• krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Clinton / Harris did not lose because they were women. They lost because they either were a neoliberal shitbag (Clinton) or could not convince people that they were not a neoliberal shitbag (Harris).

    We elected a black man after years of people saying America was too racist to ever do that. There are a lot more women in America than there are black people, and it turns out that running as a progressive is pretty popular.

    We don’t need to play this stupid guessing game about what genitals or skin colors will win elections. We already know the policy positions that win elections we just categorically refuse to run on them.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Clinton / Harris did not lose because they were women.

      Yes they did.

      We elected a black man

      He’s a man.

      There is a large swath of our populace living in the right geographical areas that will NEVER vote for a woman to be president. And that includes a lot of women. AOC will not win the Electoral College. Half the country wants to burn her at the stake for being too liberal. She can’t reach those voters. She won’t win.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s the same kinds of things they said about Obama. All you’re basing this on is your feelings. Call me when AOC or another progressive woman loses a general election.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s a narrative pushed here a lot, but I haven’t seen good evidence it is true.

      Wasn’t Obama a neoliberal shitbag by your standards?

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Obama ran on Change, closing Gitmo, and universal healthcare. That he governed as a neoliberal scared to change anything doesn’t change what people actual voted for.

        • AmidFuror@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          And then in Obama’s second term he just had the incumbent’s advantage. Then neoliberal Biden, VP to Obama, won on change again. Then Trump won on changing back.

          You may just be rationalizing because you don’t like neoliberal, so you think no one does.

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

            I don’t like neoliberals, but my comment only referenced them because you defined Obama as neoliberal when his first campaign was very much not. That’s what people voted for. And of the elections after that, the only one that couldn’t be easily described as based on “change” was Obama’s second term against Romney, who is himself sort of the antithesis of change.

            • AmidFuror@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              That’s a fair assessment, actually. I think many voters often want change or don’t want change, and they don’t really consider which direction the change goes.

              If anything bad is happening, whether it’s the current administration’s fault or the previous, they’ll be interested in trying something different.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                The swing voters and the non-swing but intermittent voters will just take gut checks about how their life is going and figure out which side wants that to change. Each side, when they’re up for change, will pretend their chosen policies will fix everything, and enough people don’t really have the wherewithal to recognize whether it’s actually going to do anything.

                The truth is, for both sides, usually it won’t, because even the good stuff is usually tinkering on the long term or hoping that business subsidies trickle down to regular people. Before Trump mostly nothing happened to really impact people’s lives, and Trump’s stuff is all terrible. So the same stresses that prompted them to believe the other guy’s changes would finally do something are still there and they’re now looking for a new lie to believe in.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        He acted like one once he got elected but that’s not what got him elected. His campaign was very different from his Presidency.