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.
I’m all for a women president eventually, but perhaps the elections during an attempted fascist take over isn’t the time.
Some men will simply not vote for a woman, it’s sad, but it’s reality. If a woman is on the ballot the democrats will lose again.
The time will come, just not yet with stakes this high. I would love to see AOC as the first female president.
I’m still of the VERY strong opinion that Hillary and Kamala didn’t lose because they were women, but because they were Hillary and Kamala.
I don’t know, but maybe we shouldn’t base our gender litmus test off of literally the most unlikeable women the DNC could have picked.
I think you’re mostly right, but being women had to be at least a few percent of it.
Harris wasn’t the “most unlikeable” by a long shot, but she was certainly a solid “meh”.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
And Biden did poorly. It should have been a cakewalk and he barely won. “It got us Biden” isn’t an argument to the utility of timidity.
Biden turned out 16M more voters than Hillary Clinton four years earlier. That’s nothing to sneeze at. He still won on the margins, because Donald Trump also turned out an extra 12M voters, with a heavy 1:1 split in the same states Trump narrowly beat Hillary in a year earlier.
I don’t think anything about that suggests the election was a cakewalk. I do think it illustrates the difference direct-mail voting has on overall US turnout. And the fact that both parties immediately retreated from the policy - with Trump even trying to ban it nationwide - says something about the real state of American Democracy both before and after the Pandemic.
2020 is a hard election to judge precisely because it was so fucking weird. COVID cut the knees off Bernie’s primary campaign. Millions of people - particularly the elderly - were dropping dead in the lead up to the election. Misinformation was chronic. The actual elections process (which has always sucked in the US) was extra shady af, particularly in rural districts without modernized voting systems.
But I will say that the Biden pick was a desperation move by conservative Democrats who believed they were losing control of the party. And 2024 was a repeat of this process, with the spectre of Trump 2 forcing progressive voters to choose between Genocide Joe’s last minute replacement and Actual Outright Fascism.
Real “Douche” v “Turd Sandwich” election. But these candidates won almost entirely because of who backed them. Silicon Valley went hard for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024.
It should have been a cakewalk because Trump was currently the guy screwing everything up and not improving people’s lives. Incumbency isn’t an advantage for President anymore and Trump (with help from COVID) was doing particularly badly. He had sub-40 approval polls and, before the general election campaign, polls were putting most of the main Democratic options up by 6-8. It wasn’t a cakewalk in the actual election because Biden didn’t run a good campaign.
Biden in 2024 was then the guy to blame for everything going wrong (inflation in this case), with sub-40 approval polls, and was on course to lose before being kicked off the ticket. And Harris made the baffling decision to frame herself as just being a younger Biden.
He brought in 74M votes, with a surge in fascist supporters coming from big historical swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. On what planet was that going to be a cakewalk?
That’s not true. Incumbency channels money to your campaign. The Biden/Harris warchest was bigger in 2024 than in 2020. It affords you a roadmap based on your prior victory. Harris - like Hillary before her - failed to focus her campaign in the winnable states and squandered manpower chasing red states she had no chance in.
2024 was a great year, economically speaking. The market was up enormously. Unemployment was low. International trade was strong in the wake of the COVID recovery. Business was booming. The inflation was - if anything - a product of the economy running too hot, as demand outstretched supply in a number of retail sectors.
Republicans were happy enough to take credit for this prosperity at the Congressional/Gubernatorial level, then twist in their seats and condemn inflation as a uniquely Presidential sin. Democrats let them get away with it, because they were too busy covering their asses on Israel, backpedaling on the COVID response, and trying to find some kind of middle ground on the fully fabricated “transgender athletes” issue.
And this pants-on-head stupid take was why we lost the election.
Brother, did you live through any year in US history?
Not countering your opponent’s gains is also part of running a bad campaign. The same people who ran his campaign were running Harris’s and making all those dumb mistakes you highlight. Only she didn’t have the “change” label and Trump’s failures at the front of people’s minds to edge her over the line. Biden was heading toward a loss in 2024.
Presidential elections keep going down to the wire and it’s not because Donald Trump is just that talented. These things shouldn’t be being won or lost on the margins. All of the last three candidates have been a lot closer to John Kerry than Barrack Obama.
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.
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.
If she wins the primary she should be the candidate. She probably won’t though, because the dems are going to sandbag her and select a safe corpo pol like the corpse of Chuck Schumer
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.
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.
I am Vladimir Putin himself. And I would like to inform you that that guy is not one of my bots.
LOL? Get a grip on reality, Cletus!
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.
I fear you are right. And with numbers like this, the Democrats have an uphill battle anyway, with all the rigging and ratfucking that the Republicans do, not to mention the EC system itself.
Can we all agree that those men are trash? I don’t care what else they’ve got going on, if they refuse to vote for a woman because she’s a woman, they deserve to go into the dumpster.
I’m so sick of all these sacks of shit making the world worse
deleted by creator
Despite your feelings, these are the people voting. If you offer a woman candidate, you will effectively freeze out the misogynistic 30% (approximately, don’t @me ) of the possible vote for that woman, and unless there is a literal Blue tidal wave of historic proportion, she ain’t getting past the post first. It is reality, currently, and I’m sorry your feelings don’t like it. Mine don’t either, but now is not the time for gender equality in the presidency. In this climate, a female candidate will be a liability. Did you not see how the last 2 Dem women candidates performed…?
To be clear, I didn’t insist we run women candidates anyway. That’s a tactical decision I don’t feel qualified to make from the toilet where I make Lemmy posts.
I just want us to agree that those 30% of men or whatever are trash. Because they are trash. Trash that votes, but still trash.
(And not irredeemable - many things that end up in the trash can be fixed or repurposed. People are not immutable.)
For all practical purposes, 50% of the population cannot be reasoned with. These are rabid animals who must cajoled and manipulated. Hoping they’ll magically not be misogynistic or that they’ll vote in their own best interest for once is a fool’s errand.
Comes out closer to 27%, but the deck is so heavily stacked with Winner-Take-All elections and election manipulation through voter caging and outright fuckery a la The Brooks Brothers Riot that this cohort is heavily over-represented nationwide.
The national punditry has so much invested in the superficial identity politics of a candidate, they can’t see whether a given individual is actually likeable. Nobody had Zohran Mamdani as a serious candidate for Mayor this time last year. Nobody had Donald Trump as a serious candidate in 2015. Even Obama’s run was largely considered a token bid for VP in late 2007.
Underestimate candidates like AOC and Rashida Tlaib at your own peril, conservatives.
Those 50%, or 27% will NOT vote for a woman, no matter what. Therefore, a women candidate will be trying to be first past the post with only 50%, or 73%, of the vote available to her, at most. It is far too great a handicap to bear, at a time when losing is not an option. Learn to read the room.
Oh well, I’m sure they’ve got a white man somewhere who’s about 90 and will keep things just the way they are because to fix things is “undemocratic”.
Or! We can find someone who embodies our socioeconomic values without depending on 150 million misogynistic racists to suddenly see the light. These creatures cannot be reasoned with.
You don’t win elections by appealing to your opponents. Triangulation is a tragic lie.
If there is just one lesson non-Republicans should take from Trump winning two elections, it should be this one!
@duncan_bayne @Zaktor can someone tell Keir Starmer as well
I mean this is just the reality of it. I’m right there with you. Dems tried it twice and we all saw how that went. I told my friend the other day that she will be president someday, just not now. Probably give it another 25-30 years though.