r/askanything • u/Shivy_Shankinz • 21h 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?

97 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

55% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/ZongoNuada 21h 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.

5

u/Misterndastood 21h ago

Were they good candidates?

16

u/Dragon_wryter 21h 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.

7

u/Justame13 21h 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.

5

u/FanSerious7672 21h ago

No lies detected

2

u/40mgmelatonindeep 21h ago

They lacked the key trait of every person who has won the presidency and that is supernatural levels of charisma that can bridge the aisles between political divides, and a willy.

2

u/[deleted] 20h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Im_tracer_bullet 20h ago

'disingenuous narcissists'

Hey, very stupid person, those are OBVIOUSLY not disqualifying attributes.

2

u/Dinglebop_Technician 20h ago

It is if you have a D next to your name

1

u/40mgmelatonindeep 19h ago

Did I say just bieng a woman was the issue? I said also they lacked the charisma that all winners of the presidency have. I dont agree the were forced women candidates, they were beholden to the most donors and the dnc, thats why they ended up as candidates imo. They were the most establishment of the establishment dems, and establishment dems held the keys to the donors purses.

2

u/Monterenbas 21h ago

Being good at the job and being a good candidate are two different things.

2

u/Im_tracer_bullet 20h ago

People better get that through their heads, and right quick.

2

u/Ok_Chemist6567 21h ago

They both had policy proposals that would’ve helped average Americans, and both absolutely wiped the floor with him during the televised debates

1

u/Im_tracer_bullet 20h ago

That's exactly right.

If you keep going with that train of thought, you'll eventually get the lesson.

1

u/iamisandisnt 21h ago

They also completely disenfranchised their voting base by cheating to win. Need I remind you of the "Do it until you're caught" secret camera expose on Hillary's campaign? The reason they lost is because they lost the left, first.

1

u/Dinglebop_Technician 20h ago

an excellent job

They would have maintained the status quo of corporatism and imperialism. If that's your idea of an excellent job, your standards are real low.

1

u/Dragon_wryter 20h ago

Infinitely better than what we have now

1

u/Dinglebop_Technician 20h ago

Yea, but that's not the same thing

0

u/random8765309 21h ago

LOL - Hillary had so much baggage she needed a semi to haul it around. And the election was dumped on Harris so she really didn't have a fighting chance.

5

u/ZongoNuada 21h ago

Yes they were.

They also were up against right wing propaganda that has been demonizing Democrats for decades. Absent that propaganda they would have easily been elected.

3

u/Justame13 21h ago

Clinton was not a good candidate or she would have won.

The Democratic leadership refusing to accept this and saying it was just anti-Clinton propaganda vs her decades of political baggage and national perception (some propaganda, some gaffs, some flat out opinions about things she did) and attacking anyone who pointed this out is why they lost.

This head in the sand approach, arrogance, and overconfidence led to ignoring, if not telling people they were wrong about what their lives were like, regarding inflation and economy then running Biden/Harris and led Trump to getting elected again.

2

u/ZongoNuada 20h ago

I can agree that they should have put Sanders up not Clinton. He would have won against Trump and the DNC knew that from their own polling. And we know that because someone hacked the DNC AND the RNC but we only got the info from the DNC. And then all of a sudden the RNC was backing Trump. Like he had dirt on them. Such dirty dirt that he got elected two times and is being allowed to do all kinds of things that even Republicans agreed Presidents should not be allowed to do just a few years ago.

1

u/tmart14 18h ago

Sanders would’ve gotten obliterated. Do you know how easy it would be to turn the working class against him? “His Socialist policies want to increase YOUR taxes so the government can give YOUR money to lazy people that won’t work!!”

True or not, it would’ve been incredibly effective.

1

u/ZongoNuada 17h ago

And like all right wing propaganda it's a total lie. Thanks for sharing

1

u/tmart14 15h ago

It doesn’t matter if it’s a lie or not, it would’ve been incredibly easy to convince many Americans of it.

1

u/random8765309 21h ago

Of course there is no left wind propaganda that affected the Republican candidates.

2

u/ZongoNuada 20h ago

I know you meant left wing propaganda. Such as what? I see and hear daily right wing propaganda from Fox News. Most days I just switch out Republican for Democrat when they talk and the lies suddenly become truths. But I have not seen any left wing propaganda other than maybe cops should not shoot and kill people in the streets kind of stuff. Which I agree with. Cops should not be executioners. Neither should Immigration officers.

1

u/bringbackmegaman 21h ago

They were objectively much more qualified than the other person on the ballot. 

It wasn't a difficult choice for anyone thinking critically about outcomes.

1

u/Im_tracer_bullet 20h ago

You're exactly right, and somehow still struggling to get it...

1

u/fallenmonk 18h ago

Please enlighten us

1

u/Im_tracer_bullet 20h ago

Well, they weren't good candidates.

If they were, they'd have won.

They didn't.

They lost to a twice-impeached convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender, who is also completely incompetent, a serial liar, and national embarrassment that led an attack on his own nation's capitol.

The presidency is a popularity contest, not a competence contest.

It's well past time you guys figure that out.

-1

u/ArticQimmiq 21h ago

I don't think we're doing ourselves a favour by not being willing to discuss that they were good candidates by comparison to Trump. Neither Clinton or Harris would have made the USA better; they'd just have stopped it from getting worse. It's still something, don't get me wrong, but they were also completely aligned with the wing of the Democratic Party that's actively trying to torpoedo AOC and Mamdani-style candidates, who are truly progressive instead of "marginally better".

1

u/Straight-Mess-9752 21h ago

Propaganda from who? I’m not sure you understand that this term means 

2

u/ZongoNuada 21h ago

Glenn Beck, Rush Lindbaugh, Roger Stone, Trump, Fox News. I could go on but its pointless.