• DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I remember bullshit like this being spewed about Obama, too. “Obama is too green!” “a black man could NEVER be president. We have never had one before, after all!” (Or are you too young to remember that? I forget there are adults on here now who weren’t even 2-years-old when he was elected.)

      … Cue him defeating 2 white successful men by large margins. Doh. Think this through and stop parroting wedge-driving sexist gatekeeping conservative propaganda.

      • bestagon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Also Hillary was a famously unpopular candidate and still won the popular vote, and there were maaaany confounding factors to a weak democratic race in 2024 apart from Kamala’s gender

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          She was at one point one of the most popular politicians in America, actually. She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders. People decided she was awful once she started running for president and Social Media campaigns told everyone what to think about her.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              My point being that no matter who we run there will be vicious smear campaigns attacking their character.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Actually Bernie Sanders was outperforming Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Trump poll after poll.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders.

                If Sanders outperforms Hillary with the general population against their competitor, then they are not “alongside” — Sanders is, in fact, ahead.

                Word definitions matter!

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Got it so if you had a list of the top 5 candidates and Bernie were in the list then you would get really upset that somebody claimed he was top 5 and not top 1 or 2?

                  • lennybird@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    Buddy, I was just adding context and it seems you took it personally or something. Yous aid alongside and I clarified that Sanders was performing better. Just facts. That’s all.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        How many black candidates lost to white candidates in a post-primary presidential race?

        That’s right, zero.

        How many female candidates have lost to male candidates in a post-primary presidential race?

        Two, or in other words, all of them.

        You can make an argument to say that there was racist gatekeeping back when Obama was running, and that was absolutely true, but we never actually had a situation where a political party fronted a black man and lost. We actually do have data that shows that America rejected a female presidential candidate twice. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that America simply isn’t socially developed enough to be capable of looking past the misogyny and we should take that into consideration if our goal is to win.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Ar… Are you really going to use Samples N=1 and N=2 as some sort of statistical relevance? Wtaf?

          This logic is most asinine. By that logic, the vast majority of Presidential losses were of white men, and my sample is higher!

          Two non-charismatic inauthentic candidates lost, and race and gender had little to do with it because the bigots already coalesce under the maga banner; the problem was that their lack of vision, charisma, authenticity led to the reachable swing-voters either sitting on the couch, or voting for Trump on failed perceptions that he was better for the economy.

          • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            When your logic is absolutely ignoring entire swaths of reality, I think its interesting for you to try to attack someone elses logic.

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            So I guess your excuse if AOC or whatever female candidate the DNC happen to trot out next loses to the next guy, be that JD Vance, some other MAGA nutjob, or even Trump taking a shot at a third term, is that she isn’t charismatic or authentic, is that right?

            No, no, it couldn’t possibly be because America has a misogyny problem. I mean, never mind the fact that black men earned the right to vote before any woman did, that’s not relevant at all. History never repeats itself. I’m sure those basement dwelling neckbeards and macho-man wanna-bes will TOTALLY sign on to canvas for AOC. I’m sure her being a woman will not be a factor at all, people will be so enamored with her great policy that they will forget about it entirely!

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              I think it’s hilarious that if we put Tim Kaine or Biden himself (who was losing by a larger margin than Harris in polling) in, they would’ve lost just the same if not more so… Yet you wouldn’t be here saying, “Golly gee-wizz, I think people are sexist and tired of old white men! I mean, the majority registered voters ARE women after all!” — Therein revealing one’s own gatekeeping sexist dogma.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Idk if it’s too early to talk about it, but part of the process is definitely weighing the pros and cons.