Younger men threw their support behind Donald Trump in 2024 after favoring Biden in 2020

The United States is still not ready for a female president after more than a century of unsuccessful campaigns for the White House, according to former First Lady Michelle Obama.

“As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,” Obama said earlier this month in a live conversation with actor Tracee Ellis Ross that was published Friday.

“That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying,” she said. “You’re not ready for a woman. You are not. So don’t waste my time.”

  • hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I agree Michelle shouldn’t run. I’d argue, though, that we’re ready for a woman leader, but we need one presented without a bunch of past baggage (Hillary) or a party agenda (Kamala and arguably Hillary, too) and with their own ideas and not what the think tank says will win.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I’d say it’s pretty hard for a woman to both have enough experience to be taken seriously as a candidate and simultaneously have no past baggage or party agenda.

      And I don’t think most male candidates are held to that standard, either.

      The misogyny is palpable. In the country as a whole.

      • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        16 hours ago

        country as a whole

        Species as a whole.

        More progressive cultures are getting over this tribalistic, divisive stuff – they will tend to flourish over time.

        More conservative cultures will double down on division – they will tend to wither.

        • TheFogan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          While they certainly implode… I think there’s the old problem.

          Like say you have 5 co-operative communities that focus on building up great resources, polite trade with eachother, no focus on millitary.

          Then you throw in 2 Viking type communities, extremely warlike, that have no independent ability to gather resources… but specifically focus on pillaging.

          Obviously the vikings take out the poorly defended villages to build up resources, before going after eachother, in the long run everyone dies out because the vikings wreck everything for everyone, and leave nothing for themselves.

          I feel like that’s kind of a form of what happens with capitalism vs socialism types. we’ve got elements that really just want peace… but the warlike ones will just continue to survive, as long as there are enough peaceful societies to wreck… and unfortunately the peaceful ones are the ones to go down first, in spite of being the only ones that would survive long term without the others existance.

            • TheFogan@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              14 hours ago

              It’s the point though, not even completely undefended, still not 10% of the same level of defense as the primary points of capitalism. IE just note how much force, propoganda etc… is pushed at any country that isn’t capitalist enough. Right now fishing boats are being bombed. or even non military force, like the trade embargo’s on cuba etc…

              and heaven knows how many government sponsered coups etc… Point is a lot of resources go into doing everything possible to make things that aren’t capitalist enough have a very steep uphill climb.

      • bobzer@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        It’s hilarious. Everyone in this thread literally ignoring the lived experience of women, trying to convince everyone their country isn’t misogynistic.

      • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Not true. Clinton won the popular vote

        I want to vote for a woman, but not a Zionist with plans for lots of tax rebates

        I didn’t vote for Biden, I didn’t vote for Clinton, I didn’t vote for Harris, and I didn’t vote for Obama (but I did caucus for him because public option)

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Eh. She already meets the requirements. She’s old enough. That’s it. And she is eminently more qualified than the current president. She’ll be 39 in 2028. The youngest president, Teddy Roosevelt, was 42.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Maybe the US will be mature enough to join the civilized world in a century or two.

  • KaChilde@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Why is anyone asking Michelle Obama to run for president? I mean, I know the bar for presidential prerequisites is buried 6 feet down after Trump, but why do the democrats keep propping up women candidates based solely on the basis of “she is a woman that you know”?

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        This gets really ugly when Democrats start rejecting candidates for their minority status. Kamala explicitly rejected Pete Buttigieg as a running mate because he was gay. Kamala rejected him using the logic of a thousand other bigots, “I have no problem with it, but others won’t understand and will judge me for it.” This is the exact same logic that employers across the country use to deny hiring queer people, trans people, etc. Employers will claim to not be bigoted themselves, but that their customers wouldn’t get it, so they simply can’t hire the queer candidate.

  • daannii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    They said that about a black president. So. No. I don’t agree. AOC is very popular.

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Hogwash. Women have come within spitting distance of winning the presidency. Twice. Kamala and Hillary were both very unlikable candidates running no the same neoliberal platform that voters have rejected in the last three elections.

  • jdredbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The problem with H. Clinton and Harris were that they were annointed. If a woman candidate was brought forth by a proper primary, I think she’d blow the Republican out of the water.

    • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yep. We seemed to quickly forget that Harris did campaign in the 2020 primary. She was trounced. She was polling something like 16th and withdrew well before the actual California primary.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      17 hours ago

      “Ready for” is a pretty ambiguous qualifier. Considering that 8 years of Obama drove the racists absolutely batshit insane for the foreseeable future makes me think we weren’t even ready for the first Black President, and we certainly aren’t ready for whatever the fuck Trump is. Personally I think things like that are what shes referring to and it’s not so much about just winning the election.

      • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        American here. I remember shortly after the election I was visiting Indian co-workers in Bangalore. Over dinner they were asking why it took so long for us to elect a Black President.

        They were clearly expecting a nuanced and historical perspective about the South, colonialism, economy, yadda

        But my only and honest one-word answer: “Racism”

        I grew up in a city that had gangs and trailer parks. Racism as deep as (and virtually a part of) religion. Those undereducated fucks hated (n-word)

        EDIT: ofc Obama being both educated and black … he was their perfect nemesis

      • frazw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        You don’t think it’s progressive that the USA has its first black president closely followed by it’s first orange president? I’d say that’s a society that is closer to saying it doesn’t see colour.

        Seriously though, I think the fact America hasn’t had a female leader is strange for a country that used to claim to be the greatest nation on earth.

  • frizzo@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Was it just young men? I’d like you to have a look at male minority votes in general. Maybe run a woman candidate who can offer something positive to everyone, even if it’s bullshit like Obama’s Hope.

  • Secret Music 🎵 [they/them]@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    As a non-American looking in from the outside, from what I can gather in progressive online spaces, people are sick of career politicians in general that don’t have any actual morals but are instead driven by marketing and advertising. This is a problem not just with the US Democrats but with the old guard in general worldwide.

    That’s part of why the door has been opened to right wing lunatics in the first place. Around 10 years ago, a lot of people thought Donald Trump was the “anti establishment” pick. As insane as that is to reasonably well educated people, simple people with shitty lives believed that this upstart really would “drain the swamp”.

    It’s also part of why the career politicians aren’t doing much to stop it either. They see the numbers on their marketing graphs, so they’re evolving into another stage of parasite that can feed on the new generation.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that it would be a tougher battle for a woman than for a man in the USA. But also, they would stand a much better chance with someone like AOC than someone like Clinton or Obama or Harris. Because people are fucking sick of corporate undead ghouls whose sole purpose is to keep the Overton window in place.

    I know that someone here is going to call AOC a sellout or something but come on, your anarchist socialist utopia is even further away now that the christo-fascists have undone so much progress. AOC is a thousand times better than almost anything else you’ve got right now.

    You need more women with AOC and Jasmine Crockett energy, and less with Joe Biden energy. Someone to knock these christo-fascist clowns the fuck out on the mic and on social media, and to inspire people. Not someone that’s going to go “oh well I tried nothing and now I give up” and fucking bore everyone to death.

  • mushroommunk@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    “As we saw in the past election”

    Yeah… Not so sure it was because Hilary and Kamala were women

  • Hux@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Nearly one in five voters told an American University survey they or someone they know would not vote for a woman as president, including one-quarter of women under 50 and nearly 20 percent of men under 50.

    In this survey, a larger percentage of women under 50 said they (or someone they knew) wouldn’t vote for a woman as president, compared to men who responded.

    I agree the country is ready to be led by a female president, but I also agree with Michele Obama that the current electorate is not ready to elect that leader.

    I think Russian misinformation efforts are currently far more effective than we are aware of at present.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      In this survey, a larger percentage of women under 50 said they (or someone they knew) wouldn’t vote for a woman as president, compared to men who responded.

      Women tend to have larger active social circles than men. That alone explains this.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That’s a practically useless question though, and I’m shocked the numbers weren’t higher. Of course a ton of people know someone who would never vote for a woman. Who doesn’t have a shitbag uncle?