90
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
90 points (92.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2929 readers
621 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
AOC
Can we clone her so she can run for President, and Schumer's seat at the same time?
The 2016 and 2024 elections have shown us that Americans would rather let Trump win than vote for a woman.
AOC isn’t popular enough outside of her fan base to win a national election.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
And she was Hillary Clinton. Imagine what you could do with someome that doesn't campaign with Henry Kissinger and have Bill Clinton as a husband.
True! I didn't mention that because there's no need to over-argue. When this specious idea that American voters would never choose a woman for President comes up, it's sufficient to point out that American voters chose a woman for President in 2016. Done, argument disposed of.
DNC partisans only seem to bring it up to try to tank the potential candidacy of center-left women like Ocasio Cortez, perhaps because she might win. Sanders pulled between 6 and 12% of his support in 2016 from Republican voters; that would've been more than enough to win the swing states and the electoral college vote. He and AOC are now out there stirring up excitement from that same crowd.
And, really, am I to believe that if the GQP nominated, say, Noem in 2028 that it'd make a damn bit of difference to its base that she's a woman?
If that's the lesson you learned from those elections then you're not paying as much attention as you think you are.
Or they just don't want one woman in particular to run.
I realize that is a popular opinion here on lemmy.
But, you don’t seem to realize that lemmy doesn’t reflect what American voters vote for.
Maybe stop supporting people who rig primaries in favor of establishment candidates then. The last progressive candidate we ran (Obama) won handily twice in a row. Your guys have barely eked out one win out of three against a modern day Hitler. One would expect a better track record behind the level of dogmatic certainty you 90s Republicans display.
Before Obama, Bill Clinton won two terms in a row.
Bill Clinton is not progressive. This would indicate the two term win wasn’t related to the progressive stance.
There are plenty examples of progressives winning primaries and losing elections. And progressives politicians are pretty rare to begin with. This shows how few American voters actually lean left.
Hillary stole the primary from Bernie because she had invested in the DNC for her own self gain, sure. But that doesn’t mean Bernie would’ve won the election.
Bill Clinton ran populist left in 1992, including running on sweeping labor reform and Universal Healthcare. The thing he went economically right on was NAFTA and that nearly killed him with Perot. He swung hard right with "triangulation" after the election (like Obama)
In 1996 he ran against Bob Dole.
What you don't seem to realize is that in 2016 more American voters voted for Clinton. It's a popular opinion here on Lemmy, and statistically, the majority of voters also believe that, so I guess that makes you wrong.
It’s a popular opinion on lemmy that democrats should’ve known that Hillary couldn’t beat Trump. Yet she got the popular vote.
This is another example of lemmy not reflecting what actual voters choose.