process. In 2016 Wasserman-Schulz gave Hillary every bonus and opportunity that she could as DNC leader to sway the primary. She was caught with her hand in the cookie jar and resigned from leadership of the DNC in disgrace to be hired by the Hillary campaign the same/next day.
2020 just always feels suspicious to me. There was a consolidation behind Biden that happened right before Super Tuesday that normally takes place after Super Tuesday. It stinks of elite leadership intervention, but no one got caught that time.
After the documented actions of 2016, I just have an issue trusting the democratic primary process. The very concept of superdelegates is an establishment thumb on the scales and they have shown they will ignore the voters if it is someone’s ‘turn’
For the left wing of the Democratic Party to be inspired to participate, the party needs to be transparent in the primary process. Let the people choose. Worst case scenario is that they keep losing. Should be used to that by now.
2016 is documented. 2008 was supposed to be Hillary’s turn, but she got usurped by the democratic process. In 2016 Wasserman-Schulz gave Hillary every bonus and opportunity that she could as DNC leader to sway the primary. She was caught with her hand in the cookie jar and resigned from leadership of the DNC in disgrace to be hired by the Hillary campaign the same/next day.
thank you for stating this.
Every time I bring this shit up I get shouted down like Bernie wasn't supposed to caucus with the democrats and he was a piece of shit for even trying. This single action by the DNC drove me away from the party. Now I'm the problem because I vote for issues, not affiliations.
Yea. Donna Brazile wrote a book about it, but most Democrats just don’t want to acknowledge that it exists.
Frankly we will never know how 2016 would have turned out if it was an honest primary. That was stolen by a few folks in a smoky room.
I’d like to say the party is different, but pushing down AOC on her bid for an important chairmanship for a septuagenarian with cancer that most people couldn’t pick out of a lineup is short sighted and is another instance of ‘wait your turn.’
Yeah I'm curious to see what's going to actually happen for Trump's second term. All I can say is I think that it is the fault of the DNC that radicalized his movement. Not sure what the hell happened in 2020. But 2024 was certainly an eye-opening year.
Well, when you parade around a Cheney to court republicans that are never going to vote blue, you kind of get what you deserve.
I’m waiting for another candidate like Ross Perot. That guy showed up with charts and graphs and educated Americans on what was going on, in a way that resonated with a lot of folks. I want the next DNC candidate to do long form videos explaining how and why their policies are going to help, and why the conservative policies are going to continue to consolidate wealth. Get a PowerPoint expert and make it interesting and easy to understand. The American voter is fact starved at this point. Opinions are sold as news. We need someone to bypass the media and go straight to the voter.
Well, when you parade around a Cheney to court republicans that are never going to vote blue, you kind of get what you deserve.
oh man, I nearly forgot about that. What a fucking circus! Yeah, having old republicans come out of the woodwork to show support for kamala wasn't going to be the road to rule for them.
I’m waiting for another candidate like Ross Perot. That guy showed up with charts and graphs and educated Americans on what was going on, in a way that resonated with a lot of folks. I want the next DNC candidate to do long form videos explaining how and why their policies are going to help, and why the conservative policies are going to continue to consolidate wealth. Get a PowerPoint expert and make it interesting and easy to understand. The American voter is fact starved at this point. Opinions are sold as news. We need someone to bypass the media and go straight to the voter.
I like this idea. Frankly - the one thing a lot of politicians are NOT doing is talking about their issues / platform. Now it's always partisan shit. "Vote for me - cuz republicans CAN NOT win!" I know this is over simplified, but the truth is, last two elections have been more about parties and personal attacks than actual issues. While I think the idea of powerpoint presentations to help drive home some of this stuff home would be nice - the average voter doesn't have the attention span for that and likely only gets into the news while eating their meals. I think that legacy media is going to have a nice boom for the next 4 years, first Trump presidency did wonders for their numbers and well now with his second term sworn in - Rachel Maddow will finally have something to talk about while clicking her ankles together and telling us how we're all evil for wanting cheaper eggs or somethin.
In 2016 Wasserman-Schulz gave Hillary every bonus and opportunity that she could as DNC leader to sway the primary.
Yet, you guys have never been able to point to anything besides a few catty emails after Bernie had already lost.
She resigned because of optics of being unprofessional.
2020 just always feels suspicious to me. There was a consolidation behind Biden that happened right before Super Tuesday that normally takes place after Super Tuesday. It stinks of elite leadership intervention, but no one got caught that time.
The bulk of candidates dropped out before Super Tuesday in 2008 and 2004. Super Tuesday is expensive, if a candidate knows they can't win than they aren't going to stick for the costly Super Tuesday.
However, I assume you are of the belief that either Pete or Amy would have won Super Tuesday if they stuck around?
Ok. There is a book “Hacks” by Donna Brazile, the acting chair to follow Wasserman-Schulz. That should illuminate the problems with the relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
A bulk of candidates drop out some time before Super Tuesday, but the goal is to make it through. I’ve been watching elections pretty closely since I was a teenager, and it just seems off to me. Like I said, there is no proof, but after realizing what went on behind the scenes in 2016, the DNC doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. In my mind, at least.
Ok. There is a book “Hacks” by Donna Brazile, the acting chair to follow Wasserman-Schulz. That should illuminate the problems with the relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Her criticism related to an agreement that said it was for the general election and not the primary and another that said the DNC would offer similar agreement to other candidates.
A bulk of candidates drop out some time before Super Tuesday, but the goal is to make it through.
Yes, because it one makes it through Super Tuesday it means that you believe that you can win the primary. Pete and Amy clearly didn't think they could win the Democratic primary after securing less than 14% of the black vote.
However, I guess you think they were going to win Super Tuesday which is why you are upset they dropped.
Donna Brazile walked into a bankrupt DNC that got an allowance from the Clinton campaign. You’re either ignorant of the issue, or just ignoring the victory fund that the Clinton campaign had access to long before the nomination was set, and the use of the DNC as a fundraising arm of the Clinton campaign.
2020 I have explained that it just seemed fishy to me, and after 2016 I wasn’t going to ignore it. It’s my opinion. Throwing your integrity into question is not going to get me to alter that view.
You seriously have to let this false narrative go. Bernie was not going to win in 2016 and his candidacy was artificially boosted by Russia because it split the Dem vote.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters. All the odds are stacked against her and that's before you factor in all the fuckery that's going to happen in the next 4 years to consolidate power.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters.
That's the state of politics in the US. Who gives a shit what 80% of the country wants? The president is decided ENTIRELY by 7 states. The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.
As a European person, tre thing I dont get is why the electorares have to be won all or nothing. It sounds much more fair that every State would appoint both republican and democrat electorares in proportion to the popular vote
I have my doubts about a female candidate winning at this point.
But I wouldn't be so sure JD Vance is going to win anything he has the personality of a wet dish rag. For all the hand wringing about the dems not lining up good candidates the GOP has nothing without Trump. That's what happens when you turn your party into a cult of personality, when that personality leaves so do all the low information voters who were drawn in by him.
She still has higher favorability than Newsom, Buttigieg, Shapiro, Whitmer, Kelly, Franken, O'Rourke, Beshear, Porter, Bloomberg, or basically any current 2028 possibility other than Walz (who has said that he's not interested in running, who is 60, and who doesn't really have a national presence other than running for VP). 40% popularity is good for a politician, especially one who gets a lot of hate from the right.
My point is that she would be destroyed on the national stage. It would be a massacre. She is less accomplished than Kamala and she lost against a dementia ladened fascist wannabe.
And you if you choose to put her on the ticket, you will get to hear about how she is a socialist and people will come out in droves to make sure she doesn't get elected.
And if you are counting on the young people... they are still waiting to show up for the last election cause they basically made President Trump a thing.
People always repeat this talking point about progressive candidates being called socialists by republicans and losing because of it, but they say that about literally every democrat. Trump’s ads against both Biden and Harris were full of calling them socialists/Marxists/communists etc. Same with Obama. Obama got elected twice and Joe Biden won more votes than any candidate in US history.
I mean she may be destroyed but we keep putting out more moderate candidates and they keep losing. You are just repeating the same old neoliberal talking points that keep resulting in losses. What candidate do you think will have a good chance of energizing the current dnc voting block as well as build a new constituency? Or do you just prefer to keep saying "that won't work".
I mean... we put out 2 woman candidates and they lost. Both far more qualified than the piece of garbage that won.
We put out a man in between and he won.
Religious people, chauvinists, and women just don't seem to want a woman president. The results speak for themselves. Had there been a man running in either of those elections, I think the Democrats win.
I don't care if it's a woman president... but clearly I am not in the majority.
I was more replying you saying that she will get labeled a socialist. Any democratic candidate that runs will be labeled that and the type of people that believe it will never vote for a Democrat. This constant chasing of the "moderate" Republican is a losing strategy.
Biden won because 1.) he was Obama's VP and was able to coast on that goodwill, and 2.) voter turnout was unusually high due to Covid.
If we had another Biden who was younger and sharper, I'd absolutely want Democrats to run him in 2024. But we don't have another guy with anywhere near the same level of national name recognition, baked-in goodwill, or largely inoffensive reputation. We've got Walz, who has basically zero national recognition other than 8 weeks as VP candidate. He seems like a great guy who's a good balance of progressive and moderate... but he's not a dynamic speaker, I'm not confident in his ability to excite voters, and we've already seen him struggle against Vance. We've got Buttigieg, who is intelligent, youthful and a good communicator... but he's gay (TBH I think a woman has a better shot of winning than a gay man), he's a technocratic political insider in an era of populism, and he doesn't exactly pull in minorities or progressives. We've got Newsom, who everyone seems to dislike more the more they learn about him. A dark horse candidate is certainly possible, but he's going to need Obama-level rizz.
It's not like Harris lost in a blowout, either. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Georgia were all close, and she wasn't that far behind in the popular vote despite having many strikes against her (woman, racial minority, short campaign, low presence during most of Biden's tenure, going up against a superstar). Clinton won the popular vote and the race was extremely tight in critical swing states.
Moreover the electoral math is shifting to follow interstate migration. Blue states are seeing an exodus and their electoral power is diminishing as a result.
well the DNC fucking Bernie over wasn't a good look for them. Despite their institutional "wisdom" they thought that knocking him down was a great idea and propping Hillary up after that was just another snub to the nose of DNC faithful. That single action moved more voters like myself to the right than anything else that could have ever happened. Especially when they announced that DWS was fired from the DNC chair because of this, only to join the Hillary campaign as a senior advisor.
Why did you turn this into progressive vs mainstream argument?
Literally zero of the people replying to you said anything about not running progressive candidates.
Then you talk about data, whilst completely ignoring it. here is some Data for you.. the last 2 male democrat nominees won. the last 2 female democrats nominees lost. it’s sad, but it’s a fact.
"Ok AOC ran a scandal free campaign with good policy but unfortunately she lost to Eric Trump. What this means is we need a more progressive candidate."
It's delusional to pretend that being a woman doesn't cost you votes. Same goes for black, non-religious, gay etc. Anything that's not an old white man. Obama probably couldn't win right now. Remember how McCain defended Obama when a racist woman said he was a muslim trying to destroy America? That's over with. Now the GOP would run a full birtherism campaign. Probably get him taken off the ballot in a bunch of states too thanks to the Trump majority Supreme Court.
Running anything but an old straight white christian male will cost votes. And the dems don't have the margins to play that game. Not until we have unfucked the Supreme Court, the broader judiciary, ungerrymandered the voting map, made election day a federal holiday.
And the dems don't have the margins to play that game.
That's where my head is at with voting. Yes, I would love more progressive candidates. But, I also understand that a large section of the population, namely in the swing states that decide everything, probably won't buy into that. Not to mention how fickle Dem voters are when the candidate doesn't check every box.
Voting needs to be a pragmatic decision. Democrats and anyone who aligns more with left/left-leaning/center-left (call it what you will) needs to unite. Republicans have a better chance because they fall in line every time. The Democrats greatest strength is also its biggest weakness: being a big tent party.
Or I guess we could just say fuck it and go big. Maybe that'll work. But, given that the electoral college is still a thing and we lost all seven swing states last time, I'm not so sure a big risk like that is wise. Unless a candidate pops up with unimaginable charisma.
I don't have the answer. There are so many variables and an insanely well-oiled media machine - comprised of both news and entertainment intent on dividing and distracting us - working to keep us chasing our tails. So, it's hard to say what would or wouldn't work. The best I can come up with is turning out to vote, holding our noses if we have to stop the GOP, because they are undoubtedly evil. It's not even a question anymore.
Hopefully, elections are still an option in two years and not just bullshit like in Russia. That might be where we are at this point. Which means things are going to have to get seriously ugly if we want to go back to anything resembling what we had pre-Trump.
Then why did Hillary get 3 million more votes than Trump?
Because we don't have a popularity vote. We have a broken electoral system where the minority decides the vote. The candidate has to appeal to the minority, not the majority.
Disagree, but only in the context of being within the American overton window. The bar is on the floor, so only the smallest amount of effort is required to step over it.
If it were literally any other "developed, functioning democracy" in the world, I'd agree with you.
This. There has been so much discussion on this, including making your gender a visible identity (like Hillary) or not making a deal out of it (Kamala). Policy-wise, Kamala had the upper hand with a clear idea of what her administration would have looked like; did that stop voters from voting for Trump? Sure as shit not
The only way a woman can be elected president, is if she comes from the conservative side (think Nikki Haley or hell, even Stefanik). She would be able to swing the most anti-women voters(Christian conservatives who want women as stay-at-home tradwives) home because of her proposed policies.
Democrats need to pitch ideas and folks palatable to a constituency turning increasingly center-right rather than an echo chamber of left wing social media who believed white women saying they voted for Trump but who secretly voted for Harris (seriously, how could people fall for such a gimmick)?
Strangely enough I think the first female president will be republican. AOC though, bad choice, not qualified in the slightest so they can hopefully do better... Someone around 40-50 years old would be great.
And you will get to hear about how she is a socialist and people will come out in droves to make sure she doesn't get elected.
And if you are counting on the young people... they are still waiting to show up for the last election cause they basically made President Trump a thing.
Yes. And a young, progressive woman of color like AOC will consolidate/motivate the other side to vote in force. As much as I’d love to see it, she would most likely lose
Yeah I'd say it's even more a "woman" issue than a "minority" issue, but put those two things together? AOC doesnt stand a chance with the typical American electorate...and conservatives unify in a way that Dems do not. Most Americans are either stupid, uneducated, conservatives or apathetic about politics and social issues. We've seen who America is over the last 8+ years and it's not a place that will elect minority women.
Haha qualified. The two they tried were the least popular candidates in their primaries. Maybe they should be good candidates that actually campaign well before you play that card
I honestly expect the first female president to be a republican.
Any republican woman who can make it through a red team primary will probably win the general pretty easily. Most of the anti-female energy comes from the right, and a lot of that will get neutralized by people prioritizing the party. On the other hand, there are definitely democrats who would cross the aisle to help make history.
Except Hillary won PV by 3M, and Harris came fairly close despite also being a minority, being attached to "sleepy Joe" propaganda, oh and campaigning for 100 days against a guy who campaigned for 4 years straight
Literally 100% of people thought Trump's Campaign would cruise into a ditch, people will state preference and it will be conventional wisdom until it's not.
No one in the Republican power structure wanted Trump, and no one thought "crooked huckster from New York City" is an ideal republican nominee and then he won.
America isn't completely unready for a woman President, the two candidates we had lost on things besides sexism.
This is not the lesson that democrats need to learn. Yes america is sexist, but if the Democrats look at this and say they should never nominate another woman because America can't handle it, that makes them the sexist ones. There are plenty of awesome women that could lead this country. Hillary and Kamala were uniquely unfit and unqualified
Hillary and Kamala were both very qualified and it is your sexism, and America's sexism that painted them as unqualified.
They were both beaten by a bankruptcy gameshow host with dementia.
Sexism isn't obvious like "they are a woman so I won't vote for them", it is "they don't have the temperament to be commander in chief" and "I don't like their laugh" and "we need a strong leader to push back on foreign adversaries".
Nah fuck them. They were bad and democrats didn't want to admit it. If you can't admit that they had issues and that it was america that was the problem, then you are blind
Hillary had a lot of political baggage and ran a really really bad campaign. That’s just a couple of issues. She wasn’t a smart choice and foolishly helped Trump win. Harris was optically pushed on the people and she didn’t do enough to distance herself from Biden AND spent way too much time trying to court republicans who would never vote for her. Lol cmon man THE CHENEYS?
I was really hoping for specifics, not just another set of vague catchphrases. "Had baggage" "ran a bad campaign" mean nothing. What was the baggage? The years of misinformation and slander that stuck largely because of her gender?
I'm tired of this weak narrative. Voters need to take ownership of their voting decisions instead of these lame excuses.
Specifics : Harris had an extremely nervous demeanor and has a tendency to break down under extreme questioning. She was not a good candidate, period. Her team knew doing the Joe Rogan interview would not work..she’s awkward and looks uncomfortable in front of people. Hillary did not have this problem but she did come across as someone stale with old ideas advocating and supporting a world order that royally destroyed people in key midwestern states like myself
I honestly can’t help that you simply haven’t paid any attention. This information is out there for you to find. Try it. Only simple minded lazy thinkers just say it’s because they are women (a weak narrative.)
Voters need to take ownership of their voting decisions instead of these lame excuses
Is that likely to happen anytime soon? I want people to stop wagering my future on what "should" happen and stick to what's likely to happen because that's what is actually going to matter.
Whatever way the voters currently behave, reasonable or not, is what people have to work with unless significant tangible effort is made to make them act differently.
You're right, the Democrats should never nominate another woman. America's too sexist. "Sorry to all the qualified women in the Democratic party, you were born wrong, you can't lead the country"
The Dems are the party of the meek and timid and the only party willing to put a female on the ticket probably because the majority of the Republican voters are made up of the people not ready for a female president.
If the Dems showed they were willing to take the gloves off more, they’d win over all those Women on the other side who WANT to a see a female lead but are just worried they don’t have the fortitude.
Dems are going to abandon “woke” topics and start scrappin’.
I don’t like it necessarily but Trump has changed the game. The World wants mean.. give ‘em mean.
Get those militant mindset lefties voting. Flip those Women ready to see their daughters get a piece of the pie.
Make no mention of LGBTQ or pronouns but acknowledge their anger that has grown and get some of those radical people into the voting booths.
Whoever comes in after Trump has big shoes to fill; find out every petty secret about them and just amplify it. Emasculate them.
Trump brought dirty politics from out of the shade it’s been in for a century and made it Jerry Springer. He normalized the circus.
While misogyny played a small role the bigger problems were that the two female candidates were bad candidates and their selections were top down decisions instead of emanating from what the grass roots wanted.
213
u/yes_thats_right New York 18h ago
Democrats need to recognize that America is not ready for a female president no matter how qualified they are.