97
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
97 points (98.0% liked)
politics
29279 readers
719 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I saw this coming a mile away and I hope she does win the Presidential Election to break barriers and to end the nonsense going on currently.
Problem is the conservatives will argue/debate no woman should be in power followed by countless historical references to prove their point. Then someone will show even more historical references of conservatives causing twice to three times the issues. This will turn into one giant circle jerk of why they (conservative) won't listen to a woman when they don't even listen to their own parents.
Yep. I would love AOC to win but there's no chance in America for that to happen. Our populace is deranged.
She’d face the exact same misogyny that Harris did, the difference though would be she’d have a strong enthusiastic volunteer base behind her. I think if the election is fair she’d have very good odds.
We tried Clinton. We tried Harris. I know the conditions are different, but do we really want to risk it when abject fascism is the consequence?
Running a milqtoast centrist is just fascism with extra steps. They will do nothing of substance and then people will vote for fascists to enact change.
We tried neoliberal. We tried neoliberal. Can we really risk it when fascism is the consequence?
Notice how you only focus on a single one of their shared characteristics to say it's too risky?
Yes!? Clinton was the worst possible candidate for that election and Harris just isn't a good politician and was utterly sabotaged from Biden among other things waiting waaaaay too long to drop out.
I think having an authentic populist voice is more important than any race or gender considerations. We simply don’t have another candidate that can do this as credibly as AOC. I think if she runs, in the primary, she’ll handily beat out Newsom, Pritzker or any other white guys in the party who are in a position to run.
Quit with this shit. Hillary won the popular vote, America will vote for a woman.
Hillary won the popular vote as a bland corporate candidate.
Seriously. A bland corporate candidate who gave the opposition two decades of lead time to build up an opposition strategy. One of the worst candidates to have run of all time.
Not where it counts.
The greater risk isn't misogynist republicans IMO, it's misogynist liberals who will cynically use her gender and ethnic background as examples of her unelectability instead of addressing their opposition to her populist agenda.
"I don't take issue wither her being a woman, but dumb rural americans will, so we can't nominate her"
Every time a populist candidate gains momentum in the democratic party, democrats suddenly become greatly concerned about electability. See: Obama, Sanders, Mamdani, Fatah, ect.
Maybe if democrats placed as much emphasis on a popular policy agenda as they do on identity, they wouldn't have as much of an electability problem.