• PastafARRian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I think the only legitimate chance Democrats have is Luigi Mangione. You have to fight fire with fire. He’s young, smart, charismatic, from a well to do background, and not even a felon like our current president. Also brave unlike our Republican chickenshit losers. Sanders as running mate.

    • toppy@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      50 minutes ago

      Luigi Mangione is fine. But he has no experience. What will he bring during discussions ? AOC is ok for president post. But she is not that popular. I mean even Bernie Sanders has not become president despite being in active politics for so many decades. But let’s see what will happen in USA after Trump steps down when his tenure gets over.

      • PastafARRian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        50 minutes ago

        I’ll bet $1000 that we’ll slip into fascism unless we vote Mangione as a write in. Nobody else has the guts to stand up to these thugs. The guy is paraded around like he’s guilty, and stands tall. Sorry but not even AOC seems able to do anything but talk.

  • Kcap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours 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.

  • intheformbelow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    God, americans are so naive. There won’t be fair elections anymore. You had your chance and you blew it! It’s over for your democracy.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I will be a touch disappointed if there is still a us in 2028.

    I don’t think that the us is worth saving at this point.

  • hefejefe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    She is picking a fight with the billionaire oligarchs and unfortunately it seems like a losing battle. Democrats and republicans alike will campaign against her.

  • Salamence@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The democrat leadership did everything in their power to stop bernie in 2020 they will do the same against AOC

    • Wiz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It’s “Democratic” when used as an adjective.

      Don’t use Rush Limbaugh-speak. (May he rot in hell.)

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Agreed, no reason to give them reprieve. Let them try again and this time the gerontocracy is weaker then it has ever been.

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    All the fucking second-order sexists here saying we can’t elect a woman because two of the worst female candidates ever lost.

    These are the same people who said Obama couldn’t win because he was black. Not that they were racist, no they love black people, but they just want to make absolutely extra sure we don’t actually try to elect one. Because they imagine their neighbor/uncle/coworker would look at everything going on and think “none of that is important, no black presidents”. They’re not racist, they just advocate for racism. And with this most facile of analyses they’ll believe themselves to be politically savvy realists rather than reactionary children.

    This is the cowardice that dooms liberalism. At every opportunity they want to worry about what their opponents will like and time after time will try to blame strategy or immutable characteristics for the failures of their do-nothing policies. Politics is about change. When people’s lives suck you don’t try to tell them we’ll keep doing the same things. And whether the person talking change is a charismatic black man or a clown show, or even… A FEEEMALE, they’ll vote for them.

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You’re not wrong. Obama won because he was a corporatist and easily manipulated and ran on empty slogans, so he had the backing of the mainstream. Harris did too, but AOC won’t have that backing.

      That also means she could run on actual popular policies. Something Trump did. His voters now kinda got the same scam with him than the progressives got with Obama lol.

      But there is deeply entrenched propaganda in the media and the minds of people. Like you’d need a movement that comes together. But you can see the liberals in this thread would balk at any tankie demanding and end to US or EU imperialism lol, just like they will balk at putting another women on the ticket.

    • ...m...@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      …when i was growing up, my well-meaning parents pulled me aside to express their concern over a jewish friend dating a black friend; aghast at their comment, i immediately confronted them over its apparent racism, and they replied that they had nothing against it personally, but were instead concerned about what other people might think…

      …they’re f*cking balls-out fascists fourty years later, and i want no part of them in my life…

      …to anyone tempted to compromise their own best interests on behalf of what other people might think: don’t give them that kind of power over you, or they’ll drag you down in it…

      • thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        My ex wife is indian, I’m white, my kids are mixed race. When i lived in louisiana, my son’s pre-school teacher took me aside and told me “I’m not racist, I just feel bad for him. He’s not going to fit in because of his background”. She then segregated him from the rest of the class and sat him at a table where it was just him and one other non-white kid. the white kids were at other tables, physically pretty far from where he was sitting.

        Fuck people who say shit like that. They’re absolutely just as racist as the overtly racist fascist pieces of garbage running the US.

  • mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    14 hours ago

    She should absolutely run. I don’t know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.

    Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours 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
      4
      ·
      6 hours 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
      37
      ·
      17 hours 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
      21
      ·
      17 hours 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…

  • Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I love AOC, but she will lose.

    The American people have shown that they would rather have a convicted felon, rapist, fascist pedophile than a highly qualified woman.

    It’s stupid, but it’s reality.

    A woman candidate is a non starter.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The fact that Harris got as close as she did with so little time proves that she didn’t lose because she’s a woman. She lost because her policies sucked. Run someone who is honest and trying to help the people and I’d bet they do well, man, woman, or otherwise (OK, maybe a trans candidate actually couldn’t win for now).

      The people saying those two lost because they’re women are ignorant. They lost because they were shitty candidates. More men have lost than women, and no one says it’s because they were men. It’s just an easy excuse to ignore that people don’t like corporate ass kissers who fuck over the average person to help the rich.

      • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Another factor which IMHO led to her lose was that she didn’t primary. So all the anger against Biden mostly transferred onto her. His blinding support to genocide, his greediness for the presidency, his support for big businesses, him breaking the railway workers strike just eroded any goodwill he did have.

        He did good things but optics of these didn’t let good deeds to shine. They did cast a shadow over Kamala’s campaign too.

    • teolan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      106
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Unlike Kamala and Clinton she actually believes in something, and not just the Dems’ very rich corporate donors.

      look at Zohran Mamdani in New York. He’s a Muslim, foreign born, socialist. Plenty of things that by the same logic would make him loose. But he won the primary and odds are he’ll Winn the mayor position.

      • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It does not matter enough. Too many bigots in the conservative dem voter base.

        They will vote black, Muslim, Asian, so long as it’s not a woman.

        Sad state of the American psyche.

        • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          The issue is we’ve never actually tried to run a populist left candidate. So everyone saying, “it’ll never work!” have no real bases for that statement. (the closest we’ve ever been was Sanders, and the DNC ensured that he was not going to be on the ballot.)

          A TRUE LEFT POPULIST WILL WIN! in my opinion

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 hours ago

            We actually did, his name was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

            Sure if we hold him up to today’s standards not a progressive by any means, but he campaigned on working class issues and helped steer the country out of the depression. He created virtually all our modern safety nets or their predecessors.

            He was so popular a president that Congress amended the constitution to ensure no other president could have more than 2 terms. He was so popular congress was afraid it threatened the power of their branch of government.

            Running on and actually accomplishing worker centric policy works.

            And to fend of the inevitable yes he was not that progressive by today’s measures and had a mountain of flaws. But his accomplishments were revolutionary for the country in his time.

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            I didnt say ‘it’ll never work!!’, I said NYC <> the US. You can’t compare the two and say “See, it works” when he isn’t even elected yet, and its in a city that is absolutely further left than democrats on the national scale.

            I would love to see it work. One mayoral hopeful in a friendly city is not a reasonable comparison though.

            Edit: feel free to show me a single example somewhere red. I’d love it.

            When that happens, yeah, that’d be a good example.

            • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              14 hours ago

              To bolster your point, a true progressive ran in 2018 in west Virginia- Paula Swearengin. She challenged Joe Manchin in the primary and lost 70-30.

              She then won the Democratic primary in 2020 for Senate and went on to lose in the general 70/27 (other votes to the libertarian.)

              People really need to understand that while Zohran and AOC are great there isn’t some kind of silver bullet with progressivism across the country.

              • lemonaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                It’s not just policy, it’s energy.

                Becoming a recognized name that sticks in people’s heads is the biggest battle — this is usually the incumbent advantage: this was Manchin’s advantage over Paula Jean Swearengin; but it was also Cuomo’s advantage over Zohran Mamdani… and Cuomo lost. So there’s another way to make yourself known: being disruptive.

                I loathe MAGA. They are assholes, but that’s how they took over. That’s what gets them covered in the news, they do constant theater saying asshole things. Literally everyone knows who Marjorie Taylor Greene is, whether they’re into politics or not. Many MAGA politicians nowadays you know first from the podcast circuit. Yes they have an ecosystem but that doesn’t mean we can’t do guerrilla campaigning. After all, Mamdani still won, right?

                Now I’m not saying we need progressives to be assholes. But they should be more performative — loudmouths even: get up in people’s faces, speak confidently and provocatively into the camera, tell people your values without them asking. Do things that aren’t necessarily stunts, but that get labeled as stunts.

                Mamdani has done a bunch of this stuff, from telling Cuomo how to spell his name, to his full day walking through Manhattan and interacting with people, to how easily he answers even the hardest questions — I mean, you probably already know how good he is at this stuff and how easy he makes it look, so it might be tempting to think you can’t replicate his success because of how uniquely talented he is, but let me give you another example:

                Kat Abughazaleh (YouTuber and investigative journalist for Mother Jones and Media Matters, currently running for Congress) has done arguably even more with her campaign: she’s using campaign money for mutual aid (anyone can walk into their office and get free stuff except for ICE), feeding the homeless, Pride and Drag Queen Story Hour; she gave bigots the finger on camera and doubled down; she did a campaign event in a comedy club and turned it into a TED-style stand-up presentation about “General” Michael Flynn wanting to sell your blood. Her campaign slogan as a Democrat is “What if we didn’t suck”! She started in single digits and now she’s single digits away from first place. Watch her explain it though, to get a sense of the energy. (All the other stuff is on her channel too, I highly recommend the Flynn one btw!)

                You have to get creative and work the outrage media space, it’s the only way. Get eyes on you and stand up for your values, loudly!

              • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                11 hours ago

                How do we know that? In super deep red areas it’s a uphill battle. But the most left wing president we’ve ran since FDR was Carter and I’d say he’s more neoliberal/pure centrist than progressive/left. Once again, when you only run center and more right candidates; the more center candidates losing isn’t really a sign America wants only right politics. It just means the more left wing voter stays home on elections.

                • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  I don’t know? Results?

                  I want more progressive policies. Run em. But just don’t be surprised if they get slaughtered.

                  I think more than progressive policies people want younger people.

                  But to Anyone down voting, great. I simply presented raw facts.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 hours ago

            (the closest we’ve ever been was Sanders, and the DNC ensured that he was not going to be on the ballot.)

            Ah, yes, when the DNC forged millions of votes to make Sanders lose. Twice.

            Fuck’s sake. Show up for the primaries next time, goddamn you.

          • UsernameHere@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            16 hours ago

            I don’t think we should risk another 4 years with GOP/Trump candidate based on your opinion.

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              I don’t think running another center right candidate like we have since FDR will work. There’s way more evidence that Americans want far left policies. Problem is that Americans are soooooooo politically uneducated it’s scary

              • UsernameHere@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                13 hours ago

                There’s way more evidence that Americans want far left policies

                Not according to the election results.

                Problem is that Americans are soooooooo politically uneducated it’s scary

                Doesn’t this increase the chances of a leftist losing?

                • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  Not according to election results?!

                  When choices are far right and center right, center left and far left voters just stay home.

                  And no. Educated people vote left at a much higher rate!

      • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        His path to victory is very hard. Expect hundreds of millions to be spent on ads against him. My boss’ PAC has estimated Cuomo would have $100 million available if he chooses to run as an independent.

      • Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        That’s New York. You won’t win swing states with those candidates. And I love Zohran. If he ran in California, I’d vote for him.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      To be fair, Clinton and Harris and the platform were not particularly exciting, and they played by the old rules.

      Misogyny may have been a contributing factor, but not being bold, exciting, or authentic sure as hell didn’t help.

      • greenfire@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        14 hours ago

        maybe let the people who actually vote for the party decide who they prefer as candidates, rather than having the gerontocracy alone dictate that choice

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          maybe let the people who actually vote for the party decide who they prefer as candidates

          Those people said “Clinton” and then “Biden”. Both over Bernie, who was far more charismatic than both and with a fucking spotless record, unlike both.

          Not sure that the primary voters’ll be delivering a progressive savior unless the demographics of who votes in Dem primaries changes radically.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Losing the nomination would not be the end for AOC. But as a champion for the “Democratic Socialist” wind of the Democrats there’s really not a better candidate to speak at the primaries and ensure that even in a primary loss the eventual winner adds parts their goals to the administrations goals.

      This is why the “Christian Conservatives” always run a few candidates in the Republican party, and why they’ve always got a spot in the Republican party platform.

    • Botzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      18 hours ago

      In all likelihood, yes, she will lose.

      But she should still run for the same reasons Bernie ran. Change the discourse and prevent unfettered ratcheting of the Overton window; force Democrats to respond to her challenge.

      If she doesn’t run, we all lose. Winning isn’t quite everything.

      • Jolly Platypus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        If the dems lose in 2028, assuming there is an election, the fascists will consolidate power and the U.S. will be a dictatorship for 40 years.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Harris and Clinton both had major structural issues that went beyond their gender. I’m not ignoring the reality that women face a greater uphill battle–they need to be downright perfect in order to even get fair consideration–but I don’t think that the fact that they are women was the only factor. I’m not even positive that it would be a deciding factor against someone who isn’t Trump. His particular brand of politics really only works for him, somehow.

    • the_q@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      This is the type of thinking that will keep the status quo the status quo.

      “Things can’t change oh well!”

    • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      They’ve shown they don’t want to vote for hope-extinguishing establishment dweebs.

      A woman candidate who’s actually good would do great.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      18 hours ago

      You could say also they’d rather select that than a qualified “person”. Should no opposition ever run again? Or is it clear that she was not chosen because of her gender? Maybe so, but that feels to me like it completely overlooks that there could be anything about her personality or positions responsible.

      I’m not comfortable saying AOC or any other woman is a non-starter because other women have failed. A lot of people have failed before and at some point perhaps one will be selected. I think she would be a good choice, and more appealing to many than Kamala, I suspect.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      A woman candidate is a non starter.

      This. This right here. This is what people are going to have to start accepting.

      We heard throughout the entire campaign “Biden too old!”. And to be fair, he was. That debate performance proved it. But here’s the thing. Once his replacement was announced, people suddenly stopped having a problem with age, because they ran right back to Bernie Sanders. Suddenly, age wasn’t nearly as much of an issue any more. The voters ultimately stood up in one voice and said “We’d still vote for a really old man or at least let another old man with dementia return to power before we vote for a black woman”. It’s like the voters demanded someone younger, saw the DNC endorse Harris, and said “No, not like that!”

      The Gaza excuse doesn’t make sense either, because Trump was actively campaigning on glassing the place and turning it into beachfront property. Never mind the fact that Harris was in a lose-lose position with regards to the war (Had she turned and supported Gaza, she’d have lost significantly more Jewish voters and the race would have been an even bigger Trump victory), but even if you believe she’s “supporting a genocide”, the fact of the matter is that Trump’s position was not only to support it, but to speed it up. You can’t claim that you didn’t vote for Harris over Gaza while allowing someone who you damn well know is going to be even worse for Gaza to rise back to power. Again, this doesn’t make the last bit of logical sense. Another excuse for people who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black woman and needed an excuse to either convince themselves or their social circle to justify it.

      What else was there? “Well, she wasn’t clear on some of her economic policies”. Literal quote from news reporters on the Harris/Trump debate where Trump’s answer to an economic policy question was “They’re eating the dogs! They’re eating the cats! They’re eating…the pets!”.

      Or “They’re all just handpicked by the corporate elite”. Or “we’re trying to send a message to the Democrat party to put forward better candidates”. Or my personal favorite “She campaigned with Liz Cheney that one time…”.

      Or whatever other excuse people keep coming up with. Not a single one of them has ever been able to answer the question of “Even if you believe that, how does allowing Trump return to power make it any better or advance your position?”

      The fact of the matter is that Democrats have their own share of low-key racists and bigots. They’re just not as open about it as Republicans, and still prefer to hide behind whatever convenient excuse they can come up with. But they’ve twice over proven that, for all their bluster about age and progressive values, they’ll gladly allow an old white man with dementia to return to power before they ever consider voting for a woman. I’ll echo the exact same thing you said. I don’t like it, and you don’t have to agree with it. But reality is what reality is. If the Democrat party puts forward a woman or minority in 2028, especially after 4 years of Trump stoking racial tensions, they’re going to lose. Full stop. This country is not willing to accept a woman President. Heck, I’m willing to bet that Obama was a fluke and the voters won’t vote in a minority as President again, at least not in my lifetime.

    • LuigiMaoFrance@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Maybe people didn’t vote for Clinton and Harris because both are complicit in war crimes?

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        17 hours ago

        After doing weeks of phone banking and door knocking, my read is that it was the economy and being unwilling to break the mould. They were more of the same and they were uninspiring.

        It was so rare that I would run into people who wanted to talk about foreign policy.

      • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Nope. We only use identity politics to explain political failings here.

        /s

      • peregrin5@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        You’re a fool if you think that’s the reason why.

        The average American voter doesn’t give a shit about brown people dying in the Middle East.

        It’s only about your football team winning, oh and women are too “emotional”.

  • ofcourse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours 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.

    • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours 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?

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Delegates 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
            2
            ·
            8 hours 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.

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours 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
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours 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.

        • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 hours 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.