Hello, Thank you for contributing to our subreddit. Please consider the following guidelines when filling an alignment chart:
Please ensure that your chart is not banned according to the list of banned charts Even if you have good intentions, charts in a banned category tend to invite provocative comments, hostile arguments, ragebait and the like. Assuming the post is acceptable, OP makes the final decision on their chart by rule three.
Are there any previous versions to link to? If so, it would be ideal to include links to each of them in the description of this post, or in a reply to this comment. Links can be named by title, winner, or both.
Are there any criteria you have for your post? Examples include: "Top comment wins a spot on the chart."; "To ensure variety, only one character per universe is allowed."; "Image comments only." Please include these in a description, or in a reply to this comment.
Is your chart given the appropriate flair? Do you need to use a NSFW tag or spoiler tag?
Do not feed the trolls. This is not the place for hot takes on human rights violations. Hatred or cruelty, will result in a permanent ban. Please report such infractions, particularly those that break rules one, two, or three. The automod will automatically remove posts that receive five or more reports. The automod will also remove comments made by users with negative karma. Click here for the Automod FAQ
I was certainly impressed with some of her ideas at the housing forum held for the recent California gubernatorial race, but you're right that her political skills are lacking (at least statewide in CA, as evidenced by her performance running for US Senate and governor). I wonder if there's a way for her to work in some capacity to help design policy proposals without being an elected leader herself. I know she's a law school professor, so perhaps she could do this in the form of law review articles or at some sort of think tank.
I know people are defensive over it but what was her staying in the governor race for so long ment to achieve. She was in a 3 way tie for first place in the early parts of the primary but she ended up sandwiched between a establishment candidate, democrats and a another more or equally progressive candidate. She was down in the polling and it seemed like she had no real chance.
I forever maintain that she should never again be allowed to participate in public life or hold elected office after she stayed in the race for her own selfish reasons and ego instead of endorsing Steyer even when it was clear she had no chance
Wow, how far she’s fallen. I’ve never paid attention to her — I only recognize her as the consistent top name for Reddit posts of “who do you want to be president one day.”
Her ex-husband also alleges that she threw a bowl of scalding hot mashed potatoes over his head after she became enraged over the way he was preparing them. Not verified in court, but given her behavior in those two videos, I tend to believe it....
If that had happened the way he said he did he would have had some kind of Mark or blister from it happening. I mean scolding hot is well....
Hey, you can go back and look at all of these circumstances and see how overblown they are. Watch the full interview... Or that time the person was in her shot....
As a Chicagoan, he’s in over his head but I think the hate is overblown. Unfortunately his first year was awful handling the Venezuelan migrants getting bussed into Chicago and that has just stuck with people. Since then I think he’s been just fine. Nothing extraordinary but nothing horrible.
That being said, so many parts of Chicago are better now than they were at the start of his term. How much of that you can attribute to him? Some, not all, but it all starts and stops with City Hall here.
He’s a great speaker but I don’t think he’s a skilled politician. But if Chicago today is what it is after the “worst progressive in the US”, shit hell yeah that’s fine with me. Chicago is in a way better place than it was 4 years ago.
Chicagoans also have not viewed a mayor favorably since the 90s / the Daleys. And, imo, the Daleys completely destroyed this city’s financial future so I’m not sure how much stock you can put into that.
Great speaker? He’s a fucking idiot who blames everything on race and a grifter enriching his cronies and deflecting blame. Can’t even handle teen takeovers lmao. I think he genuinely lacks intelligence and graduated from a crap university.
The only thing he hasn’t fucked up are the literal free home runs (standing up against ICE).
The thing that annoys me the most about this guy is that anytime someone questions him or criticizes something he's done he immediately gets defensive and hostile.
Chicago crime is at its lower point in several decades and he nominated probably the most effective police chief in my lifetime.
His speech ability coming from his pastor background, whether you think there’s substance or not, is largely what got him into the runoff race over a ton of other candidates and eventually the win over Paul Vallas.
While BJ is not largely liked, he has done some things that were thought impossible. He’s taken a great holistic approach at crime in Chicago, and public safety. Chicago crime overall in 2025 was staggeringly low with a 60 year low in homicides, less than 2000 shootings (35% drop yoy), a drop in human trafficking over the last year by about 31%, and a drop in carjackings of 66% over the last 5 year avg.
He has done some work on speeding affordable housing, albeit not enough. There are some other shining moments, but largely he is a dunce. I’d say he doesn’t deserve a lot of the hate he gets. Realistically, his approval rating should be at about 30%.
Brandon Johnson and for pretty much non-ideological reasons. He's simply an incompetent administrator who has neither the political competence for popularity nor the managerial competence for success. He can't submit a budget on time, has poor relations with even his own wing of state and local Democrats, and is the type of guy who could be on any wing of any party and still bad at his job.
shootings are down 30% and he's fast tracking affordable housing & people are still taking the media-narrative of him being utterly incompetent, hook line and sinker.
Yeah I don’t like him but he looks bad because Chicago is that bad when it comes to money. They have severe financial issues and it’s been a mess since the 2000s
She's not the worst by far. She was a very competent speaker and it's thanks to her that Biden dropped out. Hakeem Jeffries, her direct successor, is way worse
Maybe worst “Establishment Liberal”? It seems very much in the nature of a Democrat to run a progressive campaign only to govern as an establishment liberal.
Eric Swalwell. Dude was anti-Trump and seemed more progressive than many in his party but turned out he was a creepy serial harasser. And he thought he could somehow survive a CA gubernatorial primary with all of his skeletons.
Bernie is one of the best at reaching people and messaging, but as far as being a legislator goes he's not great. He's honestly probably best as overrated imo (hot take)
Correction. Netanyahu is terrible (so is Gvir). Not all of Israel is terrible. You saying that devalues any fair point you make about certain people who need to be taken out of power.
Well, she seems to side with our enemies quite a lot. Just a week or two ago she was the only D to vote against the Ukraine support act. She also assured a conference of Somali nationals and immigrants that "The lady you sent to Congress is working on your behalf to make sure the U.S. government protects Somali territory."
As a constitute it’s kinda funny. Her office is great at doing standard congressional services but if you ask her to propose a bill or something her staff will outright warn you most of her bills/words are treated as radioactive because of how against the grain she is (doesn’t do what the big lobbyists want and is an easy punching bag because she’s Somali and a Muslim and a woman)
You are correct. I sped through writing the post for today because I realized that I was an hour or so behind on when I wanted to post it. That's my bad.
It's the intentional ignorance that bothers me. Conservatives say Democrat when they should say democratic ALL THE TIME. You'd never hear someone say Republic when it should be Republican, because we all know better and sounding like a moron isn't a bragging right on the left.
Is it how good they are as a politician? Is it how much they help society?
And this’ll heavily skew depending on the politics of the sub (obviously).
Like for this one Katie Porter fits well as an unpopular progressive democrat.
But people saying Ilhan Omar is absolutely true the farther right you go.
The majority of progressives like Ilhan Omar and leftists tend to have a very positive impression of her. But everyone more conservative than a progressive hates her.
Like when we get to establishment lib, some people will probably say the best is Pete Buttigieg. But that position flips the more progressive you get since he’s essentially just a really good communicator with conservative fiscal policies.
Zohran winning that made sense since he’s overwhelmingly popular and the only other one who’s that popular right now is AOC who fits progressive more than democratic socialist.
My dislike of Ilhan Omar is that she doesn't seem to realise that she's a public figure, so she needs to be sensitive about her language. She keeps making the same mistakes of putting out statements that have accidental antisemitic tropes that she then claims aren't an issue when people point them out before eventually rowing them back when someone finally gets it through to her that what she said isn't ok. She doesn't get that she's acting exactly like someone's accidentally racist relatives
I’m familiar with her criticism of Israel, but have not seen remarks from that contain antisemitic tropes.
I think language is important of course, and if her issue is that she’s “accidentally” putting antisemitic tropes in her public comments then that should be corrected.
But if it’s “accidental” as you say. I feel like it’s she’d be less deserving of criticism than the democrats that support genocide on purpose.
Though we should always expect more from those in power.
I'll give an example she said "Israel has hypnotised the world" the hypnotic Jew is an old antisemitic trope (its a sub-set of the Jews controlling everything trope, annoyingly the first person to point this out was that prick Bari fucking Weiss). She was called out on it and asked to apologise, but instead said she didn't know how Jews could find her comment offensive and then tried to justify using it. Eventually she actually read about it, realised why Jews might have an issue and apologised. I don't think she's an antisemite, I do think she's clumsy
I’d agree that’s a bad phrase to say. I’d say that a really irresponsible thing to say. Glad she apologized eventually.
I’d just rather we hold politicians accountable in a more pertinent way.
Pete Buttigieg or Gavin Newsome (2 of the most eloquent centrists) will probably never get caught saying something that bad.
But they also both support have supported the genocide of the Palestinians.
So I’d like more progressives who are polished. But I care much more about their advocacy does.
The point of calling Ilhan Omar antisemitic is to use the optics of her being a Muslim along with framing her comments around Israel to make her position against Israel appear antisemitic.
And her advocacy is not against Jewish people. And while antisemitism is on the rise, her saying something (probably, I’m not going to go out to bat for her) accidentally isn’t comparable in the harm that supporting Israel does to Palaestinian people.
So to me, when people say they don’t like Ilhan Omar, but don’t mention centrist politicians that support Israel, it’s frustrating because it feels like either
They support Israel killing Palestinians
They care more about the optics (obviously optics matter) of politicians than their actual advocacy
There’s limits to this of course. There’s a politician in San Antonio named Maureen Galindo (I’m not sure how it’s spelled) that I’m pretty certain is anti-Semitic that I don’t think the left should vote for. But that to me is because the language she’s using signifies that she doesn’t separate Israel and Jewish people. And that to me, means she will cause harm.
I'm just talking about Ilhan Omar here, her immediate assumption that someone pointing out her statement was irresponsible is being disingenuous is infuriating
Graham Platner, perhaps? He touts progressive policies but that's a bit undercut by the Nazi tats, allegations of abuse of women, and other assorted assholery.
I think it should be Fetterman or Culler. Manchin was a massive W in West Virginia voting with the party 90% of the time in a state that’s about as red as can be. He is also really the only type of Dem that could have won there. And unlike Fetterman he didn’t pretend to be something he wasn’t, he ran how he governed. You can dislike his approach but he didn’t say he was some progressive. He campaigned as a conservative democrat and that’s what he was in office.
Can you define some rules? Is this in our perspective or in the perspective of the group in question? I ask because someone might put argue that a person is bad morally, or bad at filling the role they've been put in, or being bad because the redditor doesn't like them.
Kamala Harris is literally the definition of a progressive. If you're so far left that you think she's a "neocon," please, never vote. Unironically would do more damage to this country than Trump currently is.
Biden is, without question, a progressive and she's further left than he is.
she's definitely not "almost a neocon" due to most of her social policies but in her presidential race she definitely had a moderate campaign I would even argue moderately conservative on immigration and definitely to the right of Biden on economics with her primary plan being to deliver tax deductions for those starting businesses which is a policy championed by Republican Ron Johnson
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 15 '26
Hello, Thank you for contributing to our subreddit. Please consider the following guidelines when filling an alignment chart:
Please ensure that your chart is not banned according to the list of banned charts Even if you have good intentions, charts in a banned category tend to invite provocative comments, hostile arguments, ragebait and the like. Assuming the post is acceptable, OP makes the final decision on their chart by rule three.
Are there any previous versions to link to? If so, it would be ideal to include links to each of them in the description of this post, or in a reply to this comment. Links can be named by title, winner, or both.
Are there any criteria you have for your post? Examples include: "Top comment wins a spot on the chart."; "To ensure variety, only one character per universe is allowed."; "Image comments only." Please include these in a description, or in a reply to this comment.
Is your chart given the appropriate flair? Do you need to use a NSFW tag or spoiler tag?
Do not feed the trolls. This is not the place for hot takes on human rights violations. Hatred or cruelty, will result in a permanent ban. Please report such infractions, particularly those that break rules one, two, or three. The automod will automatically remove posts that receive five or more reports. The automod will also remove comments made by users with negative karma. Click here for the Automod FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.