• Pnut@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    She’s one of only half a handful of Dems that sound ready to lead people into battle. The difference between how she uses knowledge and intelligence to speak to people is in stark comparison to Trump sounding exactly like he has dementia. She listens and responds. Trump just keeps interrupting any question he doesn’t like. Fuck you Maga. Fuck you entirely. You god damn idiots.

  • MochiGoesMeow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    Disagree. The Democrats dont know who they are anymore. Pelosi and the old Democrats have got to go.

    AOC should just make a new party.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      No, we don’t have time for that. We just have to do a tea party on the Democratic party… Which is what she’s been doing

      They do have to go, but we’re keeping the house and the dog

      • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?

        edit: just saw your other comments, I hope your DNC-tea party plan works with some effect. It’s harder for those who have voted for decades for a party that just isn’t responsive to the citizens so we’ll see I suppose.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?

          It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.

          This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.

          • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            My concern with this take is “what are we considering this effect to be?” If we are taking the average republican who wholly considers themselves to be “Conservative”, their party was overtaken by extremists who are the antithesis to what the goal of that meaning is.

            I don’t want a “Blue Maga” which takes the party away from progressive policies in an attempt to drum up fanatical support “against the tyrannical reds” while in reality they continue destroying the democracy we have. An example is a new DNC who wishes to prosecute and deport those who are on the right (there are examples on this site of individuals who are “progressives” but think the “right” should all be rounded up).

            When people say they want a “tea party” I think it’s way to vague. Talking about the “effectiveness” of how the GOP has been changed is just completely scary, since in reality it just became a mask off-authoritarian free for all. I don’t need a Corporatized DNC to decide they no longer need the decorum of piece-meal policy that helps citizens since they know everyone has no other choice (like what happened with the GOP).

            Again, I really hope a “Left Tea Party” would cause the DNC to capitulate to progressive ideology, but that’s not what happened on the conservative side (as evident from the big beautiful bullshit-bill).

            edit: taking=talking, fixed a confusing sentence

          • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate.

            Excuse me, but how the fuck do you know that? You say that like 3rd parties being created and taking federal offices happens all the time. We haven’t had a serious 3rd party, let alone one that takes federal office, for well over 100 years. Don’t pretend you know what it takes, because we haven’t even fucking tried. It’s uncharted water!

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              You say that like 3rd parties being created and taking federal offices happens all the time.

              They aren’t, and that’s kinda the point. People grossly underestimate how hard it is to do this (pretending it’s some great unknown and not something that’s been tried and failed literally dozens of times), and what game theory regarding FPTP elections means for the rise of one.

              We haven’t had a serious 3rd party, let alone one that takes federal office, for well over 100 years.

              We had a few elected to Congress in the last hundred years, even if you don’t count ones who changed party at some point. Mostly Farmer-Labor Party between the late 20s and end of WW2. We also had a Conservative Party of New York candidate in Congress in the 70s. And a Libertarian if you do count people who convert while in office. Hell, Trump once tried to run for POTUS as a third party candidate in 2000 for the Reform Party, but failed miserably and didn’t win a single state during the primaries.

              Don’t pretend you know what it takes, because we haven’t even fucking tried. It’s uncharted water!

              How many parties do you think we have that are large enough they operate in multiple states and have ballot access right now? The answer is a dozen. All of which have hopes of eventually getting someone in federal office, you know aside from the Dems and GOP who already do that. Of those twelve, 9 ran a presidential candidate in 2024. You’ve probably only even heard of 4 of those at most (Harris, Trump, Stein and maybe Chase Oliver [Libertarian]).

              What it takes at a minimum is getting a majority of a state or House district on board with you and willing to vote for you rather than a major party, knowing that if enough other people don’t buy in it’s going to let the candidate farthest from them win instead. If you’re pushing for POTUS, then it means getting about 78M people on board in the same way, distributed across most of the country.

              Third parties running for federal office isn’t untested water, it’s just extremely difficult to succeed at. Again, that’s why the Tea Party operated as a reform movement within the GOP rather than being an actual third party - it let them hijack the political machinery of the party from within, instead of having to fight against it in a battle that would at most likely cause both to lose if it did anything at all. Literally, had the Tea Party been an actual third party then instead of gaining massive influence they would have at their most powerful caused Democrats to win by splitting the GOP vote.

        • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          It would take many decades for a new party to get the recognition.

          Most voters probably think Obama is still president.

          • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            Would it though? I’m not convinced of that. We already know what the party should look and act like based on actual progressive parties and policies around the world (even some past actions in the states itself), we really just need a name to know it by for everyone to get behind.

            It’s the whole problem-solution thing, doesn’t matter what the name of the website or company is, we just need something to step in and fill that gap.

            • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              You might not have noticed my point.

              I think the vaaast majority of voters just vote the way they always have. They’re just not engaged. There’s no consideration of who to vote for.

              I honestly think it would take either a revolution, or several decades before any other party has a chance.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            Sadly many of them didn’t know Kamela was even running until they couldn’t find Biden’s name on the polls come Election Night.

        • _stranger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          There have always been factions in the main parties. Obama was part of a wave of more progressive Democrats that pulled away from the moderate liberalism of Clinton.

          There are also formal sub parties like the Blue Dog Democrats and the New Democrat Coalition, the us news media just doesn’t report on them the way European news does for parties.

          Even AOC and “the squad” are considered a faction with followers and enemies. The fact that the media is focusing on her and de facto making her the face should be a pretty big signal to the other party leaders that they need to get their shit together or be swept aside. Hopefully they fall in line to help her.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      You’re not really disagreeing. AOC is perceived as the face of the democratic party and it’s true. She’s at least offering consistent resistance while the feckless leadership of the party does nothing but line their pockets and ensure 100 percent unconditional support of Israel to the determient of all else.

      I don’t even disagree with your conclusions necessary, if it’s impossible to dislodge Pelosi and Schumer. But building a party from scratch is really fucking hard. Hijacking one might be easier.

    • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      They’re going to stay there making bank off of insider trading until they’re so ancient someone accidentally walks through and disperses the dust cloud known as Pelosi, and they finally decide they have enough money to reach supply-side Jesus.

      • fishy@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        Just insider trading? Those super pacs are the fucking Democrats and Republicans at this point. Greed itself is our new overlord, business ethics are dead and rotting.

        • farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          Those super pacs are the fucking Democrats and Republicans at this point

          they always have been. people have been pointing out how dems and republicans are two arms of the business party for a hundred years

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      “MAKE A NEW PARTY!11111!!1”

      That’s not how America works. Only Democrats and Republicans can actually get elected at the level AOC plays at, because the electoral college only recognizes Democrats and Republicans.

  • AreaKode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    306
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    Weird. The party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge. We’re ready for someone who is actually for the people!

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      199
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        152
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.

        • WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          58
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It’s the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it’s hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn’t mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              33
              ·
              4 days ago

              Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.

            • WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              4 days ago

              Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn’t really care then it wouldn’t have taken much to change them.

              • Redditsux@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                4 days ago

                Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren’t so MAGA. She’s on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.

                • Womble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  I’m not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo’d her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris bribes donations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.

            • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.

              I’d say she’s a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.

          • Flames5123@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            4 days ago

            Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          The dinosaurs know they’re marching right, that’s where all the money is (for them).

        • tburkhol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to ‘establishment’ candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.

          The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.

          • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            You’re blaming the DNC for something that is controlled by each individual state.

            • tburkhol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Not really. I’m saying that the system discourages change. If there’s blame for the DNC, it’s that their message has constantly been something along the lines of “be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change” which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been “More guns! More babies! No brown people!” which tends to attract passionate radicals.

              • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Okay, but the states decide if there are open primaries or not. The State is to blame for that, but it can be changed if made a state ballot measure.

                That’s not really up for debate. It’s literally state law and dependent on the state. The DNC and GOP don’t decide that.

        • gobbles_turkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.

          Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we’re the same, but proving we have “democracy” by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Sadly I don’t think it’s possible to have a party “for the people” with only two parties. There’s too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yes it is. If the part “for the people” turns out to be captured you drop it and get in an actual party for the people. Rinse and repeat as needed. There is a problem with political parties growing too old and becoming too institutionalized. But keeping them in power instead of giving them the boot is a choice made by the voters.

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Conservatives, they are putting conservatives in charge. Don’t be fooled by how republicans label themselves. They haven’t been conservative since before the turn of the century.

      It’s DNC leadership that has taken up that mantle.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider “people.”

    • rational_lib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      The party The people that vote in the primaries for the party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge.

      Most people don’t vote in the Democratic primaries. Did you?

  • Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    She’s one of like 3 US politicians that I don’t just kind of low-key actively hate.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I promise you the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to keep her away from leadership roles because she actually wants to change things.

    That’s the one thing the Democratic Party is consistent on: rejecting progressives, even if it means letting the conservatives win.

    • BussyGyatt@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      always so strange to see the words ‘guarantee’ or ‘promise’ when someone is giving a predictive opinion for an outcome they have no contol over.

  • Korne127@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 days ago

    I hope she will be successful in actually overtaking the party to some degree, as most high-ranking party members would certainly see that differently

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    4 days ago

    Next to Bernie she’s the best the Dems have to offer. And for any possible run for President, she beats Bernie on age.

    If they run Harris again, or Newsom or some other conservative Democrat in 2028, the party is fucked.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Newsom is trying his level best to have a right-of-center glow up right now. I’m almost certain that the DNC plans to tilt the scales for him. They likely will resist running a woman again for a long time because they’ve stupidly come to the conclusion that it was the genitalia of the candidates and not the quality of the candidate, campaign, and platform that caused them to lose what should have been two of the most winnable elections ever.

      • solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Progressive woman of color

        Or

        Conservative white guy with (D) next to his name.

        Pretty sure we can guess who will win the primary if they can help it. DNC leadership is not interested in what it’s membership wants.

    • KumaSudosa@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      You guys need more than just two relevant parties. AOC being this popular should prompt her to start her own movement, supported by Bernie, raher than clinging to the “Democrats”.

        • PolarKraken@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          And the only way election reform happens is if we get the corporate Dems who like things the way they are (AKA roughly all of them) out of power. It’s damn near hopeless.

      • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Ideally, we get an democrat Bernie or AOC presidency, who then runs for a second term as an independent. Incumbents tend to have name recognition, which would make it easier to give the DNC the Old Yeller treatment. The Geronocrats have a callow ambition, even if progressives manage to Tea Party things. After all, the DNC’s bluebloods will want to retake the throne. It would be best if the throne that they treasure was lost outright.

    • Master@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 days ago

      Her as president and Bernie as vp. If they kill her then they put someone even more opposed to their views in power.

      • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        As much as I absolutely adore Bernie, the guy needs a rest. He’d be starting as VP for a potential 8 year period of two terms at 86…That means he’d be 94 by the time he left office. The man is an absolute beast, but father time catches up with us all and I don’t want to see his final days in politics to be a sad decline after everything he’s given. He deserves to serve as a badass senator, like he always has, until a progressive gets elected as president and then retire.

        AOC and Pete Buttigeig as VP, on the other hand…or Tim Waltz again…or Elizabeth Warren for a double team, all woman ticket? Hell yeah.

        • bring-back-the-edsel@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 days ago

          yeah, one of the reasons the dems are a dead/dying brand currently is because they keep putting in who they feel has earned it the most, not who the population actually likes. That also leads to entire party embarrassment when they fight for that person and they turn out to be an abysmal milquetoast failure like Biden.

    • demunted@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Agree but have the senior members support and coach AOC, have a united front. We’re supposed to support and learn from our elders but they have an obligation to move aside and allow the younger leaders to rise.

      • Noxy@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Support, yes. Not too sure about coaching, though, I think she’s doing great without needing to consult old white people

      • farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Agree but have the senior members support and coach AOC

        lol the dweebs that can’t win a slam dunk election because they are too busy running corporate friendly husks

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 days ago

        “It’s my turn.” was everything wrong with Hillary’s campaign in a nut shell.

        How the fuck are you able to make yourself look like an unhinged ego-maniac who just wants to be President for the sake of being President, when you’re running against Trump? That shouldn’t be possible.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          How the fuck are you able to make yourself look like an unhinged ego-maniac who just wants to be President for the sake of being President, when you’re running against Trump?

          This isn’t a problem of Trumpism, it’s a naturally occurring brainworm in Americans broadly speaking. Trump’s a nasty dim-witted freak, so watching him climb to the top of the pile we’ve been raised to believe was a meritocracy causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. But everyone running for President (except maybe Mike Gravel) ends up looking like this. The thing that separates the Obamas and Trumps from the Hillarys and McCains is whether cheering for the unhinged ego-maniac feels fun or not.

    • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      She’s just the most recent candidate. The most recent candidates, and most recent Presidents and Vice Presidents are almost always in these sorts of lists, especially in the weeks and months following an election, before the next campaign starts.

      Joe Biden was a favorite in these sorts of polls in 2015/16, despite saying he wouldn’t run, because he was just VP.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    She’s not the face of the Democratic Party

    She’s the face of a completely new and different party that has nothing to do with old Democrats.

    To me, I’ve been viewing the US as being governed under a one party state for a while … the Republicans and the Democrats form two halves of the same organization.

    The US doesn’t need a third party

    They need to form a new second opposition party because the old one morphed into the monstrous thing we have today.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      The US needs a third, a fourth, a fifth and several more parties as viable alternatives.

      They to drop any weird FPTP systems, this will allow new parties to come into play.

      This would also end the ridiculous gerrymandering shit

      • Ænima@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Omg, I love you. I’ve been screaming this since CGPGrey’s videos about voting and alternatives to what we have. Getting that is gonna require all existing party members to be cool with a complete loss of power and an increase in the amount of work the have to do to keep their power or get elected.

        It’ll take the states. However, there are already states trying to ban alternative voting methods.

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 days ago

          Haha, thank you for your kind words!

          As a Swede, the US election system has always seemed so backwards, even the fact that you have to register to vote is completely foreign to me.

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yeah, no.

        If no party can get to 270 electoral votes, the president is picked by the House of Representatives.

        That means congress would need be flippped into third party majority first.

        Splitting the left off only benefits the far right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is stuck in an echo chamber.

    • lemmus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      One of the UK’s two parties has died and the other is in the process of killing itself. Two party duopolies can disintegrate, even under FPTP, we just have to hope that Left parties emerge, not just rebranded far-right ones.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 days ago

      The Democratic Party is just a vessel. It used to be the right wing (relative). Now it’s the left wing (relative). Bernie and AOC don’t really fit in with the Dems, but they can. Same with Manchin.

      There was a time where I thought a Musk type could rally many behind a weird Libertarian version of the DNC or RNC and shift the landscape. But he just went hard fascist as soon as he publicly aligned with the right.

    • moakley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Any time someone can’t tell the difference between centrists and fascists, I just have to assume that their stance is more about arguing than it is about a sincerely held ideology.

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      Fuck that.

      Centrists/Republcian Lites don’t deserve to the party.

      They are free to fight republicans over control of that shitshow.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Pretty much, yeah.

      Taking over the Democratic Party vs starting a new party is kinda like addressing climate change on Earth vs terraforming Mars.

      The former sounds painful and bureaucratic while the latter sounds exciting and innovative.

      But if you can’t fix the party or planet you’ve got, which has like 80% of the hard work done already, what hope do you have of doing a new thing from scratch?

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        One of the criticisms against the Democratic Party is that they aren’t particularly democratic. Party insiders and the wealthy hold far more power and practically pick the nominees.

        Rather than compare them to the planet from which we were birthed, I would compare them to a shitty boyfriend we’re afraid to dump.

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    We should be so lucky to have a party she represents in this country. The only reason she has that seat is by defying the DNC as a spoiler. They only elevate politicians to the Federal level on the basis of how good they’ve proven they are at collecting that sweet, sweet corpo bribe money.

    The DNC and democratic leadership would rather dissappear her Than Trump by a mile.

    The pendulum is the point. Both parties are well bribed to maintain the capitalist’s murderous control. Good cop and bad cop are both just fine with mass homelessness and entire murder for profit confidence scheme market sectors. One laughs at you when the capitalists cause you harm, the other just shrugs and says “golly gee market forces nothing we can do! But I affirm your right to die horribly as who you are here in this cardboard box under a freeway! Pronouns are free so whatever I still get bribed 😁” (edit to be clear, respecting others identity is the right thing to do and basic decency, but there’s a hierarchy of needs, self-actualization only matters if you have your basic needs met. You cannot live in an affirmation ribbon, you cannot eat a preferred pronoun, priorities.)

    If the Democrats were led by someone talking about redistribution, that bribe gravy train would stop. If by some miracle AOC manages to steal the party out from under them as Trump did the RNC, the DNC would be fighting her every move and comment the way we wish they were countering Trump right now. In fact, here’s how Democrat leadership spent the months leading to Trump’s inauguration:

    https://www.axios.com/2024/12/12/aoc-pelosi-oversight-committee-connolly-raskin

    Defending the country from one of the only slightly left Reps in the entire federal government.

    Democrats like Schumer and Pelosi are far closer to Trump than AOC.

    https://apnews.com/article/business-nancy-pelosi-congress-8685e82eb6d6e5b42413417f3d5d6775

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I still have to lol about how the stupid qons tried to use her dancing in university as some kind of BAD thing.

    Back when Denver Post still had a comment section and they’d allow gifs, and if the topic was AOC, I’d post her dancing. A few of the local wingnuts would try to get me banned/my posts removed over it, esp. if one of the qanon mods was on-duty…

    She’s the best. Why the buzzkills in the unhinged right tried to paint a beautiful intelligent rep like AOC dancing during college as a bad thing is anyone’s guess, but that sure as fuck blew up in their faces…

    • Sillyglow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      4 days ago

      So let me get this straight: somehow just dancing is somehow worse than drinking beers in fraternities and raping?

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        She’s a woman with a will of her own, that’s enough for anyone on the Right to hate her.

        What I really can’t stand though is when they try to pretend she’s dumb. I mean when we on the Left call Trump a moron, we can actually point to things he did and said. When they try to paint AOC as an airhead, they mostly just repurpose old blonde jokes to be about AOC, there’s never anything she actually did or said that they bring up.

        Ever notice that?

        God I’m glad I don’t use facebook anymore

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

        She’s a woman and a POC to boot, so…it’s rather self-evident that anything she does is going to be worse.

        I think even for the most idiotic of maga, they realized that trying to trash her for dancing was not really getting much traction. Especially among cishet men with eyes? Just sayin’. XD

        I think the same thing for trashing her for things like being working class - they were trying that on for a while and that seems to backfire, too. Same goes for some big mic drop attempt they try when they call her “Sandy” in some kind of qnut point about how she had a nickname during high school and/or university? ZOMG! /clutches pearls You are saying she went by the name of Sandy, danced, and worked as a bartender? QED, then, I guess. 🤣

    • underline960@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Why the buzzkills in the unhinged right tried to paint a beautiful intelligent rep like AOC dancing during college as a bad thing

      Because she’s leading moral and dignified Christian men into sin!

      It’s not my fault / I’m not to blame / It is the gypsy girl / The witch who sent this flame / It’s not my fault / If in God’s plan / He made the devil so much / Stronger than a man

  • theangryseal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’ve been saying for about 5 years, maybe better, that she is the person I am most excited to vote for as president of the United States one day.

    I don’t even have another name in mind.

    I will be as happy to vote for her as I was for Sanders in the primaries, twice. I legit can’t wait.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      How about Jasmine Crockett? I hope between the two of them, they start inspiring and generating tons more to go into politics.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Hope Crockett gets to be gov of texas… She reminds me of Ann Richards in all the best ways. She’d make a great president too.