I think she’s a good representative as in she didn’t get corrupt and votes the right way most of the times but I’m yet to see any proof she would be good president. I keep seeing videos about AOC “crushing” people in hearings and they always disappoint. She struggles to explain her ideas or deliver convincing message and she’s simply bad at confronting people. I think she’s over-hyped because all other candidates suck and she would get crushed in presidential elections. People really need to start looking for a candidate that can actually win.
Bingo.
I like her and I respect her and she’s on the right side of history, but she can’t win a presidential election. It takes a lot more than people who already agree with your ideology agreeing with you to win an election. You have to convince a lot of other people who don’t fully agree with you to support you, and she can’t do that.
I love AOC, but this would lead to another lost election for Dems. My dream ticket would be Mark Kelly and Adam Kinzinger. Followed by Kinzinger and AOC in the next election cycle…
The average voter doesn’t know who mark kelly is.
They don’t know where he stands.
They know where AOC stands.
Of the commonly proposed candidates for 2028, she routinely preforms best in polling in battleground states.
deleted by creator
Mark Kelly would have a solid chance. I hate that I can’t imagine AOC ever winning.
Few imagined her winning in The Bronx, and yet.
The Bronx is a bit different from the US presidential.
Don’t get me wrong, I love her, and I hope to see her as president some day. I just don’t know if now is the time to play that hand…
It’ll always be the wrong time.
Everything we’ve witnessed about this country over the last decade really indicates this isn’t the time.
And the hands are getting progressively more risky every time we lose. People are losing rights now. Fascism is here. Long shots are not called for.
When is the right time?
Rhetorical question. Your answer doesn’t matter. The people who are willing to move ahead will do so with or without you.
Not necessarily, but that’s a bit of a thought-stopper if I’m being completely honest
Well I meant it as a thought-starter, the subtext is no better time than now.
That completely ignores strategic thinking and long-term planning, which are essential parts of effective political praxis. The best option isn’t always “Do it right now.”
Have you heard the phrase “Play your cards right”? Just because you have the Queen of Spades doesn’t mean you should play her at the first possible opportunity.
Why would you endanger her political career by asking her to make a premature run for president? Even if she makes it through campaign season without being smeared into obscurity by the billionaire-funded propaganda machine, and even if she gets elected, then she still would have to start her term with the disaster inherited from the current admin, and likely spend years cleaning up the mess while being blamed for the mess that was handed to her.
She’s said herself that she still has work to do in Congress. Let her focus on that for a few more election cycles while the progressive movement builds momentum. She’ll be able to do far more as president with more progressives in Congress anyway. Especially if she can start from a sane baseline and focus on progress, not just disaster cleanup.
Running her now just seems like wasted talent, on top of recklessly endangering a relatively young political career.
Same goes for Mamdani. Let him serve a few terms as mayor, prove his policies work. Then a couple terms as governor before running for president. That maximizes the good that he can do, because after serving two terms as president his political career would essentially be over, even without being slandered by his opponents.
Women have won in districts all over this country for decades. Never been president though.
Things change.
Yup.
A white male astronaut senator with military experience who has openly stood up to Trump has a better chance than a woman of ANY qualification in this country.
That’s simply the truth in these Divided States of America.
Why Kelly? He’s pro Israel and pro big business. Pro ACA but anti medicare for all. He’s just the same old cookie cutter biden model centrist with no ideas-- that the public has already rejected as out of touch. I dont care at all that he was a navy and nasa pilot. Show me someone with ideas and a drive to lead in a positive direction? its not Kelly.
He’s just the same old cookie cutter biden model
Reminder that Biden is the only person who has beaten Trump. The two women failed.
And progress was made under Biden if you were paying attention. Maybe not tectonic shifting, but still progress. Which was a whole hell of a lot better than what we’re experiecing now.
There’s a very clear interpretation of events that the “America will never elect a woman president” completely seems to miss. Since 2008 every president that has been elected has promised significant change to help average Americans.
Obama promised hope and change as the country was in the midst of a massive recession and had just gone through a housing market crash of historic proportions.
Trump promised to drain the swamp, to self-fund his campaign and made some surprisingly progressive promises while he was campaigning (he then did absolutely none of that, jacked up the economy and grossly mishandled a global pandemic)
Biden also made some surprisingly progressive promises (and tried to pass them all in a single easy to block bill. Though in the background there were some brilliant policies which were passed)
Trump promised more change while Kamala was promising to maintain the status quo.
I think there’s a sizable voting block that just wants something to happen. They want to throw the electoral equivalent of a molotov cocktail into the mix so that maybe things will get better. They’re tired of nothing ever happening to help them and they want to reshuffle the deck so that maybe they can get a slightly better hand this time around. This is the nerve that trump found, he’s the molotov cocktail they threw into the government in the hopes for some kind of improvement. Now that that’s not working and he probably won’t be able to run again, it’s time to find the next candidate that will promise something other than “more of the same”
As a Californian, I truly believe there is no way in hell that the country will elect a Californian.
This is completely separate from the undeniable fact that Newsom has always felt like a slimy used-car salesman with his greasy slicked-back hair, and now only seems like he’ll do anything at all in the quest for MOAR POWER. There’s only so much goodwill slapping back at Trump’s tweets will get you and it certainly is nowhere near enough to get him the presidency.
As a Californian, I truly believe there is no way in hell that the country will elect a Californian.
Honestly I have to agree. California Democrats have a distinct style of politics that I don’t know if it sits well in a national election. I do wonder what happens if they seriously run a Midwestern Democrat rather than a coastal one. It completely changes the vibes when they’re from somewhere close to the outdoors and the farms, but without the baggage of a southerner
I can’t say I’m overly well informed about how politicians differ, but I think much of the rest of the country sees California as the evil west coast elites, and nothing will change their minds. Especially not Newsom.
More .world team sports.
AOC is a Zionist. Disqualified. Next?
Is she really though? I know about her seeming to vote for “defensive weapons” during a MTG ammendment vote as part of a larger negotiation, but theres also this – so maybe she just flubbed the one vote:
Yes, AOC is a Zionist. She believes Israel has a right to exist.
Yeah, AOC’s record on Israel isn’t as good as Tlaib’s or Omar’s, but it’s still better than 95% of Democrats. Only an idiot or a liar would call her a Zionist because she didn’t vote for a symbolic amendment for a bill she voted against anyway.
Also, you’ll notice that the people who gleefully brand her a Zionist or a Neoliberal never have an alternative to tell you about. They’ll tell you why every promising progressive is actually an imperialist, or why the DSA are actually corporate shills, why no one is actually a real leftist, but they never have someone they actually want to get elected. They just want to say “no,” or at best, they demand, “next,” without doing any work to find that next person.
Most people saying that kind of thing don’t believe in electoralism at all. They don’t think voting is useful. They believe in a litany of other things as alternatives, specifics depend on the group and individual.
But I found most of the people in that camp also aren’t… doing any of the alternatives they like to suggest as meaningful. It’s more like excuses to not do anything, take a “holier than thou” position, or to avoid being associated with something that could fail.
Some anarchist groups actually do “mutual aid”, which is to say, charity work effectively. Which is commendable, but also, like, not a replacement for participating in the political system that currently exists.
YUP. I once had someone tell me that the educating people on Marxism was more important that voting, because giving more people an understanding of theory would bring about a post-capitalist society. Meaning, “actually, my internet arguments are very important.”
If you don’t believe in electoralism, fair enough. It’s certainly hasn’t been serving us well the last 40 years (and especially the last ten). But if you’re going to judge everyone that engages with the political process, then you better find something better to do: join a grocery co-op, organize a union, start a commune. If voting isn’t the answer, do something else. Something besides talking. (Anecdotally, I’ve found anarchists are more likely to do something community oriented, or at least risk getting their heads kicked in at a protest, than a lot of other leftists I’ve known).
Reality: if you don’t vote or waste your vote because you’re unwilling to make the better bad choice, you are part of the problem.
This one issue voting stuff is a trap, it’s how the USA got where it is today.
Stop knee-jerking and go do something useful.
This one issue voting stuff is a trap, it’s how the USA got where it is today.
thats … BS. Issues arent all of equal importance which makes your statement nuts.
A vote on naming a post office or whether we do school vouchers is not even remotely comparable to whether the US supports and funds a genocide, or demand basic human rights for all. Anyone (like yourself) using language which equates every issue as the same is basically being deceptive and manipulative.
thats … BS. Issues arent all of equal importance which makes your statement nuts.
That’s not what they’re saying at all which makes your statement disingenuous. Why are you talking about naming post offices? It’s the idea is no single, one, issue should be enough to outweigh every single other one.
The people who didn’t vote Kamala to “protest” her on Isreal literally contributed to Trump getting elected. Making the original comment very accurate so it’s kinda wild you’re calling it “nuts”.
Voting for a lesser evil only legitimizes evil. I suppose it’s too much to ask for people to have principles though. Our childhood heroes would be ashamed of the adults we have become.
“We should all swear fealty to Saruman, because technically he’s less evil than Sauron.”
To be clear, I’m not talking about AOC, I think she has learned the error of her vote to fund the Iron Dome. But my point stands with regards to any corporate Dem.
Actually this lesser of two evils shit is how you got here.
AOC is THE only acceptable choice. She can win and she can rise to the occasion unlike the milquetoast white men Newsom and Kelly
Awesome. Be the change you want to see.
I’d love to see AOC elected, but I doubt it.
Sadly, America will never vote a woman President.
2024 was definitive proof of that.
Trump was re-elected in spite of Covid being his fault simply because the other choice had a vagina.
Hilary won the popular vote and she was a warmonger but she was good at communicating unlike the idiot Harris
What data supports this? What exit pills show that people were concerned about voting for a woman at rates that matter? Cause there’s tons of data showing it was other reasons. Democrats need to get out the base, exciting candidates is how you do that
What exit pills show that people were concerned about voting for a woman
How many people openly admit to being sexist? Or racist? Or homophobic? Or transphobic?
Or even privately admitting it to themselves?
Sadly, I feel there are still too many bigots and sexists in the US who cannot bring themselves to vote for a woman, esp. one who isn’t ‘white enough’. That, piled on top of the ‘establishment’ Dem factions that will do everything possible to subvert a campaign… which will let the right-wingers/fascists drive right up the middle again.
Feel free to prove me wrong, USA. Please.
the ‘establishment’ Dem factions that will do everything possible to subvert a campaign
What you’re doing now is part of how the establishment subverts campaigns. They always selectively apply the ‘electability’ argument only to progressives and insurgents while embracing identity politics for their own candidates. Whenever a progressive of any minority group runs the nation “isn’t ready,” but when it’s one of theirs “it’s time.”
Yes, but also I don’t think the Democrats have any stronger candidate to run against Republicans. Most of them can’t even meaningfully speak against Trump. If they run another wishy-washy centrist there’s a much greater chance that they lose to disillusionment yet again. AOC is the closest they have to Bernie Sanders and they’d either be idiots or snakes to not do so. Personally, she’s probably the only potential presidential hopeful out there who I would enthusiastically vote for.
they’d either be idiots or snakes
They have proven themselves at this point to be both.
Yes, but also I don’t think the Democrats have any stronger candidate to run against Republicans.
This is a real problem. Who’s in the national Democratic pipeline? Biden kind of sucked the life out of anyone associated with him - Anthony Blinken? Lloyd Austin? Pete Buttigeig was the closest thing Biden had to an attack dog, but he keeps losing elections and I don’t know what he’s doing now. I thought Katie Porter was cool for a while, but she blew her run for senate and is currently choking on a run for governor of California. Bernie’s too old.
I don’t even know who else is out there.
Tim Walz, maybe, if he quits listening to the neolib assholes giving him shitty advice?
I really wish he hadn’t stopped calling Vance “weird”, that was actually fucking working.
Tim Walz seems to have gotten scared off by his colleagues who were assassinated, and he’s not running for reelection as governor and has largely pulled back. He appears to be prepping for retirement at this point
You know, I always thought the prevailing wisdom was that assassination was counterproductive as a political tactic because the faction doing it would lose the moral high ground and galvanize everyone against their cause, but it’s funny how that doesn’t seem to have been true lately.
Honestly hunter biden or J.B. Pritzker aka the great khan of Illinois
Both are bought and paid-for zionists.
Illinois-ian here.
We need prizker where he is.
There is such a thing as being promoted out of ones best place.
He’s where he should be.
I have no intention of voting for another pro-corporate, “my turn” Democrat. If we don’t end up with her, or another actual progressive, I think a whole lot of Democrats will be completely turned off the party
Not to mention all the progressives that won’t vote for her because she’s not progressive enough, or perfectly aligned on every policy.
The same progressives encouraging her to run despite her problematic ideology?
In many cases, yes. Progressives are so quick to turn on their own that all it takes is a little Russian or Chinese media manipulation and they forget their goals. it’s already happening
Criticism is not ‘turning on their own.’
If you cannot handle defending your decisions, you don’t belong on the left. Either as a representative or as a member. If you want to vote to send weapons to Israel while they commit one of the worst genocides in history, you will get backlash and demands to defend your actions from any human being that exists.
Yes, I agree. But once we are in the election, we need to support ‘better’. If we keep pushing people against the viable better candidate then, they will lose and we’ll get the much worse maga option.
No.
Period.
That is how fascism happens. ‘Lesser Evilism’ does not work. The current state of the US proves this. It is so easy to just not be evil. So incredibly fucking easy.
Gavin Newsom, for example, will be worse for the average person than Donald Trump. He would be the ‘lesser evil,’ and would probably redirect ICE to only target male immigrants instead of everyone brown and would probably say gays and lesbians are okay while still targeting trans people; but his economic warfare against the working class will be worse, as he’s competent and surrounds himself with competent people.
Allowing people like that, as an example, to exist on the left because Donald Trump exists is like shooting off your toe because you were aiming at your dick. Yeah, it’s kinda better from a deranged viewpoint that ignores everything, but it does not solve the problem.
Or to borrow a phrase, it’s like only feeding bad children to the orphan crushing machine instead of just turning off the orphan crushing machine. No. ‘Better’ is not good enough in this case. Joseph Biden is responsible for at least 200,000 dead children. Every single Biden voter that just insisted he was the best we could do killed 200,000 children. Would more have died under Trump 2? It turns out no. But we delayed some immigrants getting deported so its fine I guess.
So your solution is to support maga? I agree a revolution would be better, but it seems Americans can barely even do demonstrations on the occasional weekend. The U.S. has a choice between bad and much much worse. Do you really want to choose ‘much much worse’? What else is your plan?
Hey look it’s another genocide supporter.
Hey look, another moron.
I don’t think those types are comfortable going outside long enough to actually vote. Doesn’t seem like a real constituency to me.
Lots of them here on Lemmy, but you’re probably correct that they wouldn’t actually vote anyway.
You’re not wrong at all. America isn’t ready for this yet sadly.
I remember when everyone said this about a black man and he went on to win two Presidential elections by a wide margin. Your defeatist attitude is exactly why Democrats lose elections. You’re giving up before the battle has even started.
They don’t want her to win because it would be yet another condemnation on the DNC, establishment Democrats and liberal (read: corporate first, Israel first, ego first) policy. It would be embarrassing for someone like AOC to win after their big hitters losing to Trump and MAGA.
I don’t think that would be any more embarrassing than them losing to Trump 2/3 times.
Came here to say basically this but I want to live in a world where it’s not true, and I actively, knowingly choose willful ignorance. I want her to run, I will vote for her, I will get out the vote for her. I think we have to.
When the DNC runs candidates who’s campaign promises are status quo, corporate subsidies and serving Israel then yeah, the bigot and sexist vote becomes significant. People need to stop using that as a condemnation of the country as a whole. It’s a condemnation of the two party system, a corrupt or derelict Democratic party or a “democracy” which is no longer functioning.
Meanwhile candidates who actually prioritize American voters can win without the help of bigots. Obama proved this back in 2008 and Zohran has proved things have only gotten better. Not only did he win without the bigot vote but without all the other piece of shit voters who showed up for Cuomo in the general election.
Harris was a garbage candidate. Biden was a garbage candidate. Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate. American voters as a whole are not responsible for the abhorrent behavior by the DNC and assholes who vote for people like Biden and Cuomo in Democratic primaries.
But the reason they put garbage candidates forward is because they regard them as a safe bet, not too radical for some, not too weak for others. … they may be right… it depends whether the vaguely inoffensive option results in the largest number of votes overall or whether a boldly progressive candidate with strong support of fewer voters gives them the better result. Dems always go with the safe option.
But the reason they put garbage candidates forward is because they regard them as a safe bet, not too radical for some, not too weak for others. … they may be right…
How many more times does this strategy need to fail for you to stop saying “they may be right”. At what point do you say progressives and leftists “may be right”?
I said they may be right because we’ve not seen them take any other option. In other words, we lack the data to know if their ‘play it safe’ strategy is the one that results in the most votes, or not.
Perhaps you and others are reading too much into my post and think that I was supporting the safe option. I was not, I was merely noting what they continue to do. Perhaps this explains why I initially got upvotes for a few days and then got downvoted below freezing?
they may be right.
How could you possibly call this “right” after this strategy lost to an orange blob twice?
Well yeah, last time Americans elected a socialist they kept electing him til he died. Can’t have that happen again. They aren’t going with safe they are going with what they are financially incentivised to do. Look at the funding for democratic candidates, that’s their constituency. You’re projecting your own morals on them, they don’t actually care about what’s good for the country
FDR wasn’t a socialist, he was a man who understood that if he didn’t offer the people a better deal then they’d look to revolution to get it. It pissed off the rich and powerful, but ultimately he was doing what he believed necessary to preserve capitalism.
Copy paste from elsewhere in the thread.
You seem well-meaning, but the racism/sexism card is way overplayed at this point in the game. The two examples DNC sympathisers point to for why an AOC run is a bad idea both lost not because they were women, but because they were utterly terrible politicians. I wasn’t around for Hillary so I can’t go into too much detail, but Harris specifically did her utmost best to destroy every single ounce of goodwill she had. And as for the racism, well, America did overwhelmingly elect Obama in 2008. Even on the far right you see MAGA elect women and minority politicians they agree with (see: MTG), so there’s no way the everyone left of Reagan coalition wouldn’t be able to elect AOC due to sexism. It’s just a complete and utter non-issue.
Except when Obama was elected the right lost their ever loving minds. And Fox went off the deep end. The entire right wing propaganda machine has gone nuts for the last 18 years and unfortunately it worked. Acting like it’s currently the environment of 2008 is blind.
This, back in 2008, North Carolina went Blue for Obama. It went red for Romney in 2012. Why?
Well as someone who remembered the Churches pleading with everyone to “Vote for the Mormon over the Muslim” I can tell you.
It’s because the beehive hadn’t been kicked yet. The idea of a black president seemed like a wonderful sign of the progress we made as a nation. When it actually happened, that retroactively became a bridge too far.
There was a silent contract, racists could be polite and civil. A black man could be equal to a white man, as long as everyone silently agreed the white man was “more equal”
When the President was black, well, that was seen as a violation of the social contract. The same people who voted for Obama to show how “Not racist” they were, suddenly became furious that he won. Because the “contract” compelled them to outwardly appear non-racist by voting for a black guy, but when it was “violated” by his election, these same people proudly dropped the Hard R to describe the leader of the free world while watching Fox News.
am I making sense?
I agree, but I put it more down to Fox et al than the social contract.
I would change it to: " The same people who voted for Obama
to show how “Not racist” they were,because they were open to the idea of being not racistsuddenly became furious that he wonwere bombarded by Fox how terrible Obama was and how horrible Democrats were. And they slowly but surely absorbed that message. "Fox went absolutely apeshit after Obama was elected, they wanted to do everything they could to bring him down in any way they could. And their rhetorical techniques are good at appealing to people (inb4 lemmy’s seeming misreading, it’s disgusting, but I observe that it works).
Nobody gives a fuck what the right thinks or your fearmongering in favor of it. Knock it off.
You think I’m trying to fearmonger, or that I’m ??? in favor??? of it? Lol no. I’m baffled how you can even read that.
I am observing that the right wing media has been going nuts for the last 18 years. We can’t ignore that. And the whole point is that it’s not limited to the right wing audience, they got their message to the masses.
You’re making complete sense here. If Obama had been white, Trump never would have happened. Hell if Hillary had been a man, Trump never would have happened.
We can’t ignore that.
Yes we fucking can! We absolutely can, and should.
What we need to do is beat them with full-throated pro-working-class policy that people actually care about, and force them back into the slimy hole they crawled out of.
You’re like fucking wormtongue, trying to poison us into spineless capitulation to the enemy.
You make zero sense, and I read this as fear mongering as well
Why are you working so hard to ensure people feel dejected about voting?
I read this as fear mongering as well
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Guy was making an observation. Not fearmongering.
As a leftist I have a completely different take.
Obama’s campaign made me realize what it was like to have a politician work for my vote. All that “hope and change” rhetoric actually worked on me. Somewhere in his eight years in office I realized he was full of shit but it gave me optimism for the future. That optimism blossomed as I listened to Sanders speeches.
So when Hillary Clinton came along and started setting herself in opposition to Sanders and ultimately defeating him I realized Hillary Clinton and the entire Democratic party think they can just assume I’ll support them so long as they run against a Republican who is much much worse.
They’re wrong.
Republicans haven’t gotten stronger. The Democratic party has intentionally weakened itself because rather than serving the American people they want to serve corporations, Israel and their own egos.
Republicans haven’t gotten stronger.
This is incorrect.
I’ve never witnessed conservatives rally around anyone like this in my life. The Republican party is currently netting wins they’ve been trying to get for decades. They own our media. They’re violating our Constitution with impunity.
The Republican party is absolutely stronger than ever.
Now, they might be overplaying their hand and that might come back to bite them in the ass, but that’s not what’s happening right now.
I’ll support them so long as they run against a Republican who is much much worse.
As a vulnerable minority (trans) being targeted for active genocide by the Right, I really wish that WAS enough for Democrats to get elected
And I’m sure people struggling to put food on the table for their families while watching our government pay for Israeli lifestyles (and their genocide) wish the same from you.
Well they’re definitely not getting it from the Republicans
And you aren’t getting what you want from Republicans either.
It’s time for actual leftists.
I think the best way to address this is you’re looking at the parties, while I’m looking at the votes.
Hilary said she’d a map room to (read, go to war on) fight climate change. The left never came out. Biden went to good old politics. Won. Kamala relied on woman’s rights. The left never came out. Guess what will happen next time? They will not rely on the left. They will go after the center. The center that actually shows up. (Also see my other comment.)
This completely misses the point that Kamala didn’t win a primary. You can’t say “didn’t get support” because she wasn’t “the candidate” in the first plac You’re working really hard to tell this thread why voting is pointless
I wonder why
Me: vote.
You: why are you telling people not to vote?
Unreal.
We’re not talking about the right, though; we’re talking about the left and center. You know, the people who voted for Obama, and who would be expected to vote for a Democratic candidate. Why even care what the right thinks?
Acting like it’s currently the environment of 2008 is blind.
Sure, but that cuts both ways. Just like the right is more fascist today, the left and center-left are more progressive and more willing to listen to radical voices. Your implicit assumption that all of America shifted rightwards doesn’t match up with reality.
Your implicit assumption that all of America shifted rightwards doesn’t match up with reality.
I don’t think ALL of America shifted right. But the right definitely shifted more right, and so did centrists. So you could say MOST of America shifted right.
We are definitely not a nation generally shifting left.
You don’t have do go very far to find “my dad was the greatest, didn’t care if people were black” to, well, I won’t repeat much of the Qanon. There’s a whole sub for it, remember? QanonCasualties. That’s the point of propaganda, to spread the message, to increase their numbers. And no it doesn’t cut both ways because left media is beholden to the truth, and right wing media can do whatever they want. And they do. And they grow. Most popular “news” source is what? Fox. You are missing everything. Like fucking everything.
This is more of a rant than a response to anything I actually said.
It’s a little disjointed because I edited in the first paragraph, but yes it does respond to what you said.
Do you want a line by line breakdown? Ok.
We’re not talking about the right, though; we’re talking about the left and center.
Agreed. And guess what? The right wing’s propaganda machine has reached the center. That’s the whole point. 18 years of hardcore propaganda has reached the center. That’s the point of propaganda.
You know, the people who voted for Obama,
You don’t have do go very far to find “my dad was the greatest, didn’t care if people were black” EDIT AT ADD: “and voted for Obama”. And those people changed to, well, I won’t repeat much of the Qanon.
There’s a whole sub for it, remember? QanonCasualties. People that were formely center or Obama voters that got suckered in. That’s the point of propaganda, to spread the message, to increase their voters.
Why even care what the right thinks?
The whole point of propaganda is to reach other people. So it’s not what the right thinks, it’s how the people that were formerly center that have been suckered in to the right’s propoganda will vote.
Sure, but that cuts both ways.
No it doesn’t cut both ways because left media is beholden to the truth, and right wing media can do whatever they want. They lie their ass off. They twist. They appeal to easy emotions like fear and anger. The left media can’t do that.
The most popular “news” source is what? Fox.
You are missing everything. Like fucking everything.
You’re the only one talking sense here.
The Right has shifted the overton window so hard to the right that Fascism is a mainstream opinion. Heck it’s considered more rude to question Fascism than it is to question Trans Rights.
but the racism/sexism card is way overplayed at this point in the game
Not if America keeps proving it to be true.
And as for the racism, well, America did overwhelmingly elect Obama in 2008.
Yes. A male and one of the most educated and charismatic politicians in American history. That’s what it took.
Even on the far right you see MAGA elect women and minority politicians they agree with
In how many of those instances was there a white male also running on the ticket as a Republican? Conservatives will absolutely support a woman/minority to keep liberals from power. I’d like to see them do so when a white male Republican is also running.
You say that, but I personally know people who voted for Trump over Kamala specifically because she was a woman. I personally know people who voted for Trump over Harris for the exact same reason.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with AOC myself and would vote for her, but to pretend that it’s a “non-issue” assumes that the average person doesn’t care. Many people do actually care, and ignoring the existence of those people is poor strategy. Maybe I’m overestimating the number of people who care, maybe not, but it is unfortunately a real concern that won’t magically go away by pretending people, as a whole, are more enlightened than that.
And people voted for Trump because he’s rich. Does that mean we only need to run rich candidates. Fuck no. There isn’t a large enough group of people who would otherwise vote for someone like AOC who wouldn’t because she’s a woman. Either her positions are strong enough to win or they aren’t. The woman thing is bullshit, and it’s just people trying to push for a more generic candidate that doesn’t represent us.
And people voted for Trump because he’s rich.
I think they primarily voted for him because he hated the same people they did. I don’t think him having money had much to do with it. The closest I’ve heard is “he’ll run it like a business” which doesn’t really have anything to do with him being rich.
There isn’t a large enough group of people who would otherwise vote for someone like AOC who wouldn’t because she’s a woman.
Willing to bet your future and the futures of millions of others on that assumption?
Either her positions are strong enough to win or they aren’t.
That’s not the only factor in winning presidential elections in America.
it’s just people trying to push for a more generic candidate that doesn’t represent us.
If she doesn’t win then you don’t get represented at all.
I think they primarily voted for him because he hated the same people they did.
I didn’t say everybody. I’m certain not many people didn’t vote for Harris or Clinton because they were women either. It’s an equivalent claim that some did. If we can’t run women because some won’t vote for women then we also need to only run rich candidates because some will vote for rich candidates. Also, the same could be said for black candidates, yet Obama won. Clearly people being bigots is not the reason for a win/loss.
Willing to bet your future and the futures of millions of others on that assumption?
Absolutely. I’d rather bet it on that than another Biden. I have seen incredibly little evidence that women can’t win. I’ve only seen evidence that boring ass candidates can’t. 50% of candidates lose (slightly more if you include third parties). The chances that 2/2 women lose is reasonably high, if we look at raw numbers. If we also take into account that Harris had a grand total of a few months to campaign, with a ton of controversy, it’s even more likely. Far more male candidates have lost than female, yet no one bats an eye when we run male candidates.
If we’re going to elect someone progressive, it won’t fail because of some bigots. Anyone willing to vote for a progressive will not care. The only voters who would be “lost” by this are already lost by her policy positions. There’s no reason to consider their opinions further.
If she doesn’t win then you don’t get represented at all.
Oh no! I guess we should pull Biden back in then! We can’t have anything good because we need to pander to bigots, who are an incredibly small portion of society!
I personally know people who voted for Trump over Kamala specifically because she was a woman. I personally know people who voted for Trump over Harris for the exact same reason
Uh… did you mean to say “Hillary” up there at some point? Because “Kamala” and “Harris” are the same person…
I did, I got distracted mid comment. I edited it.
I mean sure you can find people who think or do basically anything; I haven’t seen any evidence that this is a significant group of people, even though if it was it’d show up on polls before and after the election. I’d also bet good money no such evidence exists, because if it did libs wouldn’t shut up about it. Meanwhile plenty of evidence exists that the most significant factors in Harris’s loss were the genocide and her being a rightwing ghoul.
Americans voted for a low IQ felon rapist pedo over highly educated and accomplished women…twice.
What bubble are you living in?
I didn’t disagree with Harris’s flaws. But I think you might exist in a bubble, there are a lot of dumb people in the world. I consider you very lucky if you haven’t met a significant number of people who voted purely based on sex.
Do I think they’re the majority? Definitely not. But the number of people who don’t think about Palestine even a little bit is a lot higher than you think. So is the number who think “A woman can’t be president, she’ll be too emotional and other world leaders will walk all over us”. Like I said, there are a lot of dumb people in the world. Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.
America will not vote for a female democrat
Stop repeating failure
yea! because it wasn’t betrayal of the left base, and kowtowing to the establishment, or the botched run for president or the scandals. it was because she was a woman, right.
getting real sick of these garbage people
America isn’t mature enough to elect a female president
Add to this at the next election the republicans will have CBS,CNN,Fox, all the social media platforms, all the AI platforms
It won’t just be this person and their ideas versus the other guys it will be that guy plus social media, AI and the news networks
It’s almost an impossible task
America isn’t going to swing from an extreme right wing government to a liberal female democrat no matter how much you want it to or even whether it’s time or whether it’s the right thing
The goal has to be to win an election
Or you get four years of Peter theils marionette and palantir running every aspect of the us government
same thing was said by racists about a black president. turns out if you field a not shit candidate it doesn’t matter. Harris polled to win against trump, so she has the numbers to possibly win by all counts. too bad she snatched failure from the jaws of victory.
i am so sick of people pretending that the loss was because of the candidates gender when they ran a terrible candidate after dragging their feet on joe biden after knowing he was incompetent, at the fourth quarter, skipping a primary, backing both an unpopular genocide, and pushing connections with the establishment. i don’t think there was much she could have done worse. and yet she almost won.
America isn’t going to swing from an extreme right wing government to a liberal female democrat
Bingo.
The goal has to be to win an election
Yup. You don’t win elections on idealism alone. If you did, Bernie Sanders would probably be president right now.
Or you get four years of Peter theils marionette and palantir running every aspect of the us government
DING DING. There’s WAY too much at stake to keep swinging and missing.
it was because she was a woman, right.
If you don’t think a SIGNIFICANT number of people in this country simply won’t vote for a woman, especially in the geographical areas that matter, you don’t understand the country you live in or how presidential elections work.
Because we lost with two poor candidates, we shouldn’t try with a good one?
we shouldn’t try with a good one?
What makes AOC a good candidate? Because you like the things she says? Lot of people liked what Bernie said. Still lost.
There’s a little more to winning a presidential election than saying things a significant number of people like.
-
She is a woman.
-
She is not white.
-
She is younger than any president, ever.
-
She doesn’t have a particularly impressive political resume yet, which still matters to liberal voters.
-
She is FAR left, which scares a lot of moderates.
These are all things that DON’T make her a good candidate in the United States of America.
Here we go with the MAGA disparagement of any women who shows political potential. Start tearing them down early, so when the time comes that they run for president, you can fall back on calling all those old lies her “reputation.” 30 years of defamation paid off with Hillary, so now it’s Standard Operating Procedure.
Why it won’t work on AOC:
-
She is super intelligent, and we need a lot more of that at the top.
-
She has been incredibly effective in Congress, not just for her constituents, but for the nation.
-
She is fearless, something we need after so much cowardice from both Democrats and MAGAs.
-
She will stand up to MAGA, and punish them.
-
She is incorruptible.
-Her constituents love her, and will support her all the way, and she has plenty of national support as well. She’s one of the most popular members of Congress.
This was her first appearance before Congress, questioning Michael Cohen just before he went to prison for being Trump’s Fixer. He wanted to tell his story, but was visibly frustrated at the posturing and bloviating by the panel.
Then AOC was called, and she warned Cohen that she’d be moving fast. She started firing questions, and he answered them, naming names. By the time her five minutes was over, she had all the information necessary for Leticia James to files charges that led to Trump being found guilty of 34 felonies.
Nobody else has been able to make anything stick, but in her debut appearance in front of Congress, AOC hit Trump harder than anyone ever has. It is a HUGE mistake to underestimate her.
Thats who I want for president.
-
-
Hillary won the popular vote so she lost because you have a shitty system , not that she is a woman
Hillary smelled like status quo and behaved imperiously. Thats why she lost.
Wow the gross pigs are really out in force today.
Accepting the reality of the nation you live in doesn’t make you a gross pig.
Wanting a winning strategy because continually losing has gotten us to the point where we’re losing rights and our Constitution has become toilet paper doesn’t make you a gross pig.
The last two highly qualified women were beaten by a low IQ felon rapist pedo. Trying to elect women to the presidency in this country is a losing strategy and that’s not really up for debate at this point. We aren’t that country yet. Clearly.
HiGlY qUaLiFiEd you neoliberals will blame anything on your losses except shit policy.
Until they do.
…does xkcd ever miss???
How many times are the democrats going to run a woman before they get tired of losing?
“I’m not a sexist pig, I just literally can’t help myself when reinforcing and platforming their talking points”
—chunes
out of all the legitimate reasons the democrats lost favor with their base, you cite misogyny. fuck off!
You fuck off. Maybe try facing reality while you’re at it.
facing reality.
ignoring the fact Democrats lost because no one wants neoloberalism
Fucking pick one, dipshit.
no, u.
slap fiiight!!
Hilary won the popular vote.
Popular votes don’t elect presidents in the United States of America.
The right number of sexists in the right geographical areas will prevent a woman from becoming president. They have the last two times it was attempted.
So the real problem is your shitty system not the sexism. Harris was just dumb and if Newsome is the candidate he will have even less chance then aoc
She’s the only federal level Democrat with any sort of broad public support.
No one else is note worthy or generally liked.
She is literally the only option. Anyone else is risking mass voter apathy and a voter turn out flop in an election that should be a slam dunk.
If you’re going to voted in the dem primaries, don’t fucking vote based on who “is most electable”, vote for who you want to win. Choosing the candidate that “is the most electable” keeps losing elections, because that crown keeps getting chosen by corporate owned media who just anoints that tittle to the most corporate friendly candidate, and voters don’t like corporate friendly candidates.
The most electable candidate is one who excites people, no one else even considered for running excites anyone except for corporate lobbyists.
I like her, but I also think Mark Kelly would be a strong candidate. Former military. Retired Astronaut. Wife survived an attempted political assassination. He stood up to the Trump administration who tried to charge him with crimes punishable by execution and waved it off.
It seems to me that Kelly is a centrist who stands for nothing in particular. Why have you decided to support him? Sure being a navy pilot and a member of Nasa is cool, but we dont need cool, we need a dem who will take a stand on the issues for once. Issue support is what we need to win, not some cult of personality.
But have you considered how electable a zionist white thumb is in Trump’s America? /s
AOC voted to continue arming Pissrael, so…
You’re right, she is such a zionist I am sure AIPAC will help fund her race for president. 🙄
Strawman arguments are a weak response to being presented with facts you don’t like being reminded of.
I presented a counter factual. You show an instance where she “supported” Isreal and I show you a pattern of Isreal hating her guts. But I guess large trends like that aren’t relevant now?
He’s not my favorite. But he’d be a strong candidate.
Barley anyone knows his name or anything about him. If the candidate doesn’t throw down the gauntlet with the GOP and trump, show they can fight this shit, they will lose. Trying to convince ppl in a few months that that’s Kelly isn’t going to work. AOC is in the trenches fighting visibly, every day, and has Bernie’s backing, bigger name recognition, aligned with mamdani whose showing what’s possible with the next generation of dems, and is probably the best candidate with momentum to build around. I don’t know if even that’s enough though tbh.
He would be a strong candidate… if he had a larger public profile with the average voter.
I like him, but the average voter doesn’t know about him. He doesn’t even rank in battle ground polling.
If OP didn’t follow up his name with his CV I wouldn’t have remembered who it was…
I know who he is because I’m a space nerd and follow congressional politics closely, and I like him, but I also know that most voters don’t pay attention to congressional politics, nor remember the kind of news stories he’s showed up in.
Obama went from a nobody to an unbeatable candidate virtually overnight.
They’ll ice her out and close ranks against her the way they did for biden against Bernie.
And they’ll lose again.
This sentiment is not actually mutually exclusive. If AOC will get iced out and the corporate candidate is guaranteed to win anyway, then there’s no harm in voting for her during the primaries
And voting for her in the primary, and not the corporate candidate in the general, is the best way to signal exactly what this shit is costing them.
I like AOC. I would vote for AOC. AOC will not win POTUS. We’re tried this twice already, and a woman who has had years of non-stop character assassination attempts lobbed at her is not going to win. It’s terrible that sexism and lies play such a big role, but that’s where we are as a nation. Dems had the right idea in 2020 setting up the first woman president via VP. Then they did the worst job possible of handling any potential transition, because of course they did.
tHiS cOuNtRy Is SeXiSt
points to boring corpo centrist candidates who happen to be women
Wow, if you don’t read what I say and just reduce it to something else, I sure do sound silly. Congrats on your smug internet points.
You’re getting downvotes, but you’re right. She’s not ready. A Senate seat first.
The reality is she will run as an independent, split the vote, Donnie Junior wins.
Bush, Clinton, bush, Regan, Ford, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, McKinley.
The majority of US presidents between 1900 and 2000 never spent time as senators, most in no foreign policy position what so ever. Most didn’t even serve time in an elected federal office. Even less exposure to foreign policy in a governor position than a house rep.
Why is it different here? Who would you suggest, who has been “in the senate” or some other role more exposed to foreign policy? The other potential candidates that have even close to her level of public support have even less foreign policy experience.
This is absurd, it is nonsense, any excuse to discredit the only candidate who has real public support, not just a bunch of corporate funded think pieces.
The vote for the dems is already split. The DNC wont abandon AIPAC’s genocide support-- and they dont have enough voters to win doing that. Same as last time. Until they learn to have principles and stand up for their voters instead of for donors they will continue to lose what should be easy elections to idiots and criminals.
Trump didn’t have a senate seat first.
There have been young presidents before
I think the young will come out and vote for her
Trump didn’t have a senate seat first.
He ran on the Republican ticket. Republicans have no standards except “immigrants and LGBTQ+ and liberals bad”. Democrat nominees actually have to have serious resumes.
There have been young presidents before
She’s younger than any president, ever.
I think the young will come out and vote for her
Know how many times I’ve seen people say young people would turn out big and then they didn’t? Literally every time.
Ahh yes, the serious resumes have AIPAC money on them. Those serious resumes are an anathema to voters who have consistent standards.
A lot of people in here keep saying that AOC’s lack of experience doesn’t matter cuz >insert MALE example<.
They don’t seem to grasp just how sexist, among other things, this nation is. A woman has to try a thousand times harder and STILL lose to a twice impeached felon rapist pedophile.
If you play the politics game based on ideals, you’ll lose. And going with AOC is an IDEALISTIC strategy.
‘DarkFuture’, how many comments have you made across how many threads saying this same thing over and over-- multiple times per thread? Its almost like its your full time job to join threads and say this. Is it? Does it pay well and are they hiring?
Gonna keep saying it. Don’t care how much I get downvoted.
-
She’s a woman and America has made it very clear it isn’t ready for a female president, even when they’re up against a felon rapist pedophile with 2 impeachments and a failed presidency under his belt. I’ve voted for women for president twice now. I’ll do it again. Doesn’t mean that changes the reality that is this fucked up nation.
-
She’s younger than any president, ever. That matters to a lot of people.
-
Her political resume isn’t that impressive yet. That still matters to Democrat voters.
-
She’s VERY liberal and that makes centrists, and even some lefties closer to the center, uncomfortable. She’ll lose those voters to 3rd parties or people that just stay home.
At this point I have no expectations for Americans to learn from mistakes. So I assume this will all fall on deaf ears. I’m almost at the point that I simply don’t care anymore.
Beating you into apathy is exactly what they want.
She’s a woman and America has made it very clear it isn’t ready for a female president
We’ve had 2 so far who made it to the general election:
Hilary Clinton who was the most establishment neoliberal pick imaginable who happened to run against Trump’s growing cult of personality (and some segment of the Republican party was still seething that a black man was president to add fuel to that fire), and she still won the popular vote while Trump made promises to “drain the swamp” and an implied Medicare for All policie at one point (which naturally never came to pass) while Hilary basically promised to be as conservative as possible to maintain the status quo
And we had Kamala, a criminal prosecutor when George Floyd’s death was still fairly fresh in everyone’s memory, and a white populace that was finally waking up to the reality that black and brown Americans face in every police interaction, and Kamala was promising a continuation of Biden policy which included continuing to supply bombs used on civilians in Gaza which many Americans spent the late pandemic seeing videos of dead and dying children pulled from the rubble of. Oh and this was still while Trump’s cult of personality was in full swing.
Now? Trump’s alienated a large portion of his base, his approval is the lowest of any president ever, he’s forced the Republican party to remake itself into his increasingly tarnished image and he just successfully primaried several prominent career Republicans out of their seats, and the cash strapped Americans who voted for some kind of change after Obama ultimately brought mostly more of the same after promising hope? They’re now measurably worse off from Trump’s policies and waking up to it.
This comment may or may not age like fine milk, but I’ll hazard to say if there’s a time for AOC to run for president, this next election is it
I think you’re right about not learning from mistakes. Only took 4 years to forget about Trump being one of the worst people on the planet. You’ll probably see 4 or 8 years of Democrats then right back to Republicans.
so who would you run? another biden? everyone is criticizing anything that any liberal does like it’s a bad idea by default, with complete lack of any useful advice or suggestions. are you too young to remember the rhetoric trump got before 2016? he was gunna be a flop, not a serious candidate, voters want someone blah blah blah. THEN HE WON AND EVERYONE SCRAMBLED TO BACK PEDDLE THEIR POSITIONS CUZ HINDSIGHT IS 20/20. And you know what you and other people trying to keep GREAT humans down with GREAT ideas don’t have? any actual foresight. you’re just wet blankets who think they’re smart. so take my downvote and suggestion to stfu.
are you too young to remember the rhetoric trump got before 2016?
I’m too old actually, and the elections blend together. Help me out ‘Captain Poofter’: 2016 was the election of Hillary’s shenanigans shafting Bernies campaign and a primary the DNC directly meddled in, right?, where Wasserman-schulz was fired from the DNC and hired to Hillary’s campaign the same day after she cheated for Hillary? then the DNC won a supreme court case arguing that the primary was internal and need not be fair. They can do whatever dirty tricks or fixes they wanted and had no duty to democracy at all – they could even lie about the results if they wanted, and pick someone themselves even after the vote didnt go the way they wanted, literally with smoking cigars in a back room.
That election right? With so much DNC bedshitting and zionist fellating every single cycle, I get the years confused.
-
I would vote for AOC in a heartbeat. I am tired of old men ruining the country, and tired of Israel making us their errand boy.
As far as “experience”, when did that really matter? Obama didn’t have much foreign policy experience either and he was 1000x better than this current troglodyte pedophile.
To me the whole foreign policy angle is a non-sequitur. Unless an candidate has been a senator/congressman for several terms, it doesn’t really apply. And how many presidents were that? Some of the best presidents had zilch in foreign policy experience and weren’t an elected official for much before they became president.
Obama (one half-finished term as senator). Clinton (Arkansas AG and gov…hardly a place that had any need of foreign policy). Bush Jr (gov of Texas). Reagan (gov of Cali).
Not to imply all were great, but they definitely had, at least from our current perspective, a rational viewpoint where they thought from their POV that they were doing the right thing for the country, instead of this chaotic, narcissistic, demagogue, corrupt stupidity.
At this point a gerbil with schizophrenia would be a better option than Trump.
At this point a gerbil with schizophrenia would be a better option than Trump.
Same was true the last two times highly qualified women lost to Trumpism.
Trump MAY not be on the next ballot, but Trumpism will be.
Neoliberal women who were significantly to the right of the party.
Kamala was not “qualified” to be the nominee - she’s literally never won a single delegate in her life.
As far as “experience”, when did that really matter?
It stopped mattering to me when I considered myself smarter than the president. And I’m an idiot.
And I’m an idiot.
Yes, but you’re also self aware of it, which further differentiates you from the Oranguturd Chumpanzee.
She is the new Nancy Pelosi
Republicans are trying VERY hard to make this stick.
I see a lot of disinfo astroturfing pushing this online, too.
Believe it or not, but there was a time were Nancy Pelosi’s progressive promises, especially regarding healthcare, was a big part of her early career (1987–1997) and beyond:
*1987–1997: Early Career Focus
-
AIDS Funding & Advocacy: Pelosi made increased federal funding to combat AIDS a top priority, reflecting her district’s needs and her commitment to LGBTQ+ and public health issues
-
Medicaid Expansion: She worked to expand Medicaid for HIV/AIDS patients and accelerate research.
-
Incremental Reform: Her approach was pragmatic, focusing on targeted healthcare improvements.
*2000s: Shift Toward Broader Healthcare Reform
- Affordable Care Act (2010): Pelosi played a pivotal role in passing the ACA, which expanded coverage.
and this interview from 1997 she even talks supportingly about single payer. https://www.c-span.org/clip/news-conference/nancy-pelosi-on-single-payer-health-care/4682193
Nancy Pelosi, back in the day, was very much like todays AOC.
-
And the new sheepdog to replace Bernie
She will probably be using the same phrase “Are you ready for a revolution?”
In 2016 she was quacking about “bringing the ruckus”, maybe she meant the self-hating black man from The Boondocks.
Touch grass
Believe it or not, but there was a time were Nancy Pelosi’s progressive promises, especially regarding healthcare, was a big part of her early career (1987–1997) and beyond:
*1987–1997: Early Career Focus
-
AIDS Funding & Advocacy: Pelosi made increased federal funding to combat AIDS a top priority, reflecting her district’s needs and her commitment to LGBTQ+ and public health issues
-
Medicaid Expansion: She worked to expand Medicaid for HIV/AIDS patients and accelerate research.
-
Incremental Reform: Her approach was pragmatic, focusing on targeted healthcare improvements.
*2000s: Shift Toward Broader Healthcare Reform
- Affordable Care Act (2010): Pelosi played a pivotal role in passing the ACA, which expanded coverage.
and this interview from 1997 she even talks supportingly about single payer. https://www.c-span.org/clip/news-conference/nancy-pelosi-on-single-payer-health-care/4682193
Nancy Pelosi, back in the day, was very much like todays AOC.
Four incremental healthcare reforms over a 38-year political career is not a meaningful comparison to AOC. That’s a real stretch, mydude.
-
Hardly. This is just a massive misinformation campaign aimed to disenfranchise Democrats and boost Republican turnout.
She’s never shown interest in running for President and most recently has said she has more work and can do more work in Congress.
There’s a reason why this post has been reposted like 5x in the last 24hrs and has gained so much debate. Because it’s made up ragebait.
Edit: if you need more proof just look at the latest push now about Warren from Axios.
If you want change, get Chris Smalls, if you want incrementalism get AOC. Why would AOC call Nanci “moma bear”? Because she wants in on that club, and it cost her some time and humiliation, but she is in.
She’s never shown interest in running for President
Honestly the best trait of a future president…
We don’t want someone that wants to be president. We need someone who reluctantly steps up because they have the best shoot.
Like the Jeff Winger paintball speech.
She’s the country’s best shot, so regardless of if she wants to be president she needs to run in 2028.
Strategically it would just be stupid to say shes going to now. Which is why billionaire owned media is desperate for her to say she is. Once she says she’s running, she’s the defacto general candidate.
The ideal path is a congressional leadership position in January, and then moving to 2028 presidential. And that could very well already be her plan. She just can’t/shouldn’t say it yet.
I think “openly not wanting to be president” is actually a bad quality for a future president, though I would vote for AOC over Kamala any day, based on their tiny policy differences. Idk how AOC feels about FRAC mining tho
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
― Douglas Adams
The exception that proves the rule is people who begrudgingly accept the responsibility out of the greater good.
Believe it or not, but there was a time were Nancy Pelosi’s progressive promises, especially regarding healthcare, was a big part of her early career (1987–1997) and beyond:
*1987–1997: Early Career Focus
-
AIDS Funding & Advocacy: Pelosi made increased federal funding to combat AIDS a top priority, reflecting her district’s needs and her commitment to LGBTQ+ and public health issues
-
Medicaid Expansion: She worked to expand Medicaid for HIV/AIDS patients and accelerate research.
-
Incremental Reform: Her approach was pragmatic, focusing on targeted healthcare improvements.
*2000s: Shift Toward Broader Healthcare Reform
- Affordable Care Act (2010): Pelosi played a pivotal role in passing the ACA, which expanded coverage.
and this interview from 1997 she even talks supportingly about single payer. https://www.c-span.org/clip/news-conference/nancy-pelosi-on-single-payer-health-care/4682193
Nancy Pelosi, back in the day, was very much like todays AOC.
Stop spamming
-
Democrats disenfranchise themselves by running candidates no one wants and never listening to voters. Their wounds are self inflicted.
