Glad to hear you have had this epiphany, no matter how you came to it. I’ll be the first to say “good for you!” if you prove your sincerity by dropping out of politics and donating the substantial monetary gains you made via your influence and insider knowledge to worthy charities, preferably those helping people you harmed by your toxic influence. Then, having proved that you’ve really changed, you may legitimately continue speaking out against political hate and violence as a penance.

Black men got the vote (1870)** long before women did (1920). The civil rights movement also preceded the women’s rights movement.

** Of course it wasn’t so easy for them to exercise that right.

Disclaimer: My comment which follows does not apply to fans and supporters of a candidate. It applies to a difference in how male and female candidates are referred to in the media.

When our society reaches the stage where TV pundits, political blog writers, etc. stop referring to women candidates by just their first name (almost every time) in the same context that they continue referring to men candidates using their last name, or title + last name, then maybe I’ll believe the US is ready to elect a woman president.

(edit: I should add to that list, also when even the opposing side will use her last name same as they do with male candidates that they are against, meaning that they may hate her but still have at least that much respect for her as a candidate)

Thanks. Did you try searching for “unlikeable” instead of “likeable”? Here’s one about that. I suspect the UK isn’t much different.

(edit to add a quote from AOC in that article:)

When you call Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris ‘unlikeable’, that’s an unsubstantial, unsubstantive, fluff, bulls**t, misogynistic word to use. Unlikeable? What is that? It’s not a policy critique.” --AOC

Definitely agree, AOC would be most effective in and have the best chance to win Schumer’s seat.

Oh, they definitely are.

Ah, so the problem is the women weren’t “likeable” enough, got it. I heard they were too bossy, too. And too aggressive. Yeah.

Probably because the US is such a religious conservative country. Christianity (especially evangelical and more conservative type), patriarchy and authoritarianism go together, and that’s who the great majority of his voters were.

Considering trump won twice against women but lost when he ran against a man, it seems the majority of voters would rather elect any man than any woman, even if that man is seriously flawed on every imaginable level. Only when both candidates were men were factors other than gender given more weight.

Could be!

After trailing by more than 10,000 votes the day after the election, Wilson, 43, chipped away at Mayor Bruce Harrell’s margin as late-counted ballots broke her way. She took a tiny lead in Monday’s count, and with Tuesday’s additions, Wilson is now ahead by 1,346 votes.

I hope this helps people realize just how important every vote is.

Whenever he tries to repeat the patient, over-simplified explanations that have been given to him and screws it up because he still didn’t understand what they were talking about, I picture the scenes that must be occurring on a regular basis:

People standing around him, some drawing pictures, others arranging things on the table, “Say this coffee mug is the nuclear enrichment facility, and this pen is the Tomahawk missile. It goes woooooooooooooooooo through the sky…”

They couldn’t stop Mamdani even with huge influx of $$ from the oligarchs. Obviously every state is different and you can’t get people to vote for a Mamdani or AOC in many of them, but you can get someone more progressive than before. They only have so much money and have to triage where to spend it.

They always choose who takes the heat for unpopular votes based on safety. The only two of the 8 Senators that voted for this whose seat is up in in 2026 are two that are retiring after this term (Durbin and Shaheen). So IL and NH people can vote in 2026 primaries for the most progressive candidate.

The rest don’t come up until '28 or '30 and they expect you to forget by then. But how about if instead, people in their state use that time to find and recruit good progressive candidates to primary them with? Don’t forget their names! Primary them! Your vote counts way more in the primaries because so few turn out for them, so if you skip them, you’re letting other people choose your candidates for you and just keep getting more of the same.

Of those eight seats, only two are up in 2026, and those two Senators (Durbin, Shaheen) are not running for reelection. The others aren’t up until 2028 or 2030. That’s how they do these things. No one up in 2026 would have voted for it.

That just means he found enough Dem Senators to take the heat so he didn’t have to also vote for it. It’s not like he said “Hold the line” and those 8 defied him. No, it was all agreed to between him and them. This is what he wanted. As minority leader the blame is on him in spite of his ‘no’ vote.

WTF. Senate Dems got rewarded in the elections for showing some spine and holding out for healthcare, then as soon as the elections were over, in spite of voters putting them in an even stronger position with the wide margins of victory, what did they do? they fucking caved like the weak little bitches they are.

All the suffering people have been going through during the shutdown has been for absolutely nothing. They didn’t even get a damn one-year extension on subsidies (which BTW are windfalls for insurance companies but until we reform healthcare it’s the best we have for now). It was suppoosed to be not just about the ACA subsidies, but also the Medicaid cuts.

Jeffries wants the House to reject the bill and most House Dems seem to be ready to do that. Keep screaming and contact your rep (politely). There are some repubs also against it, so this shit deal can still be prevented by the House, if the Dems stick together and a few repubs also vote No.

Cute, but of course it’s fake, a ‘feel-good’ post for the left. Some of the phrasing (‘we see you’, ‘Sit down’, etc) exposes this as someone on the left impersonating a magat. MAGA simply does not talk like that.

Look at the profile and timeline. It’s all anti-trump, anti-repub stuff, just done in a way to sound like coming from a conservative POV. No posts bashing Democrats which a real maga account would definitely have.

I don’t see how it downplays at all how good a candidate he was, if anything it shows how good he must have been to overcome his own party’s elite trying to stop him. My point is that they might have stopped him, if it weren’t for the people who turned out in the primary. Just think what quality candidates we could get if people would support them in the primaries, instead of waiting until the general and seeing who other people chose in the primary and then being disappointed. My point is we need to turn out for the primaries. When potential candidates see voters supporting progressive candidates more will decide to run because they’ll know they have a chance.

When the Democrats do offer an alternative like Mamdani, people show up.

I’d like to rephrase that to make a point: When progressive voters show up and vote in the primaries for the more progressive candidate, there’s more likely to be a more progressive Democratic candidate on the ballot in the general and people will show up for them.

Point is the Democratic Party powers that be did not willingly “offer an alternative like Mamdani”. They hated that he was the candidate and tried to get Cuomo elected instead. Mamdani was only “offered” thanks to the voters who showed up and voted for him in the primary.

This is just one example of why the Christian Nationalists want to do away with the Constitution. Especially that pesky First Amendment with those godless Freedoms of Religion, Speech, Press, and Assembly! It totally undermines the authority of the Theocracy they are working to establish and so must be abolished!

Once they have the Theocracy in place, the sectarian wars will quickly begin. Which christian sect will prevail? Place your bets!