politics

Unlike Kamala and Clinton she actually believes in something, and not just the Dems' very rich corporate donors.

look at Zohran Mamdani in New York. He's a Muslim, foreign born, socialist. Plenty of things that by the same logic would make him loose. But he won the primary and odds are he'll Winn the mayor position.

In all likelihood, yes, she will lose.

But she should still run for the same reasons Bernie ran. Change the discourse and prevent unfettered ratcheting of the Overton window; force Democrats to respond to her challenge.

If she doesn't run, we all lose. Winning isn't quite everything.

To be fair, Clinton and Harris and the platform were not particularly exciting, and they played by the old rules.

Misogyny may have been a contributing factor, but not being bold, exciting, or authentic sure as hell didn’t help.

Harris and Clinton both had major structural issues that went beyond their gender. I'm not ignoring the reality that women face a greater uphill battle--they need to be downright perfect in order to even get fair consideration--but I don't think that the fact that they are women was the only factor. I'm not even positive that it would be a deciding factor against someone who isn't Trump. His particular brand of politics really only works for him, somehow.

This is the type of thinking that will keep the status quo the status quo.

"Things can't change oh well!"

Losing the nomination would not be the end for AOC. But as a champion for the "Democratic Socialist" wind of the Democrats there's really not a better candidate to speak at the primaries and ensure that even in a primary loss the eventual winner adds parts their goals to the administrations goals.

This is why the "Christian Conservatives" always run a few candidates in the Republican party, and why they've always got a spot in the Republican party platform.

The fact that Harris got as close as she did with so little time proves that she didn't lose because she's a woman. She lost because her policies sucked. Run someone who is honest and trying to help the people and I'd bet they do well, man, woman, or otherwise (OK, maybe a trans candidate actually couldn't win for now).

The people saying those two lost because they're women are ignorant. They lost because they were shitty candidates. More men have lost than women, and no one says it's because they were men. It's just an easy excuse to ignore that people don't like corporate ass kissers who fuck over the average person to help the rich.

You could say also they’d rather select that than a qualified “person”. Should no opposition ever run again? Or is it clear that she was not chosen because of her gender? Maybe so, but that feels to me like it completely overlooks that there could be anything about her personality or positions responsible.

I’m not comfortable saying AOC or any other woman is a non-starter because other women have failed. A lot of people have failed before and at some point perhaps one will be selected. I think she would be a good choice, and more appealing to many than Kamala, I suspect.

We tried. I watched rank choice requests fail time and time again, because people vote against it thanks to smear campaigns.

My buddy is in a city with rank choice, and after the most recent election, there was a push to get rid of it again. You can tell by who.

Instead what we have are Republicans trying to outlaw ranked choice voting... They've already had right wing media brainwashing the people into believing it's a really bad thing...

I don't know if she should win the nomination,

Her winning the nomination would be Schumer and Pelosi's worst nightmare. They would 100 percent rather lose to Trump than let that happen.

"This DNC won't help any specific candidate in a primary"

I'll believe that when I see it.

...but they won’t work against a specific candidate either.

Absolutely demonstrably untrue.

They will definitely work against specific candidates.

They will change rules and ask super-delegates to ignore voters and choose their preferred candidate, the news networks most closely aligned with the DNC's goals will literally put a camera in front of an empty mic stand for 40 mins rather than show the candidate they don't want. They will compare that candidate winning states during the primary literally to Hitler saying it's like "the fall of Paris" or compare the supporters of the guy whose own extended family was murdered in the Holocaust to "brownshirts.".

They will support anti-choice Ds over progressives in primaries while claiming neutrality.

The DNC isn't representative of its constituents. They are the rich's secondary defense against "the left" (meaning anything even slightly to the left of 1990s Clinton policies).

I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don't really care about fixing our international reputation atm. I'm worried about stopping the country from falling apart first. We can fix all the international stuff after.

Dr: "Ok, you passed: you have normal, average, cognitive function"

Trump: "Just ACED my cognitive TEST. The DOCTOR SAYS I had the MOST BEAUTIFUL, most TREMENDOUS results in history, ever. He says 'I see people take this test all the time, and your results are the greatest'"

Harris/Newsom 2028 because “it’s their turn”

I agree. I want to see AOC have long-term influence over the Democratic party. We're going to need significant reconstruction over the next 4-8 years, and I personally think she would be a bit wasted in that role.

That said, we don't really have an alternative well positioned to run in '28 except Bernie, and I wouldn't blame him for not running (or people being upset about another 80+ year old president).

It's the Democrats. They still haven't realized that the game is over. Nobody's playing by the rules. Why would they start during an election?

An even moderately progressive speaker would be monumental, but unfortunately we the people don't pick the speaker.

...when i was growing up, my well-meaning parents pulled me aside to express their concern over a jewish friend dating a black friend; aghast at their comment, i immediately confronted them over its apparent racism, and they replied that they had nothing against it personally, but were instead concerned about what other people might think...

...they're f*cking balls-out fascists fourty years later, and i want no part of them in my life...

...to anyone tempted to compromise their own best interests on behalf of what other people might think: don't give them that kind of power over you, or they'll drag you down in it...