Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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.
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.
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?
Yes, it could, which is why (IIRC) 16 US states now have laws that partially or fully ban ranked choice voting.
land of the free, laws specific designed to ban people's choices.
I love AOC but I don't think she'll win. She needs to focus on Schumer instead. Rn the DNC is in a death spiral and is in desperate need of new party leadership. She's the one for that. Newsom will likely be the 2028 candidate. Which yeah it's gonna suck to have to bite our tongue and back him but if it gets us out of a maga dictatorship then I'll gladly do it.
More like how there should be a coup now. lol.
Our nation is too sexist and too racist for AOC to win. I'll still vote for her if she runs.
Nothing to do with racism and sexism . Your electoral system simply suck. Hillary won the popular votes and harris lost by only 2.3m it;s nothing for a population of 340 millions
So one just lost, and the other lost because of the vote distributions were not in her favor: sexist/racist state electoral votes were needed that she didn't get. I stand unrefuted.
How do you distinguish voters who vote against them because they are racists and sexists and those for other factors?
"We've tried running two shitlib women with 'status-quo' platforms during a time when the public is crying out for economic change, and they both lost. That proves women can't win, because it couldn't possibly be about our abject refusal to rein in the billionaires!"
shit liberals say
Pretty much.
If it was just a feeling with Hilary, then it's absolutely true with Kamala.
The excuses like "Kamala is pro-cop!" Or "Hilary is evil", while it can be true, is also what sexists latch on to avoid being called sexists.
And for icing on the cake, a bunch of hispanic dudes voted for Trump and then are getting deported. Sexism runs so deep that it clouded their own survival.
The excuses like "Kamala is pro-cop!" Or "Hilary is evil", while it can be true, is also what sexists latch on to avoid being called sexists.
You remind me of people calling anybody criticizing Israel anti smite. While it true that sexists would use it most people really believe that they can't support them for their policies and priorities
Yep — because she is a woman, people with create reasons why they can’t vote for her. Hilary and Kamala were both fine politicians. Most that did not vote for either of them are just afraid to confess they’re real beliefs, so they just pick a narrative and run with it because it makes them appear more sophisticated than a “I hate women” statement.
Nailed it.