US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide. #AOC2028
Will there be elections?
Senate is a safer bet, and Shmucker needs to go.
Why has nobody challenged Schumer for Senate leadership? What the fuck is wrong with the democrats?
Half of them are getting a great tax cut from Trump
That “or” is doing some serious heavy lifting.
I might buy a new television or an automobile.
I’m writing an 800 page scientific paper on quantum mechanics or I’m taking a shit
I hope I’m wrong, but I just don’t see how 'Murica could be ready for a young, progressive, intelligent woman to lead
She is a true powerhouse, but’ Murica is a broken, ignorant and hateful place
Sometimes the best candidate is a woman. That just how life be.
I agree
Too many people in the US still think that blokes should be in charge, no matter what
It’s a very weird place
Same thing a lot of people said about a black guy with a Muslim name, while still deep in the “War in Terror” fog. I was among them, and very wrong.
Amongst them, get it right whilst you talk the politics.
Not exactly. DNC had to do a LOT of fucking around to keep Bernie from the presidentcy. And he would have crushed Trump so badly cheating wouldn’t have worked. I had hoped they would run AOC instead of Kamala once it was clear Biden was unfit. She would have been just old enough
You thought the DNC would run aoc? Oh man, I got some bad news for you.
It would’ve been quite the sight
I take it from the sudden massive influx of “AOC BETRAYED US ON ISRAEL NOBODY VOTE FOR HER” narrative, that somebody somewhere thinks she’s a candidate who would cause problems if she did run
She did, and if she were running, she could fix people calling her a zionist by changing her stance on Israel.
So this entire narrative that AOC is pro-Israel now, is spun up from a single vote she made on an amendment MTG made that would have removed a small amount of funding for Israel including a grant which is used among other things for some of their “defensive” weapons for civilian areas, while leaving intact the waterfall of money for their offensive weaponry. AOC along with almost everyone else voted no on that amendment, and then said some dumb shit about why she did. The amendment was never going to pass. The impact on Israel or anyone else was pretty minimal. It did nothing for offensive weapons, it was just a stupid amendment during a busy day of actual work, so AOC voted against it.
Of course, later on, she voted “no” for the massive funding bill which spent $830 billion on various types of killing, including $6 billion for Israel for offensive weapons, which has been pretty consistently her stance on Israel throughout including vocal oppsition both verbal and material. At one point she was doing enough that Biden got mad at her personally and they had a meeting about it or something, because she was materially gumming up the works. Her support for Palestine is super rare in the US congress. Nonetheless these guys are still talking about how bad she betrayed Palestine. It becomes a whole narrative, where she’s now pro-genocide irrevocably forever, and if you challenge them on it, they can run and hide behind the fact that she did, in fact, vote against that amendment, and so it’s proved now. She’s bad. Don’t vote for her.
For some reason, this only happens to the left-est of left politicians. You will never heard someone randomly start cursing about how big an asshole Joe Manchin was when he did absolutely incalculable damage to the planet by blocking the first iteration of the IRA. No, you will only hear these kind of neatly-packaged reasons not to support a left politician deployed and repeated (there are only like 10-20 of them, you start to see them repeat after a while if you pay attention) against the leftest of the bunch.
Wonder why.
Espionage
That’s my answer for $100.
America rejected Hillary and Kamala because they were empty-suit neolibs who campaigned on ignoring the working class’ problems, not because they were women.
Honestly, yes.
Exactly thank you. Somehow The Establishment is pulling the old Hillary Clinton accusing voters of being bigoted which somehow allows them to stay in control of the party to nominate another candidate that would be rejected by voters. How everyone is not up in arms about this I will not know.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha HA HA HA. Nobody has ever won an election in this country through the working class, dude.
Imagine being so ignorant of history that you forgot about FDR.
And elected Trump twice because he obviously was full-suit man of the people with so many swell ideas about working class.
Americans, you see, are voting based on economical policies rooted in reality.He was the only candidate in the general 2016 talking about jobs. His opposition’s slogan was “America is Already Great”. In 2024, his opposition was arguing she would better implement his signature policies of
imperialismthe most lethal military andcruelty towards brown peoplesecuring the border.
Also, because the voting public is dumb AF. Not actually voting on principle, ideology, or policy. Simply voting against whoever is perceived as in power. If they feel the government isn’t helping them. Even if it means voting for someone who will be objectively worse for them.
If you are a principled voter, you wouldn’t have voted for Hillary or Kamala
Exactly the opposite, actually. Not all principles have value. Any principle that would have you not help the people you can because it would be unfair to the people you can’t has no value. Anything purported to be virtue in that vein is just signaling.
Until such time as state and federal governments are depredicated. The calcified concentrated power and resources shattered and returned to the people. Refusing to do the minimum you could to help anyone and show solidarity. Is no virtue or principle worth mentioning.
Even If neoliberals are no ally to anyone but themselves. If you couldn’t be bothered to vote for Clinton or Harris in the general election. To keep the person actually attacking minorities from office. You are even less of an ally to trans gays and minorities of every stripe. Unless you’re actually doing something concrete like leading bloody revolution in the streets to help them.
I guess I can kind of see your point, but I just disagree. Literally my entire life, every presidential election has been “vote for the lesser of two evils”. I’m not doing it anymore.
I do however live in a blue county in a blue state, so I can see how that allows me to make decisions that folks in purple states might not want to make.
I vote every year, but I left Kamala Harris and the presidential option blank. I would have voted for Cornell West but he wasn’t on my ballot.
Kamala got all of my states electoral votes I believe, if not, she got my county’s or my district’s or whatever.
That’s because there should be no president, no governor, no senator. The more power becomes concentrated. The more it necessarily becomes a choice of the lesser evil. Failing to take concrete action in the face of that. Is nothing to crow about or admonish others for not following.
I live in a blue patch of a red county in a red state. A state that just tried and failed to take what little non existent representation we had away. By making our districting worse. Believe me I know intimately what it’s like to feel like your vote doesn’t matter. I could take schadenfreude at those usually isolated from their poor decisions in blue states. Facing concrete negative consequences. Re illegal deployment of national guard etc. Or ICE brown shirts. But I don’t. And honestly there’s not a lot more people in blue states could do beyond not campaigning against the best possibly achievable option. Living in a blue state isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. It’s easy to forget and become detached from others.
Voting won’t fix anything on it’s own. It’s not even half the equation. Without being or supporting the people worth voting for. Voting can only slow disintegration at best. When it comes to herculean lifts like corrupt national offices. It’s gonna take us all working together. If there are elections next year or after. I have some small hope. But only time will tell.
I hope you are right
Yeah that’s a ton of bullshit.
Yeah. Truth is they probably would have focused on making working class problems worse, just like Billy boy.
What the heck, Biden was FDR 2.0!
Biden was FDR 2.0!
Not even close. The most I will give him is that he was closer to FDR than any of the Democrats in-between. Ideologically, FDR 1.0 had ambitions for what an FDR 2.0 could do, and Biden wasn’t it. Biden barely moved the needle to reclaim any of the things Democrats lost us in the intervening years. Operationally, Biden had none of FDR’s zeal to actually get things done. Biden needed to be far more Machiavellian and, because he wasn’t, his agenda was stalled and the architects of January 6 were emboldened to try again.
These two videos do a better and more entertaining job than I can to lay out why Democratic reform is absolutely necessary to get us out of the mess we are in. If Democratic voters don’t learn extremely quickly, this America has no chance at all.
I was being facetious lol
Gotta use those sarcasm tags. Too many people still buy that garbage. :/
Everyone I know would vote for her.
Same but I live in a bubble
… do you have enough air?
It’s a big bubble
Some say it’s the biggest bubble. That there’s never been a greater bubble. They’ve been trying to make this bubble for almost 150 years and I’m the one finally making it happen
But the question was, “how are you holding up?”
Oh, I get it
I only associate with other people with politics like my own (because conservatives are shitty people who I refuse to have anything to do with)
But I know that outside my bubble, there’s a world of selfish, hateful, ignorant cunts
You must live in a dark blue state.
I do yes. It’s pretty much navy blue. Haha. And I recognize that is the reason!
I’m American and I’d vote for her! But I’m on Lemmy/PieFed so I’m not your average American lol
I hope she runs for the Senate. That would be the best move forward for her at this time.
I struggle to see it too, but I think I’d rather her lose than newsom win. I’ve always been a “harm reduction” sort, but I see NO way out through the dem establishment: a third senile trump term would probably be better in the long run than watching the ratchet click yet again. America needs change and leadership that actually believes in something positive enough to fight for it.
What about Walz? He’s decently progressive (for America).
America is pretty progressive, it’s the corporate media and PAC donor money to every corrupt politician in the country (90% of both Dems and Repubs) that are not progressive.
Give them enough time and you’ll hear how he’s bad for us all.
It doesn’t matter which candidate is in the front, the propaganda and hate machine will shift focus and they’ll lose.
Simply don’t support bad policies that hurt your constituents and benefits the donors class.
Ok. So, Waltz. When do “we” get marching orders to hate him?
If people are telling a politician a thing they are doing is bad, maybe consider they have a point and the politician should stop instead of demanding fealty. Confusing whether we are supposed to represent out politicians or our politicians are supposed to represent us is how dems justify doing the shit that tanks their popularity.
Ok.
Now that’s some bullshit.
Everyone who would object to one of these would object to all of them, so really there’s not much difference between an old white male progressive and a young brown female progressive in terms of electability, and as we know from Bernie those are plenty electable. I mean hell, Obama was black.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/17/trump-aoc-voters
AOCIA will not bring the change either but carrot go brrr.
Well she certainly has the qualifications! (Being a sell out and a genocide apologist)
I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick, but that’s a long ways from being a “genocide apologist”. To my knowledge, she does not deny that Israel is committing a genocide, and she does not pretend that it’s justified. I think it’s fair to call Biden a genocide apologist because he actively participated in obfuscating the reality of what was happening and attacking critics.
Foreign policy is complicated, and there is room for someone to think pragmatically that cutting off “defensive aid” will make things worse instead of better. I disagree with that someone, but I’d much rather have them as opposition than someone who is principally in favor of a Genocide.
I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick
If you know what they’re doing, and she knows what they’re doing, and you know she knows what they’re doing, then we should all be fairly clear that she’s not absolving herself from complicity.
In the case of the US-Israel relationship, the financials are more complicated than the foreign policy, and there are no consequential earmarks. The input is either more funding, or less funding.
From one approach, if the US funds Israel’s Iron Dome, Israel will have more money from not spending their own on defenses, and what they didn’t have to spend on defensive weapons, they will then spend on offensive weapons. This chain of causality is fairly direct and reasonable to trace, IMHO. In fact, it’s quite possible that they directly route gifts for defensive weapons into offensive weapons- this is Israel we’re talking about, they’re not known for engaging in good faith.
From a second approach, her vote for Iron Dome spending signals that she is holding out for the chance that both sides will de-escalate willingly, and that a peaceful agreement can be negotiated from current positions. This is wishful thinking.
From a third approach, the only thing we have seen with the potential to end the genocide is intervention by Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, or especially Iran. Any prospect of the US, the EU, or an alliance of Arab states putting an end to the genocide militarily is completely without precedent and infeasible. Israel continues to maim Gaza because its economy is still running, and its economy is still running because it has diplomatic ties and defensive systems. If they are subjected to a large number of missiles, their citizens will be forced to permanently retreat to bomb shelters; this will shut down the economy and persuade Israelis to repatriate to their countries of origin (or Germany and the US will take them), because they are wealthy enough and a large fraction of them have dual citizenship. This is the one thing that will certainly end the genocide, running out their defenses until they are confronted with the same onslaught that they have waged against Palestinians. It’s not pretty or peaceful and a few people might die in-between the bomb shelters, but this is how genocides are stopped. The day that Israel runs out of interceptors and the Shahed drones keep flying in is the day they will start negotiating the end of the genocide. Funding defensive missile capacities is simply staving that day off. It is not an intervention that directly kills people, but it is still an American intervention in the Middle East that makes the situation worse and demonstrably causes more innocent people to die.
To be sure, there are several different levels of genocide apologia, and AOC is a few levels down on the scale from your average Republican. But she’s still not clearing the bar for ethical foreign policy. The bar is to treat Israel with at least the same level of response that was given to Russia when it invaded/escalated the war in Ukraine.
It’s really not complicated. It’s only complication is concern for aipac money.
Also you’re saying she is aware it’s a genocide and still approved the sale of weapons to a genocidal regime
AOC has rejected all AIPAC money. Of course they could run dark money ads for her anyways but, if you think that’s likely to happen, you are delusional.
still approved the sale of weapons to a genocidal regime
Every foreign policy decision has ramifications that go far beyond the immediate. Israel isn’t going to not have a missile defense shield so, if they don’t get it from us, they will get it from someone else. Maybe Russia, China, or Europe. How does that shake out on the world stage?
Just to clarify again because I’m sure it’s necessary, I do not approve of sending any aid to Israel. I just don’t think that disagreeing with me automatically makes someone a genocide apologist. The world isn’t that simple.
somebody else would just fund the genocide anyway
Russia and China have been diplomatically opposing this genocide (I would argue with insufficient effort, but still they are the other side of the fence and recognize Palestine and receive Hamas delegations)
Why would you knee jerk throw them in the “bad guy” genocidal category when it’s YOU and YOUR POLITICIAN that are actually funding and sending the bombs that kill children? Do you not understand the irony and how chauvinistic this comes off?
Why would you knee jerk throw them in the “bad guy” genocidal category
I dunno, why would you say I did that?
Rule number one of foreign policy is that countries don’t have friends, they have interests. Russia and China have the position they do because they think it’s to their advantage. Both of them are guilty of their own genocides, some ongoing. They are no more the “good guys” than the US. If they decide it’s in their interests to sell weapons to Israel, that’s exactly what they will do.
You post one Uighur body for every Palestinian body I post. How long do you think you can keep up?
Hexbear is cancer.
Both of them are guilty of their own genocides, some ongoing.
do tell
if they don’t get it from us, they will get it from someone else.
I guess we have no choice then participate in genocide. Good analysis comrade.
Maybe Russia, China
What makes you think these should be included in this list?
I guess we have no choice then participate in genocide.
Not what I said. Fuck off edgelord.
How else should I interpret that?
I don’t care. You’re going on my block list.
Every foreign policy decision has ramifications that go far beyond the immediate. Israel isn’t going to not have a missile defense shield so, if they don’t get it from us, they will get it from someone else.
Ok, so? If U.S. does that and even if other countries starts arming them, U.S. will at least have a moral high ground.
There is no evidence any of these countries will give Israel weapons btw.
If there is an arms embargo, Israeli economy tanks since much of it is propped up on the U.S. being the backstop.
If U.S. does that and even if other countries starts arming them, U.S. will at least have a moral high ground.
Fuck me. I knew that telling you that I don’t want any aid for Israel wouldn’t stop you from trying to convince me. Why the fuck don’t I pay attention to what my brain is telling me?
There is no evidence any of these countries will give Israel weapons btw.
That was a “for instance”. The point was that any position in foreign policy is going to have more than one impact. I wasn’t making a full argument, and why would I when I already agree with you?
If there is an arms embargo, Israeli economy tanks since much of it is propped up on the U.S. being the backstop.
Once maybe. The fact is that the US and Israeli arms industries have commingled and each relies on the other for different expertise. A full arms embargo would certainly lead to at least the risk of Israel trading arms secrets for access to weapons made elsewhere. Israel is not a passive purchaser of weapons or intelligence technology.
We don’t believe you because you support a politician that funds the genocide and use Liberal Zionist arguments we have heard a million times from genocidal liberals
And I think your just a Republican stirring up shit because you spend all your time attacking the very few Democrats who actually acknowledge the genocide.
I have never once even “supported” AOC in this discussion. Pointing out that she isn’t a genocide apologist isn’t support, it’s just reality.
I do personally support her because (among other things) she is better than any Republican or Democrat likely to replace her. If you have a better candidate then I say “great!”. Run them against Pelosi, Schumer, or any one of hundreds of Democrats that are worse on this and a myriad of other issues.
That’s the difference between you and I. You want to aura farm off of tragedy while I want to do something productive to end it. If you actually have a shit, you wouldn’t be wasting your time attacking the Democrats closest to your position. Replace AOC with your perfect candidate and you will have achieved absolutely nothing.
Once maybe. The fact is that the US and Israeli arms industries have commingled and each relies on the other for different expertise. A full arms embargo would certainly lead to at least the risk of Israel trading arms secrets for access to weapons made elsewhere. Israel is not a passive purchaser of weapons or intelligence technology.
No, the entire economy is propped by the U.S. backstop. Israeli bonds, currency, financial assets are valued highly because U.S. defends it. It’s not always as explicit as military ‘aid’.
Also, if these are the kind of arguments AOC is thinking about, she deserves to lose. I’m not attacking you, but AOC.
I couldn’t care less what AOC deserves. There is no realistic scenario where AOC gets replaced with somebody better on Gaza. Meanwhile there are Hundreds of Democrats that desperately need replacing and could actually swing the balance, but we get stuck in-fighting over AOC. I want things to get better, and you aren’t helping.
I knew that telling you that I don’t want any aid for Israel wouldn’t stop you from trying to convince me.
I don’t care if you’re convinced, but I would like to know if this is because you think what is happening there is some degree of morally unacceptable, or if you just think the money would be better spent at home.
Edit:
You don’t have to respond to this but this is for the benefit of others reading.
I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick, but that’s a long ways from being a “genocide apologist”. To my knowledge, she does not deny that Israel is committing a genocide, and she does not pretend that it’s justified.
In AOC’s case, you have claimed she believes it is a genocide. If she does in fact believe it is a genocide, then she is providing material support (money and weapons), directly to what she believes is a genocide. She is a member of Congress and could use that position to passively sit by with an ineffective protest no vote or even voting present/abstaining in every instance (although you could still argue someone like this should at least be doing more personally, in the end, policies are what matter for elected officials), to what she believes is an actual genocide. Thus, “genocide supporter” logically follows.
If she does not believe it is a genocide, but she thinks it is morally problematic, then while perhaps the label “genocide supporter” could be put into slight contention (those that read Israeli officials’ own statements such as this one 2 months ago on the matter would probably ask how AOC came to another conclusion), it is still in turn problematic that she would materially support something that she believes is morally problematic, and you should find this unacceptable.
If on the other hand, she does not find anything morally problematic there at all, but you think it is at minimum morally unacceptable, then isn’t that a legitimate criticism of an elected official who is supposed to represent her constituents to say that you think they are supporting something that you find to be morally unacceptable?
You might want to look further into this one, hoss.
The GOP is manipulating you into hating those aligned with your interests.
I am literally a communist, the GOP couldn’t manipulate me into anything. I hate basically all American politicians because they are all servants of imperialism and enemies of the working class. Have fun cheering for
as they sit and do nothing while people get rounded up into camps (this is literally already happening btw not some hyperbolic future)Also, “defensive” funding for Israel is still supporting the genocide. Israel’s belief in its own impunity (thanks to things like the iron dome) gives it confidence to commit endless atrocities because they don’t fear proportional consequences.
Also, Israel shouldn’t be defended. Rogue states that commit genocide have no right to exist as far as I’m concerned.
And yet you seem to be unable to comprehend the situation, instead needlessly hating the people that could (and try to) help you.
They don’t have schools in communist glimmer_twin town?
EDIT: You should know that I’m regularly reduced to tears at the atrocities. I’m not your enemy but you’re making it so very hard to be your friend.
I’m really using the word “you” to address all of those with your outlook. It’s not a personal attack.
Would you support someone who supports arming police to carry out a genocide in Portland?
No?
Then why would you support someone who supports arming IDF to carry out a genocide in Gaza?
What is the material difference that causes you to not support one thing, but support the other?
Nationalism. You are a nationalist. You just do not realise it.
You support american supremacism, as long as it comes with the promise that it will improve your life. You support genocide in Gaza if a politician will tell you they’ll make your life better while they do it.
You don’t support it in Portland because then it would be happening to AMERICANS.
You are a nationalist and you are an American supremacist.
In what way is giving a mass murderer body armor a form of “helping”?
Misrepresenting what I’ve said so far doesn’t exactly make you look honest.
Rejecting a clear and obvious analogy for what you’re saying doesn’t exactly make you look like you have the intelligence to operate a doorknob
It’s a counter-argument that has nothing to do with the initial statement. Hence, dishonest.
It would seem everyone here (including you) is simply dedicated to being angry and decided I’m a great target for that anger. Do you need a mirror?
If the subject trying to help In your previous statement is AOC my comment still stands.
If its you I don’t see how you are trying to help? AOC has been running defence in her own capacity for Israel: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/monday-rep-aoc-host-livestream-antisemitism-and-fight-democracy
In this stream she conflates anti-zionism with antisemitism.
She lost support from the DSA: https://www.dsausa.org/statements/status-of-dsa-national-endorsement-for-rep-ocasio-cortez/
However, members have raised their concerns regarding a number of her votes, including a vote in favor of H.Res.888, conflating opposition to Israel’s “right to exist” with antisemitism. AOC also co-signed a press release on April 20, 2024, that “support[s] strengthening the Iron Dome and other defense systems”
…
Finally, AOC recently hosted a public panel with leaders from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, lobbyists for the IHRA definition of antisemitism. On this panel, anti-Zionism and antisemitism were conflated and boycotting Zionist institutions was condemned. This sponsorship is a deep betrayal to all those who’ve risked their welfare to fight Israeli apartheid and genocide through political and direct action in recent months, and in decades past.She seems to do this for the love of the game.
Ok.
No, I’m perfectly aware of the GOP hate campaign. But I dislike her for her actions. I want a progressive/socialist. Not a fake progressive.
Man, I think this is so silly. I’m not here to argue with you. Enjoy your day.
Not here to argue with people but here to say they’re brainwashed. People who are way fucking smarter than you, by the way!
Has anyone recently called you a piece of shit? Because you are one!
Take ownership of your fucking actions you cowardly fucking piece of shit.
Oh wow. Anything else you’d like to say to your therapist?
Removed by mod
Ok.
You must be fun at parties
Perhaps stay away from cliches if trying to establish original thought.
Good thing money isn’t fungible or the distinction between defensive and offensive weapons funding would be meaningless
Didn’t read the link, eh?
No matter, you don’t need to make excuses to be angry. Just be angry. It’s cool.
Bro what I read the link and directly responded to its content. AOC’s defense amounts to “I didn’t give them money for crack, I gave them money for food”
Ok.
What, as a “government in exile” kind of thing?
Please no president. Senate is ok.
America has shown it can’t handle a woman, much less woman of color, much less young, much less progressive. The DNC just needs a straight white man who is decently progressive but appears to be moderate on stuff. All of this to say: Tim Walz please.
because moderate politics have been going so well lately …
Notice how I said “appear”. Just the fact that he’s an old, straight, white male is good enough for many of the moderate conservatives who hate Trump.
And here we go again. Get a conservative who pretends to be moderate! (You know that’s what it will be. It’s why you’re advocating for yet another fucking moderate) We’ll get the conservative vote this time! Or we’ll lose! The important thing is that no one to the left ever gets representation!
Probably Senate to primary Schumer. That would be the only logical move.
Schumer is a spineless AIPAC sellout. Easily one of the main reasons why the Democratic Party is so disliked.
I think everyone can agree: Fuck Chuck Schumer, he has to go.
New York can do better than Schumer. The toughest part is all the money and endless positive press that sellouts get.
Congratulations for scapegoating women rather than addressing any of the other more meaningful commonalities between Clinton and Harris.
The sexism even more disgusting when compounded with the hypocrisy: centrists smeared Sanders in 2020 by claiming he said women can’t win.
Now that they don’t want a particular woman to run, they’ll scream that sexist garbage like it’s gospel.
I’m talking about the moderate conservatives who hate Trump, and maybe aren’t too involved in politics. They are more traditional but would vote for progressive policies if they were packaged correctly. It’s a sad state of the country, but with Newsmax and Fox brainwashing people, that’s the only winning strategy.
I’m talking about the moderate conservatives who hate Trump, and maybe aren’t too involved in politics.
They. Will. Never. Vote. For. A. Democrat. You’re alienating your base in order to chase a bunch of nazis to the right.
You can’t say you want someone who is “decently progressive” and then pretend we can’t nominate a woman because we don’t want to turn off moderate conservatives. It’s nonsensical.
Her gender wasn’t even a serious line of attack during the campaign and she went so hard to the center she was losing votes in the cities, the core source of Democratic votes.
It’s not what I want. It’s what the non-MAGA moderates would vote for.
People don’t really care about identity politics as much as the politicians do
In before the delusional naive tell us how she’s going to save the day.
Do people in the US not realise there won’t be any more fair elections? A coup is unfolding by white supremacists and you’re all like “here, look, the brown female chick will right the ship”.
Go to the history section of a library before they burn them down.
Fuck off doomer.
A point well argued with merit and substance. Perhaps you want to become a master debater?
Came here to say this. Look prople, Trump bragged that is we elected him, it would be the last time we needed to vote. We need to start believing him when he says things. There will be no 2028 election. Look how much he’s already broken, and he has 3 more years to finish breaking our democracy.
There will be elections probably, the same way Russia or North Korea do “elections”
Elections in the US are never fair. They’re simply a contest of who gets the smartest lawyers and the most funding.
Democrats don’t win with women. That’s all there is to it.
Centrist democrats don’t want AOC to run and they’re willing to hold back all women to prevent that.
That’s all there is to you.
Below 30 is not statistically significant, and you have 2.
