Younger men threw their support behind Donald Trump in 2024 after favoring Biden in 2020
The United States is still not ready for a female president after more than a century of unsuccessful campaigns for the White House, according to former First Lady Michelle Obama.
“As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,” Obama said earlier this month in a live conversation with actor Tracee Ellis Ross that was published Friday.
“That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying,” she said. “You’re not ready for a woman. You are not. So don’t waste my time.”
It’s funny how depending on the topic, third party votes and stay-home whiners either mattered or didn’t matter. Anyone else notice this?
We’ve got people here saying that KH lost because of her centrist take- meaning, she would have won had she had more leftist appeal-
And then when you bring up the idea that KH wouldn’t have brought American democracy to its knees, and we wouldn’t be here had the protest votes and stay-home-complainers voted, they immediately pivot and spam articles that say otherwise.
They simultaneously had a great effect- and had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election. It’s mind-numbing and fascinating at the same time.
Someone call science. We have another uncertainty principle! A far-leftist both matters, and doesn’t matter to an election based wholly on the perceived results!
I get flamed around here so often cause I will call out protest non voters at every given opportunity. I really hope it is worth the literal cost of human lives they sacrificed to enjoy the smell of their own farts.
They simultaneously had a great effect- and had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.
Its undeniable that Harris lost on the margins in a number of critical swing Midwestern states. And that she dramatically underperformed among Muslim voters in these states. So you can point to - say - Rashida Tlaib’s MI-12 district and notice how she ran far behind her outspokenly anti-genocide Congressional peer, while the Dem running for the Michigan Senate Seat won her race that same year. Meanwhile, you can look at her performance in Florida or Texas and notice how her tack to the right failed to pick up any conservative voters in Big Red States.
And you can conclude that Harris’s decision to embrace Liz Cheney and Cindy McCain in the last weeks of the election didn’t do her any favors. You might even conclude that it hurt her chances.
At the same time, you could notice that Trump managed to top his 2016 and 2020 turnout, conclude Harris simply didn’t have what it took to win in the face of a MAGA wave year, and just scratch 2024 off as a bad year for Democrats that was beyond any campaign-level antics to fix.
Meanwhile, you can pop over to NYC in 2025 and note how Andrew Cuomo - running a very Biden-esque conservative democrat campaign for mayor in a city that has historically rewarded conservative candidates (Giuliani, Bloomberg, and Adams) - got utterly washed by an outspoken DSA State Senator. So, clearly something in the political landscape is changing.
Someone call science.
The problem with elections is that they aren’t neatly reproducible. So you can observe and document the results. And you can speculate on cause and effect. But you’re juggling a lot of variables that can shift within margin of error of one another in confusing ways.
How do you explain Hillary and Harris losing to Trump by inches while Biden won in a landslide? Two ladies and a dude. Must be gender that done it.
Alternatively, you can claim Hillary and Harris were too conservative and Biden was “The Most Leftist President since FDR”.
Alternatively, you can just blame pendulum politics and note Hillary and Harris were following Dem Presidents while Biden got to run against an unpopular Republican.
Idfk. But its not something you can just throw the Periodic Table at to get an answer.
Yea, it’s toootally the sexism and not the absolute dog shit policies. Hilary even won the popular vote. Fuck off with this victim card crap.
TBF we elected the white man with the exact same platform and owners as Kamala.
The only real difference between her and Biden was her skin color and gender.
There were many many other differences, you just choose not to see them. The main example being that for Kamala’s election we just had 4 years of Democrat ruling so voters with a gnat attention span already forgot what Trump was like.
You have not described a difference between the two canidates
It’s called “irony.” And “sarcasm.”
No, Biden was elected after Trump 1. Then people wanted more change and it became very clear that Biden was not going to win his reelection (not because of policies alone). Harris simply didn’t either, but she didn’t lose where the old white man would have won in the same circumstances and everything else equal. Harris being equal to Biden is what lost votes, not her gender.
I think that being equal to Biden, Harris could have won as a centrist…if she was anointed instead of Biden from the very start. By suddenly switching their designated candidate mid-race, the DNC destroyed any momentum that was built up.
This is not advocacy for Kamela, just that her circumstances as a candidate was ass. I ultimately blame the DNC, because it was their decisions that set the stage for everything that was to follow.
I feel like she’s just slipping a hint to Kamala. I’d probably vote for Michelle though 😂
deleted by creator
It’s not your genitals. It’s because you’re not a progressive
I mean, she’s right.
I don’t care if Hillary won the popular vote. That’s not how presidential elections in our country work. You can stop talking about it, because it’s a moot point.
We’ve run a woman twice now and lost twice. This country is a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic trashcan.
Get the hint. Play the game to win.
I mean, she’s right.
She’s not. She’s throwing out an easy answer to a very complex question. “Two ladies ran for President and lost? I guess ladies can’t win the presidency.”
But you could play this game with literally any presidential campaign and be wrong.
This country is a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic trashcan.
Obama beating Hillary in the primary in 2008 proves that our country hates women more than black people. And when he beat both McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, it allowed us to conclude our country hates Veterans and Mormons.
Then Trump beat Hillary, proving the country hates women again (but not before Trump’s primary win proved it hates Latinos, Black People, People Still on Their First Wife, and Ohioans). Then Biden beat Trump, proving the country hates Septuagenarians. Then Trump beat Harris, proving you need to be a billionaire before you’ll be seriously considered for the White House.
The two female candidates who lost were WILDLY more qualified than felon rapist pedophile Donald Trump.
If that doesn’t tell you that this country isn’t ready for a female president, then you are actively refusing to acknowledge objective reality and I can only presume you have a fetish for losing.
Ready to gamble what’s left of our democracy?
The two female candidates who lost were WILDLY more qualified
According to whom? You’re trying to apply an objective rubric to a purely subjective selection process and mistaking the job of President for job of Running For President.
That’s long before you get into Harris’s “qualifications” as a party flak riding the coat tails of her superiors. Let’s not forget that Harris has never won a national primary. She couldn’t even win her home state the one time she put her toe in the water in '20. She was unqualified for President for the same reason Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio and Michael Bloomberg were unqualified. Because they were losers.
Ready to gamble what’s left of our democracy?
I will put all my chips on a Zohran Mamdani or Rashida Talib before I bet a bent penny on the next Pete Buttigieg or Beto O’Rourke.
We need winners, not nepo hires, running the party going forward.
If you want votes. You appeal to voters.
Not people who only care about politics once every four years, to systematically go through everything you’ve done for 30 years, to see if your the right flavour of obscure political ideology.
This is a stupid take. Give the people a viable candidate that doesn’t thank Dick Satan Chaney for his service and cheerfully announces the desire for the “most lethal military” when the voting base is expressing discontent with the governments support for an active genocide, and she’ll win.
People didn’t reject KH because she was a woman, they rejected her “centrist” campaign that was to the right of GWB’s on several key issues. People didn’t reject Hilary because she was a woman, they rejected her being forced on them instead of Bernie.
And both of them had the same attitude, that voters owe them their votes, simply because they’re not Trump. People didn’t reject women, then rejected the DNC.
Give the people a viable candidate
Both female candidates who lost were INSANELY more qualified than felon, rapist, pedophile Donald Trump.
Still lost.
Stop ignoring the reality of what America is.
Don’t gamble with what’s left of our democracy.
Both female candidates who lost were INSANELY more qualified than felon, rapist, pedophile Donald Trump.
Qualifications aren’t how presidential elections in our country are won. You can stop talking about it, because it’s a moot point.
You realize that no matter what you say, running a female for president is a gamble.
You are openly admitting you are willing to gamble what’s left of our democracy at a critical juncture in American history.
Not very bright.
You realize that no matter what you say, running a female for president is a gamble.
Running anyone is a gamble, there are no guaranteed wins.
You are openly admitting you are willing to gamble what’s left of our democracy at a critical juncture in American history.
I said no such thing, you don’t even know my opinion. Arguing with someone in your head is certainly very bright though, no notes.
Running anyone is a gamble
The fact that you believe any candidate is an equal gamble indicates you are not taking this conversation seriously.
I can’t take someone seriously that tries to equalize all things. That is not reality and you are not living in it.
It is less of a gamble to run a white male and you fucking know it. I could care less for your contrarianism.
Any unnecessary gamble while literal fascists are trying to end our democracy is a fucking disgrace and anyone engaging in such a gamble is a fool.
You people really need to make up your mind and pick a lane. Either she didn’t win because you all protested her centrist views, or your lack of support didn’t make a difference.
But watching you flip flop the outcome based on the discussion is getting sad.
You people really need to make up your mind and pick a lane. Either she didn’t win because you all protested her centrist views, or it didn’t matter because she would have lost anyway.
But watching you flip flop the outcome based on the discussion is getting sad.
Michelle Obama is not the woman I’m looking at to run. In fact, having launching the political careers if spouses and other family members on the political success of a family member is a terrible idea. This is the main reason why I thought having Hillary Clinton run for president was a bad idea, and I opposed Jeb Bush for the same reason (though I’d vastly preferred either over Trump).
Though I’m aware political dynasties in the US have a history going back all the way to the Adamses.
They said that about a black president. So. No. I don’t agree. AOC is very popular.
They said that about a black president. So. No. I don’t agree.
WTF…US Right wing went insane over Obama, now we have SS squads patroling the streets for people of color.
So he didn’t get elected like they said he wouldn’t?
AOC is very popular.
Among liberals.
She won’t win a national election. Too many Americans don’t like her.
AOC is popular only in the northeast USA, like the others. She also politically untested. I agree with Michelle.
Popular in the SW too
And NW
…Politically untested? The fuck? Where have you been?
Besides, it’s not like the people are being elected are either tested or passed their tests by a reasonable amount anyway. It’s a weak excuse when it only seems to apply sometimes, just like everyone who said Bernie was too old a decade ago but who voted for Trump even though his mind was already fading then and was halfway gone this time around.
The fuck?
She is a representative from one of the NY district. That’s quite a unique situation, most of America isn’t like that. AOC is an amazing, smart, young woman politician, with great ideas. This combained with her nationality, means more than half of the country hates her with passion.
Bernie
Bernie situation is exactly like that. He is too old, and people who would be voting for him if he was younger, wouldn’t. However people who voted for trump would vote for a wet pile of rags if they affirmed their prejudices. That’s a fundamental struggle of the american broadly speaking “left”, you need to be a platonic ideal of a best person ever to even be eligible, and you will still lose to a platonic ideal of evil seven times out of ten.That’s seriously your response? That she’s from NY and that means she can’t possibly understand how anything else works? That dogshit country elected Donald Trump, a dude with the opposite of qualifications who also came from New York and who lives in a huge mansion/villa. AOC has actually had a real job. She’s had to work late shifts, she’s had unreliable income. The country might not look like New York City but it’s full of people who she understands and respects.
Take your goofy opinion and take a hike.
“Oh yeah? If you think America will not vote for a young smart left leaning woman with credentials, then why did America elected an old stupid right wing white criminal man twice?”.
Buddy, do you, like, have problems with all this “if a then b” stuff? Logic and all?You’re trying to say that the reason she won’t be elected is [reason X] and I’m saying that despite [reason X] the US still elected Trump. Your argument is bad because you’ve already been proven wrong, and given the history of US politics you’ve been proven wrong hundreds of times.
Your low level of literacy is not a problem with me.
AOC is an amazing, smart, young woman politician, with great ideas
So let her run for Prime Minister of Canada. USA loves them pale, male and stale.
We just don’t want neoliberals running. We’re done with that. Everyone is. I hope AOC runs.
Hogwash. Women have come within spitting distance of winning the presidency. Twice. Kamala and Hillary were both very unlikable candidates running no the same neoliberal platform that voters have rejected in the last three elections.
Yeah, they would have won if they had progressive policies.
What gave you this indication?
The only thing holding them back was their support of the status quo.
If either of them had run on a platform of holding billionaires accountable for stealing from the working class, they would’ve won in a landslide.
They’d rather have fascism though so that’s what we get. Fascists aren’t going to raise their taxes.
spitting distance? That is one Magic lougie, Jerry.
Yes. Spitting distance. They were both close elections. What rock have you been living under?
They lost against the most unlikeable candidate ever. So no, Obama is right. If there is even going to be another presendential election (highly doubt there is) it would be fatal if dems send another woman. America is way too sexist for that.
Unlikable to you. Not to his voters. And Trump also beat ten times as many men as he did women. So logically we can’t ever run a male candidate ever again. The voters clearly don’t like male Democratic candidates. Biden only won due to covid.
Voters have selected a neoliberal candidate every election for decades. Republicans are even more neoliberal than the mainstream Democratic party is. “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is inherently a neoliberal tenet. “Free market” economics is a neoliberal tenet.
Neoliberal doesnt mean “new liberal” as in “new left wing politics”. It is a rehashing of the term liberal as in classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is a spectrum of political approaches that spans everything from virtually-no-government libertarianism all the way to ineffectual big government (IE mainstream leftwing politics). Its all various approaches to the question “how small can government be while still maintaining the status quo of the social contract, the market, and extractive economic policy?”.
Progressive politics, of most all forms, are closer to classical liberalism because classical liberalism also spawned socialism eventually, just as it spawned neoliberalism. It goes back to the idea that government should actually be something for people, not the bare minimum of whatever placates people while still being able to bleed them dry.
Quite honestly, given the American penchant for electing neoliberals, and the rich man’s affinity for funding them, a neoliberal woman is far more likely to get elected than a woman who isnt. Hence Kamala and Hillary both being nearly elected. The only reason they lost is because they were running against an even more neoliberal candidate whos party has the EC locked up. America elected its first black president because he was a neoliberal. If Obama had been a Mamdani style progressive candidate he would have gotten smacked down by John McCain. He probably wouldnt have gotten anywhere near the nomination
I agree Michelle shouldn’t run. I’d argue, though, that we’re ready for a woman leader, but we need one presented without a bunch of past baggage (Hillary) or a party agenda (Kamala and arguably Hillary, too) and with their own ideas and not what the think tank says will win.
I’d say it’s pretty hard for a woman to both have enough experience to be taken seriously as a candidate and simultaneously have no past baggage or party agenda.
And I don’t think most male candidates are held to that standard, either.
The misogyny is palpable. In the country as a whole.
country as a whole
Species as a whole.
More progressive cultures are getting over this tribalistic, divisive stuff – they will tend to flourish over time.
More conservative cultures will double down on division – they will tend to wither.
While they certainly implode… I think there’s the old problem.
Like say you have 5 co-operative communities that focus on building up great resources, polite trade with eachother, no focus on millitary.
Then you throw in 2 Viking type communities, extremely warlike, that have no independent ability to gather resources… but specifically focus on pillaging.
Obviously the vikings take out the poorly defended villages to build up resources, before going after eachother, in the long run everyone dies out because the vikings wreck everything for everyone, and leave nothing for themselves.
I feel like that’s kind of a form of what happens with capitalism vs socialism types. we’ve got elements that really just want peace… but the warlike ones will just continue to survive, as long as there are enough peaceful societies to wreck… and unfortunately the peaceful ones are the ones to go down first, in spite of being the only ones that would survive long term without the others existance.
I didn’t say “undefended”
It’s the point though, not even completely undefended, still not 10% of the same level of defense as the primary points of capitalism. IE just note how much force, propoganda etc… is pushed at any country that isn’t capitalist enough. Right now fishing boats are being bombed. or even non military force, like the trade embargo’s on cuba etc…
and heaven knows how many government sponsered coups etc… Point is a lot of resources go into doing everything possible to make things that aren’t capitalist enough have a very steep uphill climb.
Bet it all on black and maybe you can win some sort of prize, but you will still be spending the houses money until we all start to agree that liquid cash is not a stabilizing mechanism for mediating our intermittent desire to hold various kinds of power over one another in different situations typically encountered throughout our lives, and that more complex and mindful methods/systems of resource allocation + public investment strategies can be developed as well as successfully popularized in a way that can be intrinsically understood and widely accepted by most new or developing (younger) people who will be steering the general trajectory of our worldwide “society”.
I’m pretty sure socialist and communist countries also do perverted things like blatant propaganda, needless use of force, etc.
Cuba is a great example. Cuba wasn’t embargoed ‘because Communism!’ (though that was, stupidly IMO, part of the USA political messaging)
Castro did summary political executions & imprisonment , killed the free press , enacted torture …
What exactly did you want? Continue doing business like “NBD, you do you?”
Yeah that’s what I thought… In the 1970s.
I’m sorry to say it’s not going as well as I’d hoped.
It’s hilarious. Everyone in this thread literally ignoring the lived experience of women, trying to convince everyone their country isn’t misogynistic.
The majority of people voted for Clinton, a woman.
Not true. Clinton won the popular vote
I want to vote for a woman, but not a Zionist with plans for lots of tax rebates
I didn’t vote for Biden, I didn’t vote for Clinton, I didn’t vote for Harris, and I didn’t vote for Obama (but I did caucus for him because public option)
People laugh but I 100% believe AOC would win.
Who’s laughing that’s not a useful idiot?
I think they’re laughing nervously because deep down they fear that you’re right. I certainly think you are.
I’d like to see her win; just not sure it’ll happen.
I didn’t vote for Hillary or Kamala, but I’d vote for AOC.
What we also don’t need is yet another political dynasty.
AOC
Great VP pick
Eh. She already meets the requirements. She’s old enough. That’s it. And she is eminently more qualified than the current president. She’ll be 39 in 2028. The youngest president, Teddy Roosevelt, was 42.
Any woman who runs will be running with the baggage of feminist politics. This is not the right time for it.
I disagree. I just think what I want is a candidate that has a coherent policy and their campaign to be elected isn’t solely/majority “but I could be the first female president” slop. Hillary and Kamala could have been great presidents, but when the selling point is “I’m a woman” and not much else, that’s not going to resonate with enough people to win an election.
And yet the same doesn’t apply to men for some weird reason
Why is anyone asking Michelle Obama to run for president? I mean, I know the bar for presidential prerequisites is buried 6 feet down after Trump, but why do the democrats keep propping up women candidates based solely on the basis of “she is a woman that you know”?
It’s the same thing that happened with Biden.
The ruling class wants to make sure that a progressive never even gets the nomination.
Because the neoliberals are tied to identity politics over substance out of necessity.
This gets really ugly when Democrats start rejecting candidates for their minority status. Kamala explicitly rejected Pete Buttigieg as a running mate because he was gay. Kamala rejected him using the logic of a thousand other bigots, “I have no problem with it, but others won’t understand and will judge me for it.” This is the exact same logic that employers across the country use to deny hiring queer people, trans people, etc. Employers will claim to not be bigoted themselves, but that their customers wouldn’t get it, so they simply can’t hire the queer candidate.
IIRC she polled better than Harris before the election, despite not even seeking the office.
I mean, who didn’t?
Maybe the US will be mature enough to join the civilized world in a century or two.
Is there a civilized world left anywhere? Ireland maybe?
New Zealand, Mexico
Mexico? You mean the country where the police are somehow even more corrupt than they are in the US (which is a high fucking bar) and politicians are executed by the cartel for not falling in line?
That Mexico?
Every country has their own unique set of problems. Mexico is not some utopia.
New Zealand copies a lot from USA, we are slowly becoming less civilized
I’d love for AOC to run. Tired of these geriatric out of touch assholes.
The problem with H. Clinton and Harris were that they were annointed. If a woman candidate was brought forth by a proper primary, I think she’d blow the Republican out of the water.
Or a progressive womanwho wasn’t part of the Democratic Party at all.
Yep. We seemed to quickly forget that Harris did campaign in the 2020 primary. She was trounced. She was polling something like 16th and withdrew well before the actual California primary.
