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
While I do think she has gone against the grain of the broken system and would be a great choice, thinking another woman and especially a woman is color will win over the racist misogynistic US populace, I think you'll be disappointed.
But who knows what will come of an actual fair primary if we even have elections in the future.
Obama won, with record turnout and vote count. Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, despite her severe unlikeability and controversial history.
While it is important to recognize the role that white supremacy and misogyny have, it has demonstrably not been a hard ceiling.
What if the US populace is not misogynistic. Perhaps Clinton and Harris were just bad candidates.
It's always "it's not all women, just not this woman" when it comes to presidential misogyny.
I think the best bet for getting a woman in the white house is to have a major TV show where a popular actress plays the president, and then have that actress run for president afterwards. Americans are so unimaginative that they probably need the visual example, and then some are probably stupid enough to think they're voting for the incumbent.
To illustrate your point. Americans would vote for Oprah.
Dear gods no she gave us Dr Phil it's the tv version of the clap
I didn't say she would (or wouldn't) be a good president. I'm just saying people would definitely vote for her.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just registering my horror early in case this happens. You know what they say, if you can't be happy, you might as well be right.
It worked for donvict after he was given that GD game show - a whole lot of people think he's a businessman, and a successful one at that.
Clinton still won the popular, and Harris had the background of inflation. I think if AOC had similar circumstances, she probably would have lost, too. Even though I would looooove to see her as President.
Now, maybe, if she runs after 4 years of donvict fucking all kinds of things up....hard to say. She'd probably be running against "JD" "Vance" who is a white guy, so....
I don't think gender or color is as big a barrier than who the person is. IMO Harris was a better choice than Clinton, still a piss poor choice, not even close to someone I would choose to vote for. If I had a choice that is. Pick a woman of any color that has the fight in her and the policies and fortitude to follow through on an actual populist agenda; I think she would succeed.
I think we've had enough of the "we hope we might be able to give you the change that you mandated but we're not really gonna try and if you point that out FUCK YOU!" candidate the dems always push on us.
She doesn't need to win over the racists. If there's anything we can learn from the last few election cycles is that you win elections by convincing your existing base to go out and vote, and to do that you need to give them something to believe in and something to vote for.
I think AOC would absolutely kill that.
I certainly can't prove this and it may be me being optimistic but I don't buy the "it's just misogyny" claim. Clinton and Harris represent the two furthest right candidates that have ever run for president on the Dem side and I think their spectacular failures owe more to that than anything else.
Okay, this notion is just incorrect. Harris, during her time as senator, was one of the most left leaning senators out of all Democrats. Her votes almost completely aligned with Bernie Sanders.
Was misogyny THE reason Harris loss, probably not; but it definitely played a meaningful role. During the campaign race, there were a lot of information being pushed to American citizens. It was up to us to process the information and choose what to believe and what to throw away. Post-election, we are learning that people were judging Harris based on false premises. Americans were willing to believe a lot of bullshit about Harris, whereas Trump got the opposite treatment: Americans willingfully ignored terrible truths about Trump. I think misogyny played a role in defining this difference in how we treated information regarding each candidates.
Senator Harris would have been a far better candidate than Presidential Hopeful Harris.
I was initially accepting that she had a chance at winning precisely because of her liberal senate career... unfortunately whether because she changed genuinely or because dumbass political consultants told her to shift strategy she ended up taking a hard right turn during the campaign. Maybe it didn't help that Walz was so obviously more progressive than her. Maybe Russian interference really did amplify pro-Palestinian voices. Who knows.
I genuinely believe Warren and AoC would out perform the shitshow Harris delivered.
I will say that picking him was a stroke of genius, though. Any chance of getting an AOC/Walz ticket? Or a Walz/AOC ticket?
That’s the whole point of the primary. To find out. We had no primary for Harris.
Or Biden really.
Haven't had a primary without a preordained winner since 2008.
Been calling this for the past week. The "Harris lost because she's a woman of color" narrative was an excuse for blocking an AOC run.
Harris lost because moving to the right doesn't peel off Republican votes, but it sure as fuck alienates the base.