NGL I’ll take any blue tie but we’ve already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.
While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates’ loss vs. Trump.
- Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an antiestablishment era.
- Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
- Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.
I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like “socialism” scary) but most Democrat politicians aren’t willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.
This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.
Have you gone outside? Americans (even women) don’t want a woman president. We are stuck in 1890.
Unlike you I imagine, I actually door-kncoked on GOP and Independent households so yes, dare I say I’ve gone outside while in a battleground state no less.
I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary: There is no evidence Harris lost because she was a woman. Put another way, if we placed Biden in her position or if we placed an identical copy of Harris as a male, she too would’ve lost for a multitude of factors beyond the fact she was a woman (again, because no actual sexist fuck was reachable in the first place for Democrats and never are).
I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary
Twice americans chose the fascist over the woman. Now Americans won’t have free elections anymore so they will never have a female president unless her last name is Trump maybe. So I guess they got what they wanted.
Sure, there’s other factors, but even if they were exactly what voters wanted, there would be a stigma around it. I mean, even women hate women and actively vote to sabotage their own Healthcare so it’s not really based on any logic. Maybe in 20 years when the olds are gone, and IF the youngs don’t get brainwashed by Tate types, there could be a female president.
I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.
Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.
I voted for the female candidates, they both lost. The gender divide in congress is 7:18, only 28% of elected federal representatives are women. Gen Z voters were divided along gender lines between Trump and Harris. I don’t know how to fix this problem, but ignoring it is not the solution.
This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that’s not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.
-
A majority of registered voters are women.
-
A majority of actual voters are consistently women.
There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can’t run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.
This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.
There is zero evidence a woman cannot win.
I’ve got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.
Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.
Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.
We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.
28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress’. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
We’re not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We’re talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.
a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
Now intersect that with actual reachable swing-voters and Democrats.
Like I said: that tracks for core dyed-in-the-wool MAGA trash that we will never win nor want beneath our banner.
Let’s not make Faustian bargains, shall we?
Edit: Also, your facts are just incorrect, as well as interpretation:
a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.
- 23% is not 33%.
- 57% say America is “ready” and 20% were “not sure”
- Answering the question whether the rest of America is “ready” is not answering whether you believe a woman could be President.
To make it even more clear for you: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/madame-president-changing-attitudes-about-woman-president
Public willingness to vote for a woman
In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.
In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970’s and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.
Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.
In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?
-
Exactly.
Americans chose a felon rapist clown fascist over HIGHLY qualified women. Twice.
America is not even close to being ready for a female president.
If we want to lose again, run a woman. That’s the shit reality in this shitty country.
Not to mention AOC is still “green”. Clinton was a Senator, a Secretary of State, and ex-first lady. Kamala was a VP. AOC is just a member of the House.
People need to stop fantasizing and get real. It’s also WAY too early to seriously be talking about this.
Didn’t the Dems run on ‘anyone but Sanders’ and they propped up Clinton instead?
People in america still believe there is going to be an actual election in 2028?
During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.
Look … not that I have anything against women running for president … but … if we haven’t learned twice from the shitty decision making of the voter population, 2028 is not the year to test if the US can get its first woman as president AGAIN. I’m going to chalk this up as democrats just can’t stand to win and the media needs to stop encouraging that line of thinking. We’ll be lucky if there even is a 2028 election. Also, did everyone forget AOC is not in the good graces of kingmaker Pelosi?
HELL YEAH THIS COUNTRY NEEDS AOC
My right-wing friend finds AOC hot so he might actually vote for her if she runs.
I don’t understand what people aren’t getting here.
The last two female candidates to run for president, who were extraordinarily more qualified than their opponent, were denied in favor of a felon rapist clown.
If that isn’t proof that this nation is not ready for a female president, I don’t know what is.
I voted for both those female candidates. I am not against a female president. But can we exist in reality for a moment and acknowledge that if we run AOC, we’re going to lose, again? Because America isn’t ready for that shit. You will not capture independents with a female candidate. You will not capture disenfranchised Trump supporters with a female candidate. You will not win. A mayoral race is not the same as a presidential race and Mamdani is a man and that’s the country we live in.
Edit: Scroll through this comments section. This is a liberal sub. And even here it’s 50/50 about AOC running for president. She won’t win guys.
Ask yourself a question: why can’t a woman become a preacher, priest or pastor? All major US religions indoctrinate their followers from birth with the teachings that god does NOT permit women to exercise authority over men.
So if Christian and Catholic men and women believe in a core set of values and reasons for why women are not allowed to take leadership roles over men in the church, what makes anyone think they don’t or won’t apply that same logic to leadership at the political level, or ANY level?
Christians won’t let a woman lead their church, but they somehow will be OK with electing a woman into a much higher role, one that can make decisions that affect all churches/the entire world? I don’t see it.
She should run for the senate seat when chuck leaves office after he finally comes to his senses.
“After Zohran Mamdani’s win, Trump reveals how scared he is to face Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”
Yeah, because she would be running against Trump… That’s a really silly take.
Save us aoc your our only hope
Zohran Mamdani is just the democratic primary if I understand correctly. He’s not the mayor of New York yet.
I think running another woman to get absolutely trounced by the populace is a poor choice. I don’t believe the people are ready for it yet, that’s how we ended up with this. Kamala was a good candidate, but with the wrong chromosomes for a very specific swing vote.
AOC has already demonstrated her extreme willingness to fall in line for the DNC. She will not bring change.
Neoliberals are still openly hostile towards her.
Queen Neoliberal Pelosi spent more time in the lameduck period undermining AOC’s committee appointment than Trump’s Presidency.
That’s good enough for me as a leftist knowing the context that she really is about as left wing as our pathetic, deluded, propagandized, under or miseducated populace could ever elect as we are.
I don’t have any hope anymore, this nation died under Reagan and it’s just a slow falling corpse as far as I’m concerned, but for anyone looking to cling to at least borderline rational hope, someone in her position is your best bet, because she’s a known name, that matters in our shitty celebrity obsessed culture, she proves every day that a leftist can be professional and govern, that matters because leftists are painted as anarchist boogiemen without a plan in most American news media, and she’s photogenic and naturally charasmatic, which shouldn’t matter but sadly does.
There isn’t an individual to the left of her that I can think of that could conceivably get elected President in this cesspool of willful ignorance and systemically stoked division of the poors, can you? Even her becoming President would be a moonshot. That isn’t a knock on her, she’s one of about 4 members of congress (or executives in the fortune 1000) I’d give a glass of water to if they were dying of thirst, that’s a knock on our gold plated shithole and people, not her. She’s a diamond in the rough.
She’s a diamond in the rough.
True. But she won’t win a presidential election.
I agree, but I don’t think there’ll be another real election here for a long time if ever, and I’d rather vote for her than another hypercapitalist enslaver with pride ribbons(D) to stop hypercapitalist enslaver with scapegoats® yet again as I’ve done my entire life in our descent to oblivion. There’s not really rational hope either way. The capitalists won and have us by the balls in every way, including tens of millions of deluded minds that have learned to love and defend the Massas and their “free market” directly against their own interests.
Climate change is going to end planetary scale civilization in 50 years max, probably 20-30. It’s blowing past all projections because we were conservative and both couldn’t and didn’t want to consider the runaway effects. I honestly think Kamala was my last pragmatic funeral dirge vote. Give me something to vote for and I’ll show up. I haven’t had a federal level candidate to vote for in a general in my entire life though. I doubt AOC will become the first after the DNC uses every lever to end any primary run.
I disagree. Mamdhani has shown it possible to not compromise on basic human rights.
AOC has crossed the line and there is no going back. The mask cannot be put back on.
There is no harm in allying with her but she should not be the leader of the progressive movement.
She should definitely run but also let the people choose from a valid primary.
