Isn’t that a bit hyperbolic? We’ve had two women run, neither of them were perfect, nor even great, but both of them lost to Donald Trump. It feels a bit weird to say that we haven’t had the opportunity to find out if women can win the presidency when the examples are two seasoned politicians vs a self admitted sex offender, convicted rapist, and Israel supporter (instead of just an Israel denialist).
At this point we know that people of color can win, Obama did it, but the last two times a woman ran for President they lost to the same terrible person. At a certain point you have to ask,
1.) is it because they are a woman,
2.) Is it because they’re a bad candidate,
3.) Is the system so gerrymandered that they can’t win, or
4.) is there something wrong with the left in which they can’t get there shit together and push through a candidate that is at least better than the opposition?
The fact that we’re honestly looking at a potential 3rd Trump term, or the slightly more palatable option of JD Vance, vs literally anyone else is mind boggling and to me it points to #4. I don’t care who it is on the opposing ticket, AOC, Harris, or the fucking Cookie Monster from Sesame Street. The Democrats aren’t doing much to improve the country, but at least they aren’t actively trying to ruin it.
Considering that the centrist wing stops saying a woman can’t win when people talk about Harris running again, but use her and Clinton as evidence that women can’t win when people talk about AOC running, it sure looks like your wing of the party is just trying to block a progressive from running.
I personally believe it’s #2. I literally never met any true Democrat IRL that was happy about either Hillary or Kamala running for their policies that wasn’t under the age of like 50. The feminism in power thing can only get you so far… I did however hear from plenty of critically online people on Reddit downvoting and or MODs banning me when I talked like they weren’t our presidential savior because they had a vagina or something?
The same goes for Biden for that under 50 thing in my experience irl btw.
My point is, the DNC sucks. They have picked bad primary candidates for many years now. I personally don’t think it’s their plumbing, it’s because they were bad candidates. I could be wrong but to me, there’s no telling that until you have a woman run as Democrat that isn’t a centrist claiming to be a leftist.
Lmao what fucking record? So weird! That was a stretch don’t you think? I never said I didn’t vote for them but this isn’t really about me, it’s about the general public. Personally, no I don’t believe a fat pedo rapis is a better candidate but obviously the general public does or they wouldn’t have lost. That doesn’t change the fact that they ARE shit candidates. They were then and they are now.
What the last many presidential elections should have taught the DNC by now is they can’t do what you just did because it obviously no longer works. The lesser of two evils argument has literally cost the Democrats the presidential election more times than not in my lifetime. Kerry, Hillary, and Kamala fell short for that exact reason while Biden stumbled in incoherently just like Trump did twice.
The “for the record” was just to refresh what #2 was since you didn’t quote it yourself.
this isn’t really about me, it’s about the general public… That doesn’t change the fact that they ARE shit candidates. They were then and they are now.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here because that’s a valid stance (your opinion vs the apparent public opinion) and I’ll agree that they are bad candidates. However, by that logic I would argue that #2 isn’t the answer then because as you said both are bad candidates and surely Trump is not a better candidate than Hillary or Harris? Would you agree with that?
Oh THANK GOD! Some random person accusing me of voting for a pedofile rapist will give me the benefit of the doubt, for the record! I’m so relieved, let me tell ya.
Isn’t that a bit hyperbolic? We’ve had two women run, neither of them were perfect, nor even great, but both of them lost to Donald Trump. It feels a bit weird to say that we haven’t had the opportunity to find out if women can win the presidency when the examples are two seasoned politicians vs a self admitted sex offender, convicted rapist, and Israel supporter (instead of just an Israel denialist).
At this point we know that people of color can win, Obama did it, but the last two times a woman ran for President they lost to the same terrible person. At a certain point you have to ask,
The fact that we’re honestly looking at a potential 3rd Trump term, or the slightly more palatable option of JD Vance, vs literally anyone else is mind boggling and to me it points to #4. I don’t care who it is on the opposing ticket, AOC, Harris, or the fucking Cookie Monster from Sesame Street. The Democrats aren’t doing much to improve the country, but at least they aren’t actively trying to ruin it.
Considering that the centrist wing stops saying a woman can’t win when people talk about Harris running again, but use her and Clinton as evidence that women can’t win when people talk about AOC running, it sure looks like your wing of the party is just trying to block a progressive from running.
I personally believe it’s #2. I literally never met any true Democrat IRL that was happy about either Hillary or Kamala running for their policies that wasn’t under the age of like 50. The feminism in power thing can only get you so far… I did however hear from plenty of critically online people on Reddit downvoting and or MODs banning me when I talked like they weren’t our presidential savior because they had a vagina or something?
The same goes for Biden for that under 50 thing in my experience irl btw.
My point is, the DNC sucks. They have picked bad primary candidates for many years now. I personally don’t think it’s their plumbing, it’s because they were bad candidates. I could be wrong but to me, there’s no telling that until you have a woman run as Democrat that isn’t a centrist claiming to be a leftist.
Removed by mod
Lmao what fucking record? So weird! That was a stretch don’t you think? I never said I didn’t vote for them but this isn’t really about me, it’s about the general public. Personally, no I don’t believe a fat pedo rapis is a better candidate but obviously the general public does or they wouldn’t have lost. That doesn’t change the fact that they ARE shit candidates. They were then and they are now.
What the last many presidential elections should have taught the DNC by now is they can’t do what you just did because it obviously no longer works. The lesser of two evils argument has literally cost the Democrats the presidential election more times than not in my lifetime. Kerry, Hillary, and Kamala fell short for that exact reason while Biden stumbled in incoherently just like Trump did twice.
The “for the record” was just to refresh what #2 was since you didn’t quote it yourself.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here because that’s a valid stance (your opinion vs the apparent public opinion) and I’ll agree that they are bad candidates. However, by that logic I would argue that #2 isn’t the answer then because as you said both are bad candidates and surely Trump is not a better candidate than Hillary or Harris? Would you agree with that?
Oh THANK GOD! Some random person accusing me of voting for a pedofile rapist will give me the benefit of the doubt, for the record! I’m so relieved, let me tell ya.