- cross-posted to:
- conservative@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- conservative@sh.itjust.works
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez holds a slight lead over Vice President JD Vance in a hypothetical 2028 presidential matchup, according to a new poll.
The New York Democratic congresswoman, known as AOC, edges the likely Republican nominee 51% to 49%, in The Argument/Verasight survey released on Tuesday. However, the result was within the poll’s 2.7 percentage point margin of error, making the two candidates statistically tied. The poll asked voters who they would vote for if the election was between the two of them.
Attitudes like yours are why Democrats lose elections. We talk ourselves out of our best candidates. We try to compromise with Republicans right out the gate, and try to select the more moderate ‘electable’ candidate.
Your line of thinking got us Kerry, Clinton, and Biden.
Trying to select a candidate based on “electability” is bullshit, because you just end up selecting for the most uninspiring centrist who can’t get people to the polls.
You think you’re selecting for winners, but you’re taking your strongest pieces off the board.
This argument is frequently made on Lemmy. I’d like it to be true. But I just don’t know.
Makes sense in places like California or New York. But I don’t know about places in the Midwest e.g.
I hear you, but we’ve tried the strategies of the mainstream Democrats and they’ve failed hard.
Hopefully the recent ACA votes taught the Democrats that voting to end the shutdown was a terrible idea and that they should never again compromise with Republicans for mere promises of future consideration.
The Democrats should rally behind AOC and primary all corrupt bastards that enable the Republicans.
“We’ve never tried the inspiring candidate, but without evidence, I must insist that they’re unelectable.”
I mean, we did run the inspiring candidate. Obama. It was a huge success.
Did he turn out to be everything that everyone hoped and dreamed? No. But he energized the hell out of the base and at least the best president of the past few decades.
Exactly. And people were also saying then that we needed to go with the more electable candidate with more experience. That was the exact argument Hillary supporters made during the 2008 primary.
If Britain and Mexico can both elect a woman to lead their country, why can’t the US?
Because half of the people who voted in the last election voted for Trump?
So?
Because this is a trashcan nation that votes for felon rapist insurrectionist pedophiles…twice.
Most supporters voted for him thrice. Just another old white dude got in the way that one time.
More like a worldwide pandemic got in the way. Biden couldn’t have won without covid.
You’re just doing the left version of American exceptionalism.
Because a solid percentage of the country quite literally wants women barefoot and pregnant, with another solid percentage following along with them because something something taxes something something jerbs.
This is just the woke version of American exceptionalism. Conservatives exist in all countries. Hell, Mexico is famous for its machismo culture.
I think you guys can both be correct here. Just because shitty people are all over the Earth, that does not negate the problems people point out with the US.
I did not see them say or even imply that the US is the only place with sexist conservatives, or that we are the worst in the world about it. It was answering a question about the US too.
I think we all know that there are places in the world that have been far worse for far longer in just about any bad way you can think of. But it’s still pretty noteworthy when the world’s superpower that once saw itself as a diverse melting pot and land of opportunity and democracy goes and elects somebody who literally said on TV that they would be a dictator. And this after that same person already did a horrible bad faith job for all the world to see.
California and New York are absolutely fountaining with conservative voters. These states only go blue because conservatives like Diane Feinstein and Gavin Newsom have found it easier to voice conservative policies from a liberal party than to voice liberal policies from a conservative one.
On the flip side, Bush Jr won Texas against Anne Richards by running to her Left and pandering to Hispanics and black voters while she pounded the old Dixiecrat drum on crime and drugs. Shortly thereafter, long time Democrat Rick Perry changed parties, because he decided it was easier to get oil money as a liberal Republican than a conservative Democrat.
Politics in this country is way more complex than people like to give it credit. So much is simply driven by the party with the most money or the most gerrymandered districts. What’s winnable can boil down to whether or not your brother is the governor, not your race or your gender or even your voting record.
That complexity sure sounds like corruption!
But realistically, corruption does add to the complexity, lol.
Meanwhile a democratic socialist won the mayorship of New York City.
Against a former Dem governor who was backed by a Republican president no less
I mean, there was Sanders and look at what the Dems did to him. I don’t think Hillary and Kamala are any better than Biden or Clinton either.
It got us Biden. I think you underestimate how much institutional support Kerry and Clinton had in the run up to their nominations. Kerry wasn’t even that bad of a candidate on his face. He just got railroaded in Ohio the same way Gore did in Florida, while everyone in national media threw up their hands and proclaimed “Too Liberal!”
You are wrong. This is literally the worst time to be offering up a “first time for…” candidate. The stakes are way too high to run that experiment. I love AOC and think she’d be a fine president, but at this time of hate and misogyny, she is too great a risk.
deleted by creator
So you’d rather go with a proven losing strategy?
Removed by mod
And how well has your strategy of “don’t rock the boat, don’t try anything new” been working out for you there, buddy? How many elections do we need to lose before you realize that you have crap instincts on what makes a candidate electable? In our current electoral landscape, the quickest way to lose an election is to be stupid enough to pick the “safe” candidate.
I think you may literally be insane. After all, what is insanity but repeating the same action again and again, but expecting a different result?
I think you personally don’t want a woman president, and you’re hiding behind concerns of electability because it’s not socially acceptable on lemjy to be an overt misogynist.
Removed by mod
Try learning how to spell Kamala, Ivan.
Removed by mod
Not sure if you’ve been paying attention but Americans chose a felon rapist insurrectionist pedophile over a more qualified woman the last two times a woman has been on the ballot.
Read the room.
If we run a woman, we will lose. And that doesn’t even take into account that many people who aren’t liberals (independents) do not like AOC because they believe she is too liberal.
This is a tired trope and fewer and fewer people buy it.
Clinton and Harris didn’t loose because they were women, they lost because they ran bad campaigns. Clinton was not particularly sympathetic and many people feel she was given the nomination over Sanders because it was her turn. Harris looked like she had some substance early on and then quickly lost her steam.
Shove this Russian propaganda right back where it came from
You know you’ve lost the argument when you start throwing around slurs.
LOL? Get a grip on reality, Cletus!
I am Vladimir Putin himself. And I would like to inform you that that guy is not one of my bots.
Something you would only say if he was one of your bots.
My officers report their full list of bots to me under penalty of death. I don’t see this guy on my records. Maybe the guy’s working for China?
I’m glad you choose to ignore objective reality and say stupid, bumbling shit instead.
Your teachers would be proud of the critical thinking skills you’ve developed. Keep up the good work.