politics

I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable takeaway from the last two times a woman was a major party nominee.

Hillary Clinton was not especially charismatic, which is arguably what wins general elections in most cases. She was also unpopular with progressive Democrats, and widely seen as having secured the nomination unfairly when Sanders might have been both more popular with the party and a stronger general election candidate.

Kamala Harris was severely handicapped by the combination of being nominated without a primary process, starting her campaign very late, and positioning herself as a continuation of Biden at a time when Biden's popularity was very low.

If AOC were to win the nomination, she would be in a much stronger position for the general election than either Clinton or Harris.

Worth noting as I almost missed it myself from not RTFA, but: AOC is "gearing up for a big campaign for a bigger office in 2028 -- they're just not sure which."

I align with your view that I really thought AOC would be better to primary against Schumer. Not only is it arguably more attainable, it addresses our problem with stagnant Congressional AIPAC-representing leadership.

That said, I part ways in the belief that a female president is not capable of being elected for a couple of reasons which I'll try to lay out point-by-point:

• There is no actual evidence that a gender-bias led to Kamala's loss that I have seen.
• The Venn Diagram join of sexist misogynistic bigots and Never-Dem deep-red maga is a circle; in other words, we were never going to get these people no matter if we put Trump fused with Reagan in and mirrored their platform word-for-word.
• Willingness to vote for a female President has been historically tracked:

Public willingness to vote for a woman

In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.

In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970's and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.

Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.

AOC would make an amazing VP pick. Could bring a lot of energy to a campaign and get youth/working class support. Then transition that into a presidential campaign later on.

Funny that you say she’d be an idiot for running in 2028, then present a great case for why she might run in 2028…

You’re right, though, that Senate would be the right move. But that has its own disadvantages. If Schumer doesn’t retire, it would be very tough to beat him.

Being a losing presidential candidate could raise your profile. I’m not sure the same applies to a senate candidate.

Also, I would say the hate for AOC is much different than the hate for Hillary. There were plenty of liberals that hated Hillary (🙋‍♂️). I don’t think this applies as much to AOC. The hate is coming exclusively from the right.

It's a shame but they probably will.

The "never women" crowd would never vote for a progressive candidate to begin with, so I don't think it really matters.

The "people will never vote for a woman" crowd is sort of right. A woman will never be elected with the current DNC, but only because they view a woman candidate as an excuse to be shittier. They think their base will hold their nose and vote for a worse candidate just because of what's in her pants.

AOC might get elected because she's interesting on her own merits and has enough name recognition to not be buried by the DNC. They'll do their best to prevent it though.

By god, it’s Hillary Clinton for a twelfth attempt at the Presidency! It’s HER TURN

I mean 2028 is the first presidential election she's eligible to run for

she looses

Looses the dogs of war?

That's a very fair fear. 2 dead demos 1 almost kid napped that wacko that charged the white house and all the bombs that got sent to Obama.

Maybe I'm an old timer around these parts, but I remember these same exact arguments being used against Obama. "He's only been a senator for two years, and what was he before that, a """community organizer"""?"

In fact, I'm pretty sure she's got more political experience, on a national scale, than he did at the point where he as nominated.

This list is missing 45/47. If you add his qualifications to the list, then I guess reality show host, felon, rapist, etc are also presidential qualifications, but congressperson is still not one? I think it's safe to say all norms are out the window now and past performance is not anything to bet on going forward.

Years? The next three months are gonna be batshit insane

im pretty sick of interesting.

Cool theory. Not helpful.

We have to assume there'll be an election until there isn't.