• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing. There’s literally no other way to win here if somebody else steps in. Sad that people try to do good in their job as a public representative for their people, and just fucking can’t.

    Edit to say: don’t just take my word for it. Ask Bernie Sanders. Did he win the presidency at some point? I just must have…,…

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      ·
      6 months ago

      And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing

      Imagine saying that after Obama flipped a bunch of red states and brought in a shit ton of down ballot races.

      AOC is polarizing, but not as much as Obama and it’s easier the second time around.

      Hell, no body even really mentioned Biden being Catholic in 1988. You should have seen the shit they said about JFK. And similar time-frames passed between.

      And strictly police wise, the country is a lot more open to progressive policy than in 08, and again, everyone said Obama was too “polarizing” right up till election results.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I will vote for her so hard given the chance. Unfortunately, I’m still just one vote. I want to agree with you, but I’m not sure I can. I’d sure love to see her give it a real run, with a DNC that supporter her and didn’t drag her to the center or actively undercut her primary chances.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now. Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now

          What?

          Literally what’s how what works?

          Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

          Fair and open primaries, mate.

          I’ve been saying it since NH had their delegates stolen.

          Well, this cycle, almost a decade now in total. This ain’t exactly a new problem, and it’s not like no one can think of a solution.

          It’s just not easy beating corporate money in primaries until enough Dem voters demand the party sets higher standards. And most people only pay atteyonce every 4 years, then they’re too exhausted to care about politics.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s because Obama was polarizing, but he sold himself as progressive convincingly

        He literally ran on the promise of change - unfortunately his actions were firmly neo liberal, and he prioritized compromise over meaningful reform

        If Obama was a neo liberal in progressive clothing, Clinton was a diehard neo liberal from top to bottom.

        Unfortunately, the lesson learned was “people don’t like Hillary” rather than “people want a real progressive”

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t understand your point… Obama won two presidential elections in a row. It would seem as though that "selling himself as a progressive convincingly worked out pretty well for him id say.

          So you’re saying that the people want a progressive candidate, but the Dems would, at most, give us the option of someone who sells themselves as progressive but is an actual neo-liberal?

          Oh, maybe I do get it after all. I was going to say that Gore was pretty progressive and did technically win, but that was 25 years agola

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      6 months ago

      She’s not polarising. The oligarchy controlled media that constantly paint her as some kind of radical are polarising.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          48
          ·
          6 months ago

          Have you seen what they say about Joe Biden?

          They’d call trump Joseph Stalin if there was a D by his name.

          It literally doesn’t matter how progressive a candidate we run, because they’ll say the same shit about anyone.

          Moderates try to defend and talk about how conservative they really are. Alienating their voters. AOC would fucking own that shit and explain how it helps everyone.

          What we’re doing isn’t working. And Biden himself keeps saying he’s powerless as president, so why not fucking try what worked for literal decades and there was no rational reason we ever stopped?

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Obama was that bogeyman from 2008 to 2016. Considering that he won two elections during that time, I don’t think Fox News is really relevant to AOC.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 months ago

        Repubs have spent decades feeding propaganda to their fear-addicted voting base. And they’re still squawking away with Fox and Sinclair. I’d love to see her run but I’m not certain it would be successful.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Because entrenched Democrats are under a ridiculous belief that everyone who isn’t voting for them is conservative. So if you spout “extreme” leftist ideals, you’re too scary to the people they are courting, which is conservative voters who aren’t Trumplicans.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      because she’s too polarizing.

      She shares a lot of views with Bernie Sanders, and Berni would almost surely have defeated Trump where Hillary failed.
      As I see it, she is not nearly as polarizing as Trump. The only ones strongly against her, are probably extreme Christians and Nazis.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          6 months ago

          That doesn’t really make her polarizing, that’s just the right wing media treating her unfairly, as they do with every progressive Democrat, except a bit more, because she is popular.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            No, it makes her polarizing because the viewers of certain media thinks she’s a fucking liberal who will literally sweep your house, take you gums, sell them, and give the profit to "illegals’.

            This was a literal interpretation about her from ImfoWars. It’s a fucking thing. She won’t win.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              29
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              People who follow infowars are already radicalized, and will say any moderate is polarizing. They want a Fuhrer, they want to exterminate LGBT and colored people. Their opinion is irrelevant, because there is no talking sense to those people. Just see how the MAGA people threw a fit, because their house leader “compromised” after 8 months of negotiating, and getting everything they asked for!!!
              They are beyond reach, and they are the ones polarizing, not rational sensible people like AOC, that actually tries to make life better for most people.

              If not only wanting to do things for the rich, the white and Christians, makes you polarizing, then a polarizing candidate is the only reasonable option.

            • ultranaut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              6 months ago

              Literally, anyone who threatens the interests served by right-wing media is going to see themselves transformed into a bogeyman by right-wing media. That’s how it works. That AOC is “polarizing” according to them is because of the threat she poses to them. If you’re letting right-wing media define the boundaries of who is an acceptable candidate, you will never defeat them.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              That is why she’d be so successful. She’d give them strokes. She’d get constant media coverage. They would give her so much publicity the news would always be about her. She’s good looking and talks well. She’d look badass in the White House.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Republicans boosted Sanders, not because they liked him. But because they knew it would, and did divide their opposition for the next decade or more. Had Sanders gotten the nomination. They’d have smeared him worse than Clinton.

        • Rookwood@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          That’s the thing about Bernie. He’s hard to smear. Unlike, “my husband cheated on me while serving as President” Hillary. You’re delusional.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            The fact that they didn’t take the time to really try to smear him doesn’t mean he’s hard to smear. There were a lot of accusations that could have gotten a lot of play Propaganda wise. Like him and his wife honeymooning in Russia. That got bare minimal play during the campaign because it was much more handy to keep the Democrats divided. In fact I think it was probably Democrats that pointed that out. But since they don’t directly control the messaging machine. And the people who do did not want that message out it didn’t get out.

            Just to point this out to you since you seem to not understand. Smears don’t have to be true. Often they aren’t. All you need to smear someone successfully is a consistent message driven into them.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      IMHO, the only reason she’s “polarizing” is because the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her. People like her are a threat to them. She’s young, smart, and charming. She’s like Obama once was, only she’s even younger than he was. She’s still a year too young to run.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her

        And they run smear campaigns on EVERYONE with a D in front of their name, regardless of how far to the left they actually are. Democrats are playing a losing game by worrying about how the Republican media are going to portray them.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Just saying that she has extra appeal and potential, so that why she gets extra attention by the right wing media.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Their screaming means nothing anymore. Conservative media will panic-attack absolutely anyone who runs against the GOP with the exact same extreme deception and conspiracy theories.

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      I really don’t think that’s true. People said the same with Obama, and he really never faced that in voters, the GOP was viciously attacking him and it never stuck. There is a stage big enough, that the most vicious attackers do get lost in the crowd.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yup, never stuck. They won all the mid terms during his administration handily. Maintaining super majorities in Congress the whole time. Nope, they were never ever shellacked (Obamas phrasing) in the midterms over “obamacare”. No matter how you phrased it obamacare or ACA the publics approval was always the same they adored it right?

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing.

      She’ll never make it through the primaries because she’s a progressive.

    • Psycoder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You must be quite young. Everything you are saying about AOC was said, word for word, for Obama. Obama still won.

    • Xerxos@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Bernie would have won (according to polls) if the DNC hadn’t sabotaged him at every turn. Too polarizing? No, just too left for the Democrats.