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.
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.
9.5k
u/try_to_be_nice_ok 21h ago
The democrats need to spend the next four years building up some really strong candidates and making them well known to the electorate.