Your argument about female senators winning in swing states has the most merit I’ve seen so far. I’ve got to give that too you. But it does worry me that those are elections that are localized to some degree. A national election is going to garner way more negative sentiment from the Bible belt.
In a perfect society I would absolutely love for AOC to be the first female president in 2028. The realist in me understands that if you were to take everything about her and put it into a white male, they would garner more votes and be more likely to win. I care deeply about being able to elect the first female president in history, but I care more about saving the lower and middle class. I don’t care who does it. Just that it gets done and we can start to leave predatory capitalism behind.
Nor do I. It was a hypothetical, but its not our job to find that person. I think the closest we currently have is still Bernie but he needs to be able to retire. I don’t want him in the presidential office at 84. Then maybe Graham Platner who has his own “controversial” past. Ro Khanna(not white). Mamdani(not US born). Pritzker(Billionaire. I love what he’s done in Illinois, but I feel as though his status as a billionaire puts him at odds with what the message for 2028 should be). Talarico(Maybe? But people find issue with his framing of progressive policy in religious values).
The way I see it, there’s an ever-widening gap between what is considered permissible or possible within the existing system, and what actually needs to happen to avert collapse. How much the DNC is willing to allow and what messaging a candidate goes with may matter just as much as who the candidate is.
Note that as a commie I expect most politicians to be self-serving opportunists and I’m skeptical that it’s at all possible to bridge the gap between what’s possible in the system and what needs to happen. But tactically speaking, they need to find someone who will at least promise to try to do good things rather than just maintaining the status quo.
And if Trump gets the outrageous military budget he wants, I’m not sure I’m going to envy whoever inherits the debt crisis. They need to call out military spending as the source of the problem and strongly condemn the Iran War. What we absolutely don’t need is someone doing austerity policies and trying to balance the budget by cutting social spending even further, which I expect to be the DNC’s agenda, and it’d be the fastest way to lose what should be a layup.
Your argument about female senators winning in swing states has the most merit I’ve seen so far. I’ve got to give that too you. But it does worry me that those are elections that are localized to some degree. A national election is going to garner way more negative sentiment from the Bible belt.
In a perfect society I would absolutely love for AOC to be the first female president in 2028. The realist in me understands that if you were to take everything about her and put it into a white male, they would garner more votes and be more likely to win. I care deeply about being able to elect the first female president in history, but I care more about saving the lower and middle class. I don’t care who does it. Just that it gets done and we can start to leave predatory capitalism behind.
Sure, and that’s valid, I’m just not sure who that white male version of AOC would actually be.
I think people put to much weight on two data points. Relevant XKCD.
Nor do I. It was a hypothetical, but its not our job to find that person. I think the closest we currently have is still Bernie but he needs to be able to retire. I don’t want him in the presidential office at 84. Then maybe Graham Platner who has his own “controversial” past. Ro Khanna(not white). Mamdani(not US born). Pritzker(Billionaire. I love what he’s done in Illinois, but I feel as though his status as a billionaire puts him at odds with what the message for 2028 should be). Talarico(Maybe? But people find issue with his framing of progressive policy in religious values).
The way I see it, there’s an ever-widening gap between what is considered permissible or possible within the existing system, and what actually needs to happen to avert collapse. How much the DNC is willing to allow and what messaging a candidate goes with may matter just as much as who the candidate is.
Note that as a commie I expect most politicians to be self-serving opportunists and I’m skeptical that it’s at all possible to bridge the gap between what’s possible in the system and what needs to happen. But tactically speaking, they need to find someone who will at least promise to try to do good things rather than just maintaining the status quo.
And if Trump gets the outrageous military budget he wants, I’m not sure I’m going to envy whoever inherits the debt crisis. They need to call out military spending as the source of the problem and strongly condemn the Iran War. What we absolutely don’t need is someone doing austerity policies and trying to balance the budget by cutting social spending even further, which I expect to be the DNC’s agenda, and it’d be the fastest way to lose what should be a layup.
Progressive candidate? Excuse.
Repeat.
The reddit stink is strong…