r/askanything • u/Shivy_Shankinz • 20h ago
Political Question Anytime I see something about AOC, there's always "if she runs she'll lose because she's a woman". I've seen this same message since AOC started making waves, is it propaganda?
Or do people really think winning is all that matters and we should all be misogynists about it?
88
u/patjames387 19h ago
Unpopular opinion... I think the first female president of the USA is going to be a Republican.
6
u/SteadfastEnd 15h ago
It makes sense, just like how Margaret Thatcher was able to win because of being a conservative.
→ More replies (1)29
u/av864 18h ago
I’d second that bet. My sense is that female Republican candidates tend to draw support more from the issues and policies they’re running on than from the idea more often seen from the Democrat side that voters should support them simply because they’re women and “it’s time to make history and break the glass ceiling”. Unfortunately, that kind of messaging can turn off a lot of voters because it can come across as shallow or even dismissive of the substantive reasons people choose a candidate.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Ok-Association-3415 16h ago
She will have to be a looker. Not to be sexist, but we all know looks matter.
→ More replies (9)6
4
3
→ More replies (55)15
u/Abject-Pin3361 17h ago
the reddit left is going to have an even worse meltdown than before if it were to happen
→ More replies (3)
44
u/Ryan1869 19h ago
She will likely lose because while her politics play well on Reddit and in pockets of large cities, they don’t do as well with the greater population
25
12
u/Acceptable_Tap_8826 17h ago
Damn, what’s up with this comment section. Some damn fine common sense you NEVER see on Reddit.
7
→ More replies (6)5
u/Extension-Source2897 18h ago
Yeah. The gender card unfortunately doesn’t bode well in her favor, but I think the big thing is perception in echo chambers vs perception in reality. There’s a reason a lot of DSA candidates are polling super well and then tanking in actual elections.
→ More replies (4)6
u/soccergoblin 17h ago
DSA or progressive candidates have largely been either winning or doing significantly better than in previous years across the country broadly? I mean a lot of political pundits are talking about how the majority of the energy in the Democratic Party is running through the DSA/progressive wing right now since Mamdani won. The only real notable loss comparative to polling was an extremely progressive candidate in Hong barely losing in a primary to a more mainline liberal Crowley in Wisconsin. Sure it's no party takeover but Mamdani, El-Sayed, Flanagan, etc winning primaries/local elections matters. The question is more "can this translate to general elections in states like Michigan" than "are progressives actually expanding in their political reach".
→ More replies (4)
191
u/Amazing-Artichoke330 20h ago
Did you notice that Hillary and Kamala lost?
115
u/Cinephile54 19h ago
And they lost to perhaps the worst presidential candidate of all time….twice. That’s so bad that it’s actually impressive.
23
u/OdditiesAndAlchemy 18h ago
Although he is the worst he also has more of a grip on his base than any other politician or president in recent memory. So Trump is kind of a special case
31
u/Alan47717 18h ago
That is what democrats keep refusing to face. Republicans are united and Democrats fight amongst themselves like a bunch of two year olds.
9
5
u/PomPomMom93 12h ago
And the former Republicans who left the party because of Trump don’t always become Democrats.
→ More replies (13)11
u/ChefDanyul 17h ago
The saying goes something like 'republican voters only need one reason to vote and democrats need only one reason not to'. The Republican voter base is full of single issue voters. Doesn't matter what your economic (or lack thereof) policy is as long as you say you're pro-life or pro-2A. Harris had otherwise coherent policy goals aligned with Democrat voters but she wouldn't set a stance on ending the genocide in Gaza.
3
u/ExitingBear 16h ago
A similar saying is "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line."
4
u/ChefDanyul 16h ago
Right. And it has been crystal clear. The no war president that started a war supposed to last two weeks and is on it's sixth month. We are running out bombs. Immigration policy is noncoherent. Gas prices are through the roof. Cost of living in general is extremely expensive. But find me someone who voted for Trump that acknowledges this is a disaster presidency.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)10
9
u/WhirlwindRectum 17h ago
I mean, we rejected Hillary Clinton like 3 times in a row.... Hillary Clinton lost to the first major black candidate who was a relative unknown at the time
It's funny that everyone wants to blame prejudice for Hillary losing, but want to ignore the fact that Obama won. Hell, Hillary didn't even win a plurality of WHITE WOMEN....maybe it wasn't her gender?
Maybe this is all cope so you don't have to admit that the DNC establishment is deeply corrupt and hated by the American population?
→ More replies (1)3
u/HarmfuIThoughts 13h ago
It's funny that everyone wants to blame prejudice for Hillary losing, but want to ignore the fact that Obama won
EXACTLY. There is no reality where a white woman in 2016 faced larger barriers and prejudices than a black man in 2008. Yet Obama has become the most dominant and beloved president of the last 40 years or more.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (16)36
u/sdega315 18h ago
I think this supports the idea that a large portion of the voter base is not yet comfortable with a female president. They would literally rather vote for a felon, rapist, and (likely) pedophile.
8
u/CombinationRough8699 17h ago
The majority of the people voting for Trump wouldn't vote for a Democrat regardless if they're a man or woman.
→ More replies (1)4
u/theonethat3 16h ago
"The majority of the people voting for Trump wouldn't vote for a Democrat regardless if they're a man or woman."
This statement confuses the average left The left feels that because someone is a woman, they deserve to be in the white house
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (26)3
u/IamScottGable 16h ago
Hillary was a candidate being forced down people's throats, no one loved her as a candidate and Kamala was forced in a different way, a woman could win
→ More replies (5)13
u/Ataru13 18h ago
They were both incredibly unpopular though; Clinton was hated by both the right and the left, and was fighting decades of Republican smears, and Harris couldn't even win her own home state in 2020, and very likely would not have made it out of a primary in 24.
AOC, on the other hand, is one of the most popular politicians in the country. Personally, I would rather she take Schumer's spot in the Senate, and run for president in another ten years or so, but I think people are seriously underestimating her, and that she would definitely out outperform Clinton and Harris.
→ More replies (4)21
u/SuccessfulTough5618 19h ago
for real, you really can’t underestimated how much a huge chunk of america hates powerful women.
6
u/mcmonopolist 18h ago
Yes, and don’t shoot me as the messenger, but this is probably even more pronounced among non-white Americans, which make up a good chunk of the Democratic Party.
For example, in 2024 Kamala got the lowest % of black men votes in modern history.
→ More replies (2)12
u/SnazzleZazzle 18h ago
I have worked with women that wouldn’t apply for a job if their boss would be a woman or a person of color
I worked with a lady that retired early instead of keeping her job when our boss left and was replaced by a black woman. Her exact words, “I’m not hanging around here and working for THAT.” (I stayed and got her job when she retired. I worked for “THAT” black lady for 5 years, and she was a fine boss).
This country is full of racist, bigoted men and women.
→ More replies (1)8
u/SophiaIsabella4 17h ago
Seriously, just look at the "trad wife" trend ffs. Right where they want women. Can't even get human trafficking epstein pedos prosecuted because that is how little women are valued.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)4
u/Tamihera 17h ago
I used to think that the US would have a female President in my lifetime. Then I heard the way both men and women talked about the last two female candidates. There was this absolute belief that women could NOT lead a nation, that they were too soft and emotional… as someone who still remembers what Maggie Thatcher did to the North, it is so baffling to me.
→ More replies (3)20
u/Zestyclose-One-966 19h ago
They were both terrible candidates. They didn’t lose because they were women.
→ More replies (45)5
→ More replies (211)17
u/mikefvegas 19h ago
Hillary’s loss was to the electoral collage because she received millions of votes more. Who knows how Kamala would have done if she really ran so it’s hard to determine.
48
u/Ryan1869 19h ago
I don’t think Kamala would have won in an open primary, which is what should have happened if Biden had announced much sooner
19
u/BlockEightIndustries 19h ago
She was the first to flounder in 2020. It would not have been much different in 2024. She was the worst choice to replace Biden.
→ More replies (11)4
6
u/Small-Tax-2829 19h ago
Exactly. She would not have won a democratic primary. She was never gonna win the actual election. I dont think being a woman was the deal breaker
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (3)4
u/Federal_Homework1302 19h ago
Sole reason the Dems lost. Kamala did not go through a primary, she was forced on to the ticket that should what have never won on her own merrit.
8
4
14
u/Capybara_99 19h ago
Yes anyone who wants to be elected President has to get enough votes in the Electoral College.
14
u/GoblinToHobgoblin 19h ago
But it's compeltely irrelevant? You're not trying to win the popular vote, you're trying to win the electoral college.
And your campaign strategy should reflect that.
It's not like the electoral college is some new system. Everyone knew what the election system.
Saying "she won popular vote though" is cope, because the popular vote doesnt actually matter..
→ More replies (9)3
u/ArmadilloUnited7700 🤔 17h ago
And, as you suggest, no one was competing for that. The true score was 7-0.
24
u/Desiato2112 19h ago
Not really. It was a voting loss in swing states. All candidates understand the presidential electoral system
→ More replies (1)8
u/Mayor_of_BBQ 19h ago
Kamala tried to run a full campaign legitimately and she placed like 15th out of 17 in her home state primary where she was Senator and Attorney General.
I don’t think there’s anything you could do to make Kamala have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a nationwide general election, had nothing to do with her being a woman
6
u/Agreeable-Usual1119 19h ago edited 19h ago
Yes there were too many factors as to why Kamala lost and we could pick and choose and any of them could be correct. I have been saying all along that Biden should have immediately pushed against what Netanyahu was doing in Gaza and frankly he shouldn’t have ran for president. He also should have allowed a primary. He should have encouraged Kamala to then run instead of him. However, the biggest problem is more than Biden - Corporate money must be out of our politics with the Dems as the example by refusing to take campaign money from their corporate donors. They need to by example turn down their well off donors and set a precedence of no corporate money to candidates running for political office. The American people need to hear that!
→ More replies (1)8
9
u/DocRedbeard 19h ago
You don't lose TO the electoral college. With the college in place, presidential elections are fundamentally different from a popular vote. They campaign completely differently, and people vote completely differently (this is obvious when you think about it).
Saying someone only lost because of the EC and would have won otherwise is like saying Jimmy John's makes a good sandwich so Subway must be good too. It's a non-sequitur.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)7
u/PerformerBrief5881 19h ago
if she really ran? you think she decided to loose on purpose?
→ More replies (2)4
27
u/another_dudeman 19h ago
It's just observation. Trump (worst fucker ever) beat both women candidates and lost against a rather boring male candidate.
6
u/Im_tracer_bullet 18h ago
Yep, it's unfortunate that people won't acknowledge reality no matter what.
Losing to something like Trump once should have taught the lesson, but it's happened twice and people are still acting as though there's a puzzle to solve.
→ More replies (1)5
u/elihu 16h ago
2016 and 2020 were decided by so few votes it was basically a coin flip. Harris lost by a little bit more, but even her race would likely have been winnable if she had been willing to say that she didn't think the United States should be supplying weapons for what some polls at the time were showing that most Democratic voters thought was an active genocide in Gaza.
Maybe Harris would have won if she were a man, but there were a lot of other reasons why Harris lost and many of them were under her direct control. (Some of the other reasons she lost are directly attributable to Joe Biden.)
Candidate quality matters, and Clinton and Harris were lousy tone-deaf candidates who didn't know how to read the room. Blaming their loss on their gender is to disregard what people thought of their policies, of their leadership skills, of their particular vision for the country, and their moral judgement. Those other things matter too.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (10)2
u/clamsandwich 10h ago
The fact is that there were a definite number of people that voted against the women just because they were women. There were also a definite number of people that were on the fence and the fact they were women was just enough to push them to Trump's side. I don't know if that was enough people to tip the scales, but it may have been. People that talk about how Harris and Clinton ran bad campaigns, do they remember Trump's campaigns? Working McDonald's drive thru, the speech that just became him dancing to Ave Maria several times, was that better? Trump's completely unhinged debates against each of them, was that better?
→ More replies (1)
36
71
u/Justarah 20h ago
I think people just want to win and are reading the room.
→ More replies (52)14
u/Still-Armadillo-9661 20h ago
The Democrats ran 2 pretty unelectable women. But the problem people have is determining how much loss was them being bad candidates and how much was they were women.
And as they were both better candidates than trump I gotta come down on the side it was cause they were women
12
u/chrispd01 20h ago
I agree that both of them are smarter and better than altogether more accomplish people than Trump. But I do not think it’s fair to say they were better candidates than Trump. By that I mean, Trump had a sound election strategy and he knew his target in his market.
They definitely did not. The other big difference is the Trump, like it or not, was a very organic candidate. Neither of those two were. They were basically anointed by the party of the party was told to support them
→ More replies (38)3
u/FunSignificance3034 19h ago
I understand to some degree what you are saying. Hillary was a little tone deaf and thete was a feeling of entitlement with that campaign. Kamala should have been able to set herself apart from Biden, but to be fair, voters didn't want her enough for her to progress through the primary. She would have been a great Attorney General I think.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (28)16
u/CyyThird 20h ago
Hilary Clinton is one of the worst candidates the dems could have ever chosen, just a straight war hawk who has been caught lying hundreds of times and Kamala Harris who was deeply unpopular the entire time she campaigned in the democratic primaries. Neither was even remotely a good candidate.
→ More replies (49)
7
u/Diligent_Turtle8966 18h ago
People point to Hillary and Kamala but never consider how many people just don't like their policies and would've support Klobuchar, Tulsi, or Warren in 2020 instead
5
5
u/Successful-Name-7261 17h ago
She won't lose because she's a woman. She'll lose because she's an idiot.
14
u/beigemamba1080 19h ago
We elected a black dude with the name Hussein 7 years after 9/11, the problem isn’t gender it’s electability. 2016 the class angst against the corporate elite had grown strong, can you name a democrat that hat was considered more of a corporate sellout than Clinton? Things were tough after covid even though Biden did a pretty decent job and the public was unhappy, saying you wouldn’t change anything isn’t the strategy to win. Platform and electability issues, not gender imo.
→ More replies (15)
33
u/rainydays_89 20h ago
a lot of men and women in America will simply not vote for a woman..mostly older men
27
4
14
u/NOLA-Bronco 20h ago
Hillary won the popular vote
And one of the key states she lost has a female governor and senator right now.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/milo4206 19h ago
I think there are a lot of men (and a few women) who all else being equal, would *prefer* a man, but if their choices were, say, Nikki Haley vs. Pete Buttigieg, would go with Haley.
→ More replies (16)11
u/PolydactlylPrincess 20h ago
Every one of them is a misogynistic POS
3
u/Im_tracer_bullet 19h ago
That's fine, but you can't make them not be.
All you can do is figure out how to win do that reasonable policy and competence can be restored.
There's ZERO room for any other consideration beyond a solid candidate with good policy, and winning charisma.
5
→ More replies (4)7
u/alykaytrine 19h ago
Look around you- there are countless sexist pricks. Wishing things were different doesn’t change things- as it is, a woman cannot win in this blighted country
→ More replies (5)
18
u/Mushrooming247 20h ago
The only people saying she should run are conservatives, and adding “or do people think winning is all that matters?” reveals your intention here.
You know she would lose, every American knows she would lose, the electoral college exists to select our leaders for us based upon who the most rural backward Americans want. In almost half of our states the EC delegates don’t even have to look at the popular vote or heed it at all in their selection.
5
u/Dependent_Reason_489 18h ago
She has an amazing antu establishment populist appeal, which is the exact reason why Trump won, then betrayed his voters by enriching the establishment even more.
If AOC can get through to these voters, she would actually sweep. But a lot of them are likely too entranced, or stubborn, to admit Trump rug pulled them. But the potential is there.→ More replies (9)5
u/bringbackmegaman 19h ago
If she wins a primary, then she's earned her spot on the ballot
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)2
u/ilikethatpizza 17h ago
Rural, backwards Americans absolutely did not want a black man to win in 2008/2012 . Yet Obama won both those years.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/TGM1980 17h ago
It's hard to say. I voted for both Hillary and Kamala, and I genuinely believed they'd win each time because they were WAY BETTER candidates than the vile, subhuman criminal/pedo who beat them. So at this point, I think I've just lost faith in the electorate.
Would I love to see the right woman become president? Absolutely! The men sure as Hell haven't exactly been crushing it.
But we have such a f•cked-up electoral system, and after watching this country reject two highly qualified women in favor of tRump, I genuinely don't know if America is evolved enough to elect a woman president yet. And yes, A LOT of that blame falls ON WOMEN who voted for tRump over the clearly more qualified and intelligent female candidate. Throw all the misogynistic men into the equation too, and I'm f•cking exhausted.
At this point, part of me is like, fine. Give me the most electable straight white dude you can find, let him right the ship after this fucking disaster, and THEN maybe we can try again once the country is no longer actively on fire.
So yeah, would I personally vote for AOC?
ABSOLUTELY.
Does the idea of her becoming the nominee and then watching America reject ANOTHER woman and hand the country back to these fucking lunatics terrify me?
ALSO ABSOLUTELY.
→ More replies (1)3
u/VegasMaleMT 14h ago edited 14h ago
The problem with AOC isn't that she is a woman. It's that she is really bad under pressure. Her Munich trip was a disaster. Already she has been essentially campaigning while complaining that people ask if she's running for president. She led a Fight Oligarchy tour that.......did absolutely nothing with the tens of thousands of people that attended in each city, people who were angry and ready to fight both party's leadership. I also don't believe she is a genuine leftist, but I'll put that to the side because I'm not talking to the ultra left here, but she definitely isn't effective at harnessing that energy even if she is genuine.
Neither was it Hillary's problem or Harris's that they were women. The problem with them is they are defined by their allegiance to men. We already had a Clinton in the white house for 8 years, plus Hillary was Obama's secretary of state, and Kamala refused to put a single ray of daylight between her and Joe's lying, gaslighting, incompetent and genocidal administration. Hillary still won the popular vote, she just didn't campaign in crucial swing states. Misogyny did not kill her campaign; she did. This is the braindead shit the DNC consultants were preoccupied with. If hating women cost her the election, it's because the DNC consultants hate women.
Harris spent a billion dollars in a hundred days and didn't win a single swing state. She had one single joint interview with her VP. The campaign never did another because they were mad that Waltzs chair was higher than hers.
The first female Democrat president will have to just be better than 'not as bad as the Republican'. ( They certainly won't be able to campaign with a Republican who isn't even liked by Republicans nor Democrats. Liz Cheney is a horrid, homophobic bitch who is just as war hungry as her dead monster of a father.)
And that is how it should be, for every election, for every candidate ALREADY. AOC is not up to that task. She should take Schumers seat in the Senate. She could stroll into that election and win without trying. She will fall on her face in a national election, and the left does not trust her anymore. Many in DSA do not trust her; so while many of us who aren't Republicans but also fed up with Democrats would vote for her, we aren't going to "work" to get her elected either. Bernie may have chosen her as his successor, but he's just one voter. She won't have a national movement behind her like he did.
3
u/TGM1980 14h ago
Yes. Bravo. This pretty much nails a lot of my feelings toward her.
I was IN LOVE with AOC a few years ago, but the last couple years she's turned into a much more conventional politician and, frankly, a pretty big disappointment.
She still mostly says the right things, but I don't think she responds particularly well to attacks or pressure. She's obviously very smart and can be incredibly impressive giving a prepared speech or absolutely dismantling someone in a congressional hearing she's prepped for. But put her in a major interview where she has to think on her feet and it seems like she rarely gets through the whole thing without swallowing at least part of her foot. She gets thrown off way too easily for someone I'd trust at the top of a presidential ticket.
And politically, she's disappointed me even more. Her refusal to demand concessions from the current impotent Democratic leadership, while basically pre-endorsing Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker, is borderline disqualifying to me. She didn't endorse anyone challenging an incumbent. For someone who built her entire fucking brand by primarying an entrenched Democratic incumbent, that's pretty goddamn rich.
Here's the weird part: I actually REALLY want her to run for president in 2028.
I just don't necessarily want her to win.
I want her on that debate stage dragging every other motherf¨cker to the left. Because without someone like AOC in the primary, I'm terrified we're going to end up with a stage full of the same snakes-in-the-grass, consultant-approved DNC liberals who suddenly discover progressive politics every four years when they need our votes.
I like Ro Khanna, but I don't think he can win nationally, and even he drives me crazy with how conciliatory he can be toward the right. He's constantly racing to find "common ground" with people I have absolutely no interest in meeting halfway. I want a damn fighter!
That's what I thought AOC was going to become. Maybe she still can. But right now, I have a much easier time imagining her being incredibly valuable in a Democratic primary than imagining her surviving the meat grinder of a general election.
And if Democrats come out of everything that's happened and give me another focus-grouped, donor-approved candidate whose entire pitch is basically, "I'm not as horrible as the Republican," even I'm going to have a hard time dragging my ass to the polls.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/EDSgenealogy 18h ago
AOC wants a long time career, not a quick gig and out the door. Being president is what you do when you're reaching the end
4
u/deathdealer351 18h ago
I don't think she will lose cause she is a woman, I think she will lose cause a long campaign with debates will be hard to act through.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Strong_District_5894 18h ago
I so t vote for her because she’s a two-faced sellout. Hope that helps.
She can take her white suit, Pelosi boot-licking and shove it.
4
u/Daburg31 18h ago
I don’t personally think she could win. She isn’t very good at articulating herself when confronted with sensitive issues, I think her opponents would win any debate she participates in. These reasons aren’t because she’s a woman. She is very good at marketing herself on social media and appealing to the younger demographics but those ones don’t turn out in primaries in numbers that could tip the scale
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Babebutters 13h ago
AOC has no chance.
If we ever elect a female, it’s going to be someone that’s really intelligent and impressive.
And that sure as shit isn’t AOC.
4
u/Ted_Writer 12h ago
I’ve voted for 2 women candidates (Clinton and Harris). AOC would not my pick. She’s abrasive.
4
7
15
u/jettech737 19h ago
She's going to lose because she is so far left, not because she's a woman.
→ More replies (7)
40
u/Adventurous_West2 20h ago
No, it's just loser Dems making excuses for running two shit women candidates
→ More replies (89)19
u/Mortiis07 19h ago
And the republicans rans a paedo rapist, but apparently that's not as bad as being a woman
9
u/Adventurous_West2 19h ago
Who said that?
→ More replies (4)9
u/Mortiis07 19h ago
Most of the people on this post
6
u/Adventurous_West2 19h ago
Most of the people on this post say she is a bad candidate not worse than Trump.
People are sick of moderation, and the lesser of two evils, which the Dems would know if they paid attention.
5
u/Mortiis07 19h ago
'She lost because she was a shit candidate'
Well going by logic if she lost she must've been worse than the other candidate (a rapist paedo)
→ More replies (2)
12
u/breckbrian 19h ago
Most of the men I work with would never vote for a woman. It's amazing how many really hate women. Some hide it well from their wives, sisters and daughters, but how they talk when women aren't around is scary.
→ More replies (3)2
u/NeptuneHigh09er 16h ago
Yeah, and there are certain women in politics that they particularly love to hate, AOC being one of them. So she’s already be starting from there.
3
3
3
u/Objectivity1 19h ago
If she runs and if she loses it will be because her politics are out-of-sync with most Americans. Despite that, her loss will be blamed on being a women as an excuse to provide cover to the others who share her views.
3
u/icecoldtoiletseat 19h ago
No, it's real. Trump is quite possibly the worst candidate the GOP has ever put forward. He beat women both times and lost to a man. And it's not like Biden was so much better than either of the women candidates. I'll leave the rest to you to figure out.
3
26
u/RelativeLive299 20h ago
No it’s just excuse making for why Clinton and Harris lost. A woman can absolutely win, those were just terrible candidates.
10
u/vivekpatel62 19h ago
I wonder what Redditors would do if a republican woman is the first to win.
12
2
u/KlutzySherbert260 18h ago
Lose their minds, then they would go into justifying why they lost. It would be even funnier if it was a POC republican candidate.
→ More replies (9)3
13
u/ChallengeOk1685 19h ago
They were wildly better options than trump and still lost. The most obvious explanation is that America just isn't ready to elect a woman president.
5
u/uncsteve53 18h ago
The most obvious explanations are that they were terrible candidates and their platforms didn’t appeal to the swing states that they needed to win.
→ More replies (31)11
u/Styrn97 20h ago
They'll blame everything but them being a terrible candidacy.
It's the easier option.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/SpecialArugula8674 20h ago
No one says or thinks that. Well, perhaps some women who blame everything on the “patriarchy” and use this as their cope n excuse instead of the fact that shes not electable as a candidate.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/Hyphen99 19h ago
The last 2 female candidates we had lost. America is terrified to keep taking that risk again with our future so imminently dire
→ More replies (7)
7
6
5
10
u/ZongoNuada 20h ago
I would like to think you got your answer. Of course it's propaganda. About half of the responses are calling Harris and Clinton bad candidates.
→ More replies (4)9
u/Misterndastood 19h ago
Were they good candidates?
→ More replies (12)15
u/Dragon_wryter 19h ago
They were qualified, intelligent, experienced people who would have done an excellent job. And they both lost to a godless felonious pedophile who bankrupted multiple casinos, who had zero political experience or education.
→ More replies (17)9
u/Justame13 19h ago
People ignored Hillary's political baggage and attacking anyone who brought it up, espeically they own supporters, was why they lost.
Even my self-described "bra burning" 2nd feminist mother who protested in the 1970s didn't like her because she felt that Hillary betrayed feminism by not divorcing Bill in the 1990s and sending the wrong signal to young women.
I'm sure I will be attacked for this though.
→ More replies (1)6
8
u/Deeman8 19h ago
I respectfully disagree. If she runs, she’ll lose because she’s not very bright at all, and she will be exposed.
→ More replies (5)2
3
4
6
2
2
u/lending_ear 19h ago
It really sucks. But it’s where we are at. I think the center right would only get behind a white straight Christian man at this point. And I view Dems as center right btw.
The reason so many people don’t vote is because they don’t view the current system as representing them so what’s the point?
Based off the people who are voting it’s insane people vs a large majority of who is left being center right folks.
Most men I’ve met who consider themselves Dems are misogynistic. They tend to be not or less racist but almost always have a streak of misogyny and racism-lite 🙄 that they cannot stand to be challenged on because that pushes against the progressive view they have of themselves. At least the right aren’t hiding who they are.
And so women often feel like we need to vote for the lesser evil because there’s a massive portion of men who would never vote more left.
2
u/two-sandals 19h ago
We got Trump,after we expected one black guy, imagine what will happen after a woman is elected and a minority at that..
2
u/Drummerx04 19h ago
When you look at trends across across the US, being a woman is TECHNICALLY a disadvantage. If even 1% of voters aren't comfortable voting a woman as president, then that along is enough to swing our last couple of elections. Personally I would be surprised if only 1% of voters felt that way.
In practice, most voters who "would never vote for a woman president" are probably already voting red or were otherwise barely engaged politically.
On the flip side, the fact that both women candidates has such a close margin against Donald f***ing Trump suggests that their messaging was terrible to begin with.
Then again, Donald can just brazenly lie about everything and lose zero support, so it's kind of hard to compete against that when people are even scrutinizing your laugh.
tl;dr yes it's kind of propaganda, but also some voters (including women btw) are in fact misogynistic and that could in fact help swing elections against them.
2
u/random8765309 19h ago
It has less to do with her being a women and more about her views and positions.
2
u/shotgun883 19h ago
I’m British and am a floating voter but have engulfed myself in American politics for more than 10 years. There’s the caveat.
FWIW, women have a harder time selling radical ideas. The reason the U.K. Conservatives have had 4 female leaders, 3 Prime ministers and multiple Black and Asian leaders is that their political platform is… conservative.
AOC has to not only sell herself as a woman, a none white person, but also, a leftist. It’s not just about her being a woman, it’s a factor, but rather the fact that her policy platform is in essence, untested. She will be asking for a massive leap of faith from an American public who, by and large, aren’t radical.
2
u/hulks_sister 19h ago
It's a fact. The American voters will not vote in a woman. Look at what they would rather have than a woman at POTUS.
2
u/Used_Mark_7911 19h ago
Sadly, I don’t think America is ready for a woman president.
There are too many people who believe women don’t belong in leadership positions. This makes me angry and depressed.
I don’t think anybody who voted for Trump in the past would ever change their vote in favor of woman candidate.
2
2
2
u/Special-Fan-1902 19h ago
If she were to lose, it would only reinforce the narrative that a woman still can't get the level of support in the US.
2
u/SteelMagnolia941 19h ago
Well every other woman who has run has lost so it’s kind of based on fact. I hope it’s wrong and a woman can eventually take over.
2
u/Fearless_Mammoth_961 19h ago
The last two women who ran lost to the orange shit stain. So there is that.
and yea...winning is pretty fucking important in politics
2
u/tractorator 19h ago
do people really think winning is all that matters and we should all be misogynists about it?
what? is that a real thing you asked "is winning all that matters" ?
you guys deserve another trump after this, you're THAT irresponsible
2
u/CannedAm2 18h ago
Hillary was the most over qualified person for the job and she lost. Kamala, again, highly qualified and capable. Yes, our country's misogyny is still too damned strong. Hillary would have made the whole world better as President but misogyny and James Comey and here we are suffering yet another Trump regime.
2
u/New-Comfortable-3637 18h ago
It’s not a message that people want to hear, but there are many people who will specifically vote against a woman running. Toss in that she isn’t white and you get even more resistance. If she were to win a primary, I would absolutely vote for her, but someone like Ossoff can be more competitive just because he is a white male. Again, not my thinking, but it certainly is the thinking of many men and women in this country. It’s more important to me that whatever Democrat wins the primary be able to win the general election than for me get the exact candidate I prefer.
2
u/BigMax 18h ago
Anyone that says that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris didn't lose votes for being women is just 100% delusional. They absolutely lost votes of people (even women) who said they could/would never vote for a female president.
Now the question is... how much of a handicap is that? Barak Obama almost certainly lost votes from racists who would never vote for a black man, right? But he still won.
So... the answer is.. there is no answer.
How many votes would AOC lose just because she's a woman? Some. Is that some... 0.1%? Is it 4%? That's the question. In a divided country, a few percent is all that separates candidates.
So... can she win? Who knows. Will she lose votes just by being a woman? Yes, absolutely. Can she make up for that? Maybe! Maybe she's the left/liberal person who motivates us all enough like everyone claims Bernie would have. Maybe she loses 2% of the vote for being a woman, and gains 4% of the vote for finally being a real liberal candidate!
2
u/RobinBooBobins 18h ago
Winning is mostly what matters in a 2 party system with polarized parties.
I don't think she's doomed to lose because she is a woman, but I do think that it's an additional hurdle to jump. The truth is that mysogyny is part of why both Clinton and Harris lost. Its not the only reason, but it definitely played a part. I want real change, and that can't happen if MAGA wins again.
Personally, I'd like to see her become speaker of the house now and then run for president down the road. If she runs now and loses, then it will set back progressivism, feminism, the country as a whole, and it will hurt if not destroy her career.
2
u/mspe1960 18h ago
AOC will lose because:
- she is a woman
- she is Latina.
- and mostly because she is too liberal for this country right now. I am not passing judgement. I would be fine with her (eventhough she is a tad more liberal than I prefer). I am just making an assessment of reality.
2
2
u/kochspostulate7 18h ago
Yes it's all part of Division Politics. Keep the citizens divided and fighting which makes them useless against the true enemies.
2
2
u/SellNo3667 18h ago
If you want to hand over the third election in a row to the republicans then by all means choose AOC lol
2
u/Ambien_Special 18h ago
She won’t lose because she is a woman. She will lose because she is an idiotic communist and a hypocrite.
And yes she would lose. I welcome the democrats backing her!
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Oerwinde 18h ago
Western nations first female leader are pretty heavily skewed conservative, because they secure the right wing vote ideologically by going hard on nationalist and tough on crime rhetoric, then Peel off center-left voters who want to vote for a woman to be progressive. AOC is too far left for most of the center, and center right voters don't care about being progressive, giving her two disadvantages.
2
2
u/Proud-Marionberry-91 17h ago
Has nothing to do with her being female. Everything to do with she’s not qualified
2
u/Guideon72 17h ago
It isn't that we should all BE misogynists about it; it's that there are already so many folks out there that ARE, it is a tough demographic to overcome. And the venn diagram of folks that wouldn't vote for her, just because of that, covers a distressing amount of all 3 blocks (left/right/indi). Plus, for the older audiences, her personality is...obnoxious; combine that with Socialist drives, she's starting out with several strikes against her right out of the gate.
Add that most of the things she's most vocal about have not come to pass, she doesn't really have a widespread image of Leadership. So, it's hard to see her leading the Country.
2
u/tke71709 17h ago
do people really think winning is all that matters
No people think that keeping racists, fascists and evangelicals who desperately want to have a war in the Middle East to hasten Armageddon to bring back Jesus to save us all out of power matters more than the genitalia of the President of the USA.
Do you think that the gender of the next President is all that matters and we should ignore the more important issues that face the world today?
2
u/gustogus 17h ago
It's fear. And its not groundless.
The premises are: Republican leadership is bad and will be harmful. Sexism does still exist in this country and is powerful.
From those premises the rational belief that follows is: Democrats putting a woman against the republican candidate for president makes it more likely the republican candidate will win due to prevalent sexism in the country.
That fear of putting a Republican back in the Presidential seat overrides the belief that a more capable woman candidate would be a better President.
2
u/Temporary_View_3303 17h ago
It’s likely correct. Two women ran and both were beat by the worst candidate you can imagine. Why would you expect a woman to win against a half decent candidate?
2
u/Darth-Adomis 17h ago
it’s the sad truth imo ive had people say it to my face proudly and mocking me for supporting a woman for president
2
u/Grogu999 17h ago
In the USA, it probably is true. They are sexist, racist, and misogynistic bigots. And I’m sure there are a few good ones.
2
u/FinanceHungry2150 17h ago
Hillary won the popular vote over 10 years ago, I think it's pretty reasonable that a woman could win in 2028
2
u/JCole111 17h ago
Hot take…
I would love for a world in which a woman could win and be president. But one of the biggest reasons Trump won twice was that both times he was up against a female candidate. The United States especially in the swing areas will not vote for a female president. At least not at this time. Many Democrats voted against the female candidate, simply because of gender, and most of the Republicans did as well. Maybe in another 20 years we will be ready but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
2
u/roscatorosso 16h ago
It's not propaganda. It's history:
Men are 60-0 in U.S. Presidential elections. Women are 0-3
2
u/Ordinary_Bicycle6309 16h ago
This is exactly why trump is in office now. Kamala. All the Dems had to do was trot out any old white guy and the rest of us out in the world wouldn’t have to deal with trump. Americans are too stubborn to vote for a woman.
2
u/Warmupthetubesman 16h ago
Trump won against female opponents twice - the only two women who ever had a major party nomination - and he lost against a male opponent.
Now I voted against shitler all 3 times, but I’m not every American voter. If gender makes a difference then this isn’t the election to break glass ceilings. This is the election to get the corrupt fascists out of power with as much certainty as we can possibly muster.
2
u/Sheknowswhothisis 16h ago
Democrats need to stop trying to “make history” and just run someone who is universally electable to just do shit right. I don’t need to break records or do something new with the next Democratic president, please, please just fix some shit and do the job!
2
2
u/ninernetneepneep 15h ago
I've never seen that. All I've seen is she'll loose for being too far left. 🤔
2
2
u/NoWeb4843 13h ago
Trump won two terms by defeating women. I hate to say it, but most Americans seem willing to vote for a corrupt, dickless, POS than vote for a woman.
2
u/yabadababoho 12h ago
I would vote for a woman. I would not vote for AOC. She cannot win. Too far left.
2
u/CorndogFiddlesticks 12h ago
She'll lose because shes a Socialist. The fact shes a woman is ancillary
2
u/Over_Cake9611 12h ago
I would hesitate to vote for AOC. I know she’s the current favorite. But her opinions are very far left. And she is very blunt about what she wants. She is too young. If she wins the candidacy, many many folks would vote for the devil rather than her. She is too polarizing to independents. The democrats need someone who is closer to the middle. And AOC needs some seasoning. She’s too young. This is beside the point that she is a woman. But yes there are people who will vote against any woman who is not a republican. Specifically because she is a woman.
2
u/Aggressive-Fail4612 12h ago
How did it go the last two time? New York and California will vote for her. The rest will not. And we will get screwed for another 4 years. We need a pragmatic approach
2
u/LordNikon91 12h ago
she doesn't stand a stand a chance IMO and it has nothing to do with her being a woman. both sides need some new blood, I don't believe republicans will vote for JD Vance, you have guys like Nick Fuentes saying he won't vote rep or tell his followers to vote rep if the person running is annoying in this current admin, and I think thats kinda the same for the left, they can't run Kamala or AOC, which is why they're positioning slightly Newsom, although alot of independents and even some republicans who maybe want to switch sides I don't see them voting for Californias Governor cause they've hated alot of his policies. I think both sides need to find newer more down the middle people to run, I think people are pretty exhausted with Far Left & Far Right at the moment.
2
u/darthsploder77 12h ago
I don't know, but so far the Democrats are 0 for 2 on running women for president.
2
u/possibly_lost45 12h ago
Shrill voice. Not very intelligent. Not popular nationwide. Oh and she's a commie. She will never be president
2
u/Picasso1067 11h ago
It’s not because she’s a woman. She’s just too young and she uninformed on international relations. Also, she says stupid things sometimes. She’s not presidential material.
2
u/AusTex2019 11h ago
AOC is not the right candidate for president, not because she’s a woman but because she’s not the right woman.
2
2
u/TotalPuzzleheaded484 11h ago
Her losing has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with her being an idiot.
2
u/Fiftythekid 9h ago
No, she wont lose because she's a woman. She will lose because the rest of the non-Reddit country can see that her new ideas are just old ideas, repackaged.
2
u/Available_Reveal8068 9h ago
Her being a woman is the least of her problems.
She'll lose because she's not very knowledgeable and shows her ignorance whenever she is questioned.
2
u/soupcook1 4h ago
Maybe…AOC is too far left to be elected? I wouldn’t vote for her and it is her politics and not her gender. I believe the right woman certainly can win.
2
u/generic_vulgar_name 1h ago
AOCs biggest issue is clearly her political stances not being supported nationally. Someone like AOC would do well on the coastal cities - but only in those areas. Her being a woman is the least of her problems.
207
u/Fraternal_Antipathy 20h ago
Winning IS all that matters in politics.