• givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing

    Imagine saying that after Obama flipped a bunch of red states and brought in a shit ton of down ballot races.

    AOC is polarizing, but not as much as Obama and it’s easier the second time around.

    Hell, no body even really mentioned Biden being Catholic in 1988. You should have seen the shit they said about JFK. And similar time-frames passed between.

    And strictly police wise, the country is a lot more open to progressive policy than in 08, and again, everyone said Obama was too “polarizing” right up till election results.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I will vote for her so hard given the chance. Unfortunately, I’m still just one vote. I want to agree with you, but I’m not sure I can. I’d sure love to see her give it a real run, with a DNC that supporter her and didn’t drag her to the center or actively undercut her primary chances.

    • theneverfox
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s because Obama was polarizing, but he sold himself as progressive convincingly

      He literally ran on the promise of change - unfortunately his actions were firmly neo liberal, and he prioritized compromise over meaningful reform

      If Obama was a neo liberal in progressive clothing, Clinton was a diehard neo liberal from top to bottom.

      Unfortunately, the lesson learned was “people don’t like Hillary” rather than “people want a real progressive”

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t understand your point… Obama won two presidential elections in a row. It would seem as though that "selling himself as a progressive convincingly worked out pretty well for him id say.

        So you’re saying that the people want a progressive candidate, but the Dems would, at most, give us the option of someone who sells themselves as progressive but is an actual neo-liberal?

        Oh, maybe I do get it after all. I was going to say that Gore was pretty progressive and did technically win, but that was 25 years agola

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      5 months ago

      There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now. Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now

        What?

        Literally what’s how what works?

        Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

        Fair and open primaries, mate.

        I’ve been saying it since NH had their delegates stolen.

        Well, this cycle, almost a decade now in total. This ain’t exactly a new problem, and it’s not like no one can think of a solution.

        It’s just not easy beating corporate money in primaries until enough Dem voters demand the party sets higher standards. And most people only pay atteyonce every 4 years, then they’re too exhausted to care about politics.