• madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    I love AOC and wish you were wrong… Buy after two women losing in a row to the biggest piece of shit imaginable I just don’t have trust nor desire to roll the dice again.

    • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I don’t think it was strictly sexism and racism that led to their failure. Clinton was an elitist insider who arrogantly thought the presidency was “her turn” as part of a political dynasty while working with the DNC and the other establishment candidates to sabotage Sanders’ campaign. I was pissed learning of her leaked emails collaborating with DNC administrators to thwart Sanders every step of the way.

      Harris was a milquetoast politician who was basically appointed to be the Democrat candidate when Biden announced he wouldn’t run for a second term long after the primaries could have been held. Could she have done a better job had she distanced herself from Biden’s foreign policies? Possibly, but she held firm to the status quo which was not gonna fly with a lot of those who knew the horrors Israel was inflicting on Palestinian civilians.

      A lot of us on the left have this notion that our candidate has to be near perfect to win their vote and that also tends to hurt their chances. Couple that with the DNC getting high on its own neoliberal farts and you tend to get a losing combination.

      AOC doesn’t have the same kind of baggage that made both Clinton and Harris undesirable to many so there’s a better chance she could make it, especially with the way Trump has ratfucked the US and the world at large. Her championing Sanders’ policies will also be a big boost to those who want a more affordable and equitable life too.

    • Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I’d love for her or someone like her to win. 28 isn’t the right year though. It’s going to be a shitshow and likely years of partisan crap. We need a good progressive dem to win with massive wins in both senate and house to be able to push and solidify policies

      28 pres is going to have to punish Trump and cronies which would distract from good policies so I’d rather those wait a few years and they make sure we never have this issue again. Both at once would be great ofc by that’s setting huge expectations.

      Having her run in 32 or 36 with 8 years to fully push progressive policies and not have to deal with punishing Trump and others would be amazing

      • Krumm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I think she can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why do you think she cannot both govern policies and execute the law? First day, make Tom Massie R-Kentucky special council over the Epstein Files and tell him to run that show into the ground. Tell him to speak for young girls everywhere and show some accountability for the monsters in power. Satan almighty Democrats advertise like shit. We can do these things!

        • Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s more so I’d rather not have her legacy and time spent cleaning up all the shit and instead have even more support from congress so she could pass huge amounts of reforms

          Need to flip a lot of seats before a dem president can do much. Republicans don’t care about breaking the law and having a do nothing congress so can skate with low margins there

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        She could be a VP pick in the meantime. Or even cabinet.

        In fact, I think she would do more good for turnout and for the party as a VP pick to than as a presidential candidate.

        I hate to say it but half the country is either a racist, sexist piece of shit, or is in an abusive and controlling relationship with someone who is. As a result, I think having her as the presidential candidate would do more harm than good.

        • Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I just wish the vp was a better role. As a congress woman she can still do a lot and push laws.

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Same. I love AOC and hold that Clinton and Harris lost primarily because they were unexciting centrists, but I’d prefer not to duplicate any of the variables with the stakes this high.

    • NekoKoneko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I understand this and go back-and-forth sometimes internally. But there’s a lot of women-only or women-leading statewide seats, governorships, Senate seats even in conservative states.

      I think right-wingers who wouldn’t vote for her anyway are a lot of duplication with sexist voters, and sexism may just be the lowest-hanging excuse they’ll have for hating her. And it will definitely bleed into sexist propaganda in right echo chambers. But I’m not sure it would be enough to stop a good candidate, which I think she’d be.