I have said this elsewhere, but i will not again vote for the Democratic Party until they actually put up progressive candidates. Not pinky swear to pass progressive policy. That means the candidates has to have a provable history of struggling against the Democratic Party to pass progressive policy. There are only two i know of and that’s Bernie Sanders (who is too old for the presidency), and AOC. Else it’s third party until the democrats learn better.
The best part about it, is that the old-as-fuck Democrats hate it, which makes me love it all the more.
Hopefully we get to tell them to get in line or they’re a Trump lover at some point.
After all the right-wing Neoliberals I’ve voted for over the years out of harm reduction to attempt to stop literal murderous fascists, it would be nice to see them eat some of that shit and vote for someone with ideals they loathe, win or lose.
Who’s the heel and when are they going to have a no-holds-barred cage match on PPV?
A note on this survey is that it was taken of all likely voters, so it’s possible it could be influenced by conservatives being, let’s say, not very normal about her. Regardless, people on both sides often see the Democratic party much further left than it really is.
Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the senators who stood with Schumer and folded as they voted for the republican spending bill, was literally the AOC of yesteryear. You can push populist candidates to your party of capital until the cows come home, but special interests will swallow them up every single time for eternity. You need to think beyond the democrats and American electoralism in general for that matter. The devolution into fascism is well underway. It’s time to abandon the democrats that helped achieve it.
and she is old enough for presidential nomination now. do it, aoc.
The US is simply too misogynistic to elect a woman as president, especially a woman of color.
The unfortunate reality is that our best bet for the White House is a progressive white man with AOC as VP.
I believe that even AOC knows this.
You will get Kamala or Gavin and you will like your Trump 3rd term. - Dems
🎵it’s sad, but true🎵
You think we’re still doing elections? I cherish your optimism
Hey now there will for sure be “elections”, they’ll just be 100% kayfabe instead of just 50-75% kayfabe
when will the heels get magic chokeslammed through a steel table 😔
When we get the real-life political equivalent of Stone Cold… Ironically the most popular wrestler per event in history who’s whole gimmick was fighting the authority of the wrestling promoter who didn’t believe he was an acceptable face of the company and constantly wanted to push their own handpicked corporate champions. It’s actually a lot more spot on than I meant it to be…
You can’t say that because there is no reliable data to go off of. Kamala and Clinton were terrible candidates.
I don’t think that’s true tbh. The Dems have never managed to nominate a popular woman as their presidential candidate before. Clinton was almost universally disliked by the public (for lots of good reasons other than her gender), and ex-prosecutor Harris’s campaign was hamstrung by Biden, as well as being seen as an other pro-corporate Democrat stooge. AOC might actually have a fighting chance compared to her predecessors. But she’ll never be able to be the Democratic candidate until the old guard of leadership is replaced, let’s face facts.
All the rest have their noses in donors assess rn. We can’t even see their faces!
What’s Elizabeth Warren been up to lately? That’s who I’d vote for of I were American.
She’s been busy shouting about all the wrong parts of crypto to regulate and then not doing anything about any of it.
I’d describe myself as a liberal more than a progressive, but it’s obvious that she’s become the most recognizable Democrat at the federal level. Other democrats simply have not been pushing back on the Republicans in the way that she has, and it’s fucking baffling. My theory is that most politicians are really skilled at fundraising rather than building groundswell political movements and so they’re just completely out of their element in this environment. I don’t agree with all of the progressive platform, but we need more politicians with character like hers and fewer geriatrics who refuse to release their grip on power
Other democrats simply have not been pushing back on the Republicans in the way that she has, and it’s fucking baffling.
It’s a lot less baffling if you consider the possibility that they never believed any of the shit they said about Trump being a threat to democracy, or if they did that part doesn’t bother them. It was Theater Time during the election and now it’s Cooperation Time, and actually you’re the extreme one for not just seamlessly switching modes!
There is no more Democratic Party.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.
I like Miss Crockett. She’s impressed me over the last couple of years.
Sorry to say but it would be a bow wrapped gift to the GOP. It’s very easy to brand her a socialist and on top of that she’s a woman.
Harris was a full communist to the GOP.
I dont think it matters much.
Harris lost. That’s the point. If the dems want to win they need to learn from their mistakes, not give even more wedges to the right to scare away voters.
Harris lost by a razor thin margin, and there’s legitimate concerns that they cheated (more directly than usual). They lost because they tried to ease up her messaging to avoid alienating the people who were always going to vote for Trump
We need to rally around what everyone wants - free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich to do it. Just chant that over and over. Anyone who does that is going to win
It’s time for Democrats to own socialism. It’s milquetoast appeals to centrism that make the party boring and come across as dishonest.
That doesn’t mean being unreasonably uncompromising or unpragmatic when it comes to getting things done across the isle in government, but at least be true to your ideals and aspirations.
Bernie would have easily beaten Trump if voters had the option. AOC will likewise wipe the floor. A real alternative not more of the same.
Actually what would happen is dem support would crash even more because the GOP playbook works. AOC will be branded a socialist, a communist, ready to sell out, to take people’s property etc. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, the electorate will believe it. If the dems want to win they need to lose the haughtiness and a projecting an air of superiority that they know what’s right for people and appeal to blue collar workers again. i.e. messaging needs to change. That might make people more receptive to left wing / progressive views. They also need to read the GOP playbook and create some divisive issues for the right to deal with. But expecting people to accept/embrace/own socialism is a joke. It won’t happen. Think smart.
People don’t know what socialism is…Most people’s understanding of socialism includes the government doing basically anything
What people want is free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich. We just need to double down on that populist messaging - and when they cry out “that’s socialism” we have to stop trying to run from it
Tax the rich. How are we going to pay back our deficit? Tax the rich. Why does everything suck? Because we haven’t taxed the rich. What are we going to do in office? Tax the rich. Isn’t that socialism? Who cares, tax the rich.
deleted by creator
“And it’s not even close”
She’s in a statistical tie with “nobody”.
I dont think the electoral system allows for this “nobody” person to win. Maybe someone can change their legal name to “nobody”.
So “AOC not even close” with 26% but Kamala Harris + Pete Buttigieg + Hakeem Jeffries + Cory Booker + Gavin Newsom = 22%. And that 26% has almost guaranteed the 8% of Crockett and the 12% of Sanders. So 26 + 12 + 8 = 46% but “not even close”.
The headline means “AOC is seen as the leader of the Dems and nobody is even close to her”.
The DNC chair is not usually an elected congressperson, and AOC is absolutely not looking for that job. They’re just talking about the person people think about as the leader.
I don’t know half the people you mentioned
They get a lot of AIPAC money for ads in their district. Outside of it they have no name.
well at least you own up to your ignorance, more than we can say for most.
Oh, the qurstion was rhetorical – the function was a relevancy check. The Hill may think all of those names are important but only half are making it out of the political wonkosphere.
(wonk is an mid 20th century word for nerd)
Was it fairly clear I was just being funny? I hoped so, I try not to tell jokes that actually need to be /s tagged.
Nah. /s tag is a good call. Never saw one that looked out of place in use.
Comedians have been using the written word for eons. Some jokes don’t land when written, and the real solution wasn’t invented this decade.
My personal policy is that if the joke needs a laugh track, a rimshot, or any big sign that says “Joke” being waved, the joke doesn’t work.
Your theory seems so well thought out that I’m surprised to see it failing you.
Lemmy has grown a lot, and Poe’s law grows in effect the more Lemmy grows.
I will kill Poe’s law or die trying. I hate the idea that we share so little context as a culture that every joke needs a signpost. I fight it my way, but the real war will only be won when global society has enough shared culture for us to make each other laugh without honking a bike horn and giving an exaggerated full-body wink.
Edit: I know I’m being grandiose, you don’t gotta point it out
she’s got my vote
