cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5566633

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/MechCADdie on 2025-04-04 08:19:11+00:00.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 142 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    People are going to say it shouldn't be her for all the same reasons they said Obama couldn't win...

    AOC is popular enough to get the votes, and she'll actually fight while in office.

    I really hope she runs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I hope you’re right. I feel this country’s rampant sexism is far worse than its rampant racism. Either way, AOC is facing both forms of bigotry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It's not

    Venn diagram of racism and sexism is pretty much a single circle. And they'd treat an old white straight catholic conservative male just as badly.

    Don't listen to the neoliberals who blame Hillary and Harris' lose on sexism. They lost due to their conservative policies and almost conplete lack of charisma and authenticity.

    AOC is essentially the complete opposite in those regards

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hillary lost because of a multi-decade campaign against her by the right wing propaganda machines.

    Hillary lost because the only voting demographic that hates her more than Republican voters, is Dem voters.

    For valid reasons related to her unpopular policy and zero charisma.

    It doesn't matter how many comments you make denying it, people started paying attention to politics again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hot take: you’re both right.

    Right-wing spin machine had been after Hillary for years. It severely damaged her campaign.

    Hillary had no appeal to 60% of the Dem base. It severely damaged her campaign.

    AOC faces the same threat from the right-wing spin machine, but she has good policies to sell to the base.

    Sexism and racism will factor in, of course, but the strongest opposing force is the billionaire news outlets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    It's also important to note why Biden won. Trump was president and everything sucked. Four years later, dealing with long term consequences of Trump still and waiting for Biden's longer term planning to kick in there was dissatisfaction and blame was thrown. People remembered how nice 2017 and such were economically and thought "well 2020 was the pandemic" and forgot that everything was getting worse in 2019.

    So we're in a precarious position and we said "let the clown run the circus again". And so we got crammed into the little car and he drove us off a fucking cliff, just like he promised to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Didn’t Obama basically have the same platform? If anything, Hillary ran on healthcare for all while Obama didn’t in 2008. He’s certainly more charismatic and had the image of “not a typical politician”, which helped him win that primary, plus but I think he benefited from W’s economic mess and McCain unwillingness to be an asshole on the campaign trail, unlike Trump with Hillary and Kamala

    But honestly, I’m speaking anecdotally. It’s been extremely depressing how many people have told me that a woman can’t be president because being on her period will make her nuke china. But maybe people just think it’s okay to be sexist out loud more than racist these days.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Thank you for saying this. I’m a pretty aggressive feminist but I think this desire to paint the losses of Harris and Clinton on sexism alone is dangerously reductive. I strongly feel like until neoliberals categorize women losing as an individual losing and not an entire gender losing we won’t have real success there. Like, when McCain lost no one was like: WOE MEN CANT WIN it’s OVER for white men boohoo!!

    I hate when they do this boohoo shit over women while running the least charismatic rat fucked campaigns. Wearing pink and holding a sign when they need people wearing red white and blue and open carrying the constitution with brimstone fire.

    That being said, I genuinely in my heart think that AOC has a chance. As long as the controlled opposition doesn’t rat fuck her

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago*

    Who gives a shit?

    We could run Dick Cheney and they'd say the same shit about him.

    They're going to say anyone with a D by their name is a fucking communist, it literally doesn't matter what the fucking Republicans say, and there is no logical reason we should move to the right of our own voters because of what Republicans say.

    Because, and I truly hate to break this to you:

    Republicans fucking lie and Santa isn't real.

    The problem with Hillary wasn't Republicans saying she sucked because they were "scared" she lost because no one fucking likes her or her policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    She's why you're seeing Gavin run further to the right and why Booker pulled off his little stunt. I imagine a few more liberals are going to try and make a big splash in either direction in order to get some camera time before she makes her announcement.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    They are already trying to setup Kamala for 2028. I have zero faith that the Democrats are going to learn anything from their failure

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They are already trying to setup Kamala for 2028.

    Who is "they"?

    We have a DNC chair that at worst will be impartial.

    And Harris has zero chance of winning a fair primary.

    The only way a neoliberal can win a primary is if the party hands it to them.

    The only way a Republican becomes president, is if the only other choice is a neoliberals.

    The only reason the Republicans have the house, is because of "victory fund" bankrupting stat parties.

    We really didn't need much, and we got it. Which is why we desperately need to capitalize and move the Overton window as far left as possible while we can

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Impartial" like when Bernie Sanders was winning, and every Democrat decided to fold for Biden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And the "Liberal MSM" started running "Bernie loves Castro" stories left and right. Hell one of the chucklefucks at "far left MSNBC" said that if Bernie won he'd put people like himself "against the wall" invoking an image of firing squad executions...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I don't know that there's a 'we' here, as the billionaires run the Democratic Party too and have sued for the privilege of holding undemocratic primaries.

    With that said, the SHTA precipitating the historic Senate loss isn't the only historical pattern working against Trump in 2026.

    Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all entered office with control of Congress and lost control at the mid-terms, so it's highly likely that will happen again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    , as the billionaires run the Democratic Party too

    No, neoliberals have held the DNC chair for decades. And they did whatever billionaires said.

    The current chair of the DNC is not a neoliberal. He used to be Minnesota's state chair, and if he acts like he did then he'll be the most progressive chair we've had in 30 years, arguably 50 years.

    The fight over the party already happened and the neoliberals lost.

    Don't blame the new guy for what the old guy did

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I will believe it matters when I see it, and I'm doubtful 40+ years of masquerading as progressives and ruling as conservatives is going to change anytime soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    and I’m doubtful 40+ years of masquerading as progressives and ruling as conservatives is going to change anytime soon.

    Then it sounds like you're ignorant both of how the DNC works and Ken Martin's history running Minnesota's state party...

    The DNC chair is a dictator, he calls all the shots and is accountable to no one. For all intents and purposes the DNC chair is the national party.

    It's been less than two months since Martin took over the DNC. Don't blame him for what happened before he had total control.

    But seriously, look into what Minnesota has been up to. Loads of progressives and turned a battleground into a solid blue state.

    His main concern is winning elections, so he doesn't fight progressives in primaries, because that's what voters want.

    This isn't blind loyalty. If I didn't have valid reasons to support the DNC I can assure you I wouldn't be doing it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Don’t blame him for what happened before he had total control.

    Don't expect me to ignore 40+ years of history on the basis of mere promises, when broken Democratic promises paved the road to the fascism we're having to fight today. Frankly, it's unreasonable, and no one should expect Democrats to do what they say they're going to do until they demonstrate it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Really admire your optimism here, but I’m far too cynical on Dems to think this can work without a whole new party to replace them. The Democrat brand is so incredibly tarnished by corruption and disingenuousness.

    While you’re right that the DNC chair does hold a lot of power in the party, I struggle to recall a single instance in my lifetime when any dem held real power and leveraged it effectively to benefit the working class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    instance in my lifetime

    Because since Jimmy Carter the DNC chair has been further right than the Dem voters base...

    And that stopped being true about two months ago

    Did it ever occur to you why about two months ago suddenly mainstream media started being ok criticizing Dems?

    The oligarchs want us to fail. Because we just won.

    Stop doing what theyre manipulating you into doing

  • source
  • parent