• ofcourse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I agree that she should run, but as an independent candidate because the DNC will never give her a honest shot in the primaries.

    Americans however are unlikely to elect her especially due to electoral college as there are plenty racist and misogynistic voters in the swing states.

    But if she’s able to raise money in the process to give her a real shot, US will finally have a viable third party candidate. If it looks like she’ll only split the Dem vote without winning, the raised money can be used to support progressive candidates in local elections.

    Either way, I think US needs a progressive liberals party and soon because there’s a lot of House and Senate seat elections coming up and as we have seen from the GOP playbook, local elections are as relevant and influential as the national ones.

    • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      as an informed she’ll split the vote.

      it’s there a way to force a form of ranked choice voting?

      she runs for independent, but the votes are for delegates that chose the president, so if she gets 10% of the votes, the delegated should vote for the other less fash candidat, while if she does get the majority she gets the presidency

      on top of that, she can make the delegate vote conditional for some policies. so even if she gets 5% of the votes she can dictate the delegates to vote for whichever candidate signs a legally binding contract to do some prewritten executive actions on day one, like abolish Ice. release all imprisonment migrants, grant re-entry visas to deported…

      so even if she only gets a few votes, she can have a lot of influence and power.

      I just started thinking about this today,and I fear there are more complications. but I’m principle, could this work?

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, it could, which is why (IIRC) 16 US states now have laws that partially or fully ban ranked choice voting.

      • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        At a minimum splitting the vote would mean that they are coming from the “didn’t vote” pool (which has been the majority in pretty much every election for decades now). This is a strong signal that the DNC needs to move left or become irrelevant because a new party would simply split. For example of this working see the republican party becoming the maga party for that reason. Doing this will also add more weight to our protests.

        • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          yhea, the dems becoming right wing is what the donors want, but it won’t get votes

          making the democrats a dead party, unless they tell the donors to fuck off.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Electors are not granted proportionally. If the Democratic nominee gets 30% of the vote in a state, AOC gets 30% of the vote, and the Republican gets 35% of the vote, all the electors are Republican.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Two states allocate votes by congressional district, but that’s just first past the post at a smaller level and the spoiler issue remains. You need proportional representation or some actual form of transferable vote to avoid it.

            • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              TBH, I got the idea, I knew there’s loads I don’t know, and choose to post instead of asking chatGPT. prefer answer from real people.

    • afalcone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      unfortunately I don’t think that’s possible without ranked-choice voting. we desperately need ranked-choice voting in order to make more than two parties a viable option

  • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think running another woman to get absolutely trounced by the populace is a poor choice. I don’t believe the people are ready for it yet, that’s how we ended up with this. Kamala was a good candidate, but with the wrong chromosomes for a very specific swing vote.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    5 months ago

    During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.

  • Cocopanda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    She should run for the senate seat when chuck leaves office after he finally comes to his senses.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Also because both of our major party machines would cooperate in attacking her.

        Neoliberals would rather lose power than signal to their bribers that their party isn’t bought and paid for. President Ocasio-Cortez would be such a signal.

        The DNC promotes on the basis of potential federal level reps getting bribe money. AOC was a spoiler and is not welcome in the party because of her views. That’s why the Neoliberals in congress don’t care Trump is in office and even help him with appointments.

        Neoliberals like Pelosi would lock arms with the Fascists and treat a President AOC like the threat we wished they’d treat their fascist opposition like, but they have too much in common on the same Economic policy they’re both well bribed to enact and protect from us.

        Which is why, all the more, AOC is a good choice. The hatred of our true oppressors on Wall Street is welcome. At worst, it will further demonstrate that the American people aren’t permitted by big corpo to have a real choice in governance, only hypercapitalist robber baron enablers paid to divide us on social wedges as they legislate new ways for the owners to monetize sucking us dry.

  • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ask yourself a question: why can’t a woman become a preacher, priest or pastor? All major US religions indoctrinate their followers from birth with the teachings that god does NOT permit women to exercise authority over men.

    So if Christian and Catholic men and women believe in a core set of values and reasons for why women are not allowed to take leadership roles over men in the church, what makes anyone think they don’t or won’t apply that same logic to leadership at the political level, or ANY level?

    Christians won’t let a woman lead their church, but they somehow will be OK with electing a woman into a much higher role, one that can make decisions that affect all churches/the entire world? I don’t see it.

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    6 months ago

    Our nation is too sexist and too racist for AOC to win. I’ll still vote for her if she runs.

    • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nothing to do with racism and sexism . Your electoral system simply suck. Hillary won the popular votes and harris lost by only 2.3m it;s nothing for a population of 340 millions

      • Floon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        So one just lost, and the other lost because of the vote distributions were not in her favor: sexist/racist state electoral votes were needed that she didn’t get. I stand unrefuted.

        • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          How do you distinguish voters who vote against them because they are racists and sexists and those for other factors?

          • Floon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Because they are sexist and racist, and no other factor has ever mattered. They will claim all kinds of other reasons, but they’re lying. We’ve seen it time and time again: they’ll complain about something that a Dem does, but not when a Republican does the same thing or worse, so you know it’s all actually about culture war BS, which comes down to racism and sexism with the GOP.

            • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              You sound like those people who claim that anyone opposing Israel is automatically antisemitic. Yes, many anti-Israel individuals are antisemitic, but the majority are not. Similarly, while there are certainly people who didn’t vote for Harris or Hillary because they are sexist or racist, most people had multiple other reasons for not supporting them.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              They all just took a year off with Obama apparently. The dedicated bigots already have their party. They’re not needed for Democrats to win.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Pretty much.

      If it was just a feeling with Hilary, then it’s absolutely true with Kamala.

      The excuses like “Kamala is pro-cop!” Or “Hilary is evil”, while it can be true, is also what sexists latch on to avoid being called sexists.

      And for icing on the cake, a bunch of hispanic dudes voted for Trump and then are getting deported. Sexism runs so deep that it clouded their own survival.

      • blakemiller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yep — because she is a woman, people with create reasons why they can’t vote for her. Hilary and Kamala were both fine politicians. Most that did not vote for either of them are just afraid to confess they’re real beliefs, so they just pick a narrative and run with it because it makes them appear more sophisticated than a “I hate women” statement.

      • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The excuses like “Kamala is pro-cop!” Or “Hilary is evil”, while it can be true, is also what sexists latch on to avoid being called sexists.

        You remind me of people calling anybody criticizing Israel anti smite. While it true that sexists would use it most people really believe that they can’t support them for their policies and priorities

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      “We’ve tried running two shitlib women with ‘status-quo’ platforms during a time when the public is crying out for economic change, and they both lost. That proves women can’t win, because it couldn’t possibly be about our abject refusal to rein in the billionaires!” — shit liberals say

  • Kcap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Right now, the ticket I think has the best chance of winning is Buttigieg/AOC. I think the DNC knows they need to go younger and have someone who can stand up to a bully in an eloquent and calm manner that will win over reasonable people. And I think AOC probably knows that the only way the DNC is letting a democratic socialist on the ticket is if they fall in line a bit and not come off as a firebrand who has to fix everything with drastic change and would be willing to go incrementally in the left direction. The DNC would be wise to energize the Bernie youth vote they abandoned last election cycle, but they definitely won’t give her the keys or their blessing alone which blows. This ticket gives you appeal to the youth, to the rational elder folks like even my 70 year old lifetime republican father who hates trump, the gay community, city folk, country folk, and of course veterans too. Pretty solid combo if you ask me.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Buttigieg is one of the better politicians I’ve ever seen. He’s more well spoken than AOC. He’s more prepared for questions. Calmer.

      But this is America.

      There’s a very large swath of this nation in the right geographical areas that will never vote for a homosexual or a woman. Neither of them will win the Electoral College.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Just passed the Senate by one vote. Back to the House for the finale vote, which is controlled by Republicans.

      It’s over fam.

      You can kiss this nation goodbye.

      Now hunker down for the suffering and death that’s sure to follow.

      This is what happens when you give conservatives power. Such a profoundly stupid nation of individuals.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    you guys need ranked choice. I’d bet on most red voters not ranking multiple and just putting their evil fucker pick as #1. then you need more than one non evil candidate.

    • shirro@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ranked choice is bare minimum for a democracy these days. Whatever ancient shit the US has doesn’t count anymore. Also get rid of the elected tyrant bullshit and upgrade to parliamentary democracy. Then go for mixed-member proportional for extra credit. Also get rid of voting machines and do it all on paper.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 months ago

      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…

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    6 months ago

    NGL I’ll take any blue tie but we’ve already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 months 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
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.

    • theparadox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates’ loss vs. Trump.

      • Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an antiestablishment era.
      • Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
      • Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.

      I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like “socialism” scary) but most Democrat politicians aren’t willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.

      • altphoto@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        No, I don’t. All I’m saying is she’s awesome. I propose that the people want someone who is different and probably the only people who are currently very public that people might want to vote for would be Bernie and AOC.

        But probably new names would be best. New names that are not polarizing and that attract Republican vote. There have to be normal people who are currently Republican but would vote democrat if the right candidate came along. Why not test the waters now. See if AOC is electable if she’s not, then definitely do not look inside. Look for new people.

        • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          They’re kinda clipping their own legs with their pessimistic nihilism in this. I get it, woman prez scary to put up for a candidate right now. But the attitude should be more like “HELL YEAH THAT WOULD BE AWESOME” from sympathetic constituents. It’s about sending a message, a strong one. The apathy reads like self fulfilling astroturfing to me.

  • 13igTyme@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Anyone suggesting a woman to run for president hasn’t been paying attention to the average “on the fence” voter.

  • Karrion409@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    I love AOC but I don’t think she’ll win. She needs to focus on Schumer instead. Rn the DNC is in a death spiral and is in desperate need of new party leadership. She’s the one for that. Newsom will likely be the 2028 candidate. Which yeah it’s gonna suck to have to bite our tongue and back him but if it gets us out of a maga dictatorship then I’ll gladly do it.