this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
312 points (92.6% liked)

politics

31826 readers
4165 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hydrashok@sh.itjust.works 106 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 70 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 7 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JustKeepStretching@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago (4 children)

People laugh but I 100% believe AOC would win.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 14 points 11 months ago

I think they're laughing nervously because deep down they fear that you're right. I certainly think you are.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] overthere@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 11 months ago

What we also don’t need is yet another political dynasty.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 48 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We just don’t want neoliberals running. We’re done with that. Everyone is. I hope AOC runs.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago (22 children)

They said that about a black president. So. No. I don't agree. AOC is very popular.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] jdredbeard@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Or a progressive woman who wasn’t part of the Democratic Party at all.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hillary won the nationwide popular vote, though.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 11 months ago (4 children)

"Ready for" is a pretty ambiguous qualifier. Considering that 8 years of Obama drove the racists absolutely batshit insane for the foreseeable future makes me think we weren't even ready for the first Black President, and we certainly aren't ready for whatever the fuck Trump is. Personally I think things like that are what shes referring to and it's not so much about just winning the election.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

American here. I remember shortly after the election I was visiting Indian co-workers in Bangalore. Over dinner they were asking why it took so long for us to elect a Black President.

They were clearly expecting a nuanced and historical perspective about the South, colonialism, economy, yadda

But my only and honest one-word answer: "Racism"

I grew up in a city that had gangs and trailer parks. Racism as deep as (and virtually a part of) religion. Those undereducated fucks hated (n-word)

EDIT: ofc Obama being both educated and black ... he was their perfect nemesis

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (13 children)

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.

[–] zaki_ft@lemmings.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] KaChilde@sh.itjust.works 25 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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”?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Because the neoliberals are tied to identity politics over substance out of necessity.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 23 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] Flickerby@lemmy.zip 19 points 11 months ago

I'd love for AOC to run. Tired of these geriatric out of touch assholes.

[–] Secret_Music@piefed.blahaj.zone 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

As a non-American looking in from the outside, from what I can gather in progressive online spaces, people are sick of career politicians in general that don't have any actual morals but are instead driven by marketing and advertising. This is a problem not just with the US Democrats but with the old guard in general worldwide.

That's part of why the door has been opened to right wing lunatics in the first place. Around 10 years ago, a lot of people thought Donald Trump was the "anti establishment" pick. As insane as that is to reasonably well educated people, simple people with shitty lives believed that this upstart really would "drain the swamp".

It's also part of why the career politicians aren't doing much to stop it either. They see the numbers on their marketing graphs, so they're evolving into another stage of parasite that can feed on the new generation.

There's no doubt in my mind that it would be a tougher battle for a woman than for a man in the USA. But also, they would stand a much better chance with someone like AOC than someone like Clinton or Obama or Harris. Because people are fucking sick of corporate undead ghouls whose sole purpose is to keep the Overton window in place.

I know that someone here is going to call AOC a sellout or something but come on, your anarchist socialist utopia is even further away now that the christo-fascists have undone so much progress. AOC is a thousand times better than almost anything else you've got right now.

You need more women with AOC and Jasmine Crockett energy, and less with Joe Biden energy. Someone to knock these christo-fascist clowns the fuck out on the mic and on social media, and to inspire people. Not someone that's going to go "oh well I tried nothing and now I give up" and fucking bore everyone to death.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Neoliberals can fuck right off. I'll vote for AOC.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not your genitals. It's because you're not a progressive

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Also thank fuck she has no intentions of getting back into politics! But we had a kinda progressive option with Bernie. And the corpo dems torpedoed him harder than they ever fought against trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

The way they treated her and spoke of her while she was First Lady, i don’t blame her for wanting nothing to do with politics. Plenty of low key racists on the left too, so she would get it from all sides

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"As we saw in the past election"

Yeah.... Not so sure it was because Hilary and Kamala were women

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Maybe the US will be mature enough to join the civilized world in a century or two.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Besides the entire "eeeeekkk a woman in the white house!!" Thing, can we please not have Michelle Obama there? I don't want families who time after time contro the government, fuck that.

If someone omin a family becomes president it should automatically rule out any other family member from even running for a presidency

[–] frizzo@piefed.social 7 points 11 months ago

Was it just young men? I'd like you to have a look at male minority votes in general. Maybe run a woman candidate who can offer something positive to everyone, even if it's bullshit like Obama's Hope.

[–] carlossurf@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Shes right too many stupid people and insecure men in the states

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nosuchanon@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s more about the electoral college and who is the elector for the state unfortunately. Which is why a trump is trying to make sure his people are in those positions.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Honestly, the US entire election system needs to be ripped out, getting rid of first past the post should be seen as a national emergency.

That would in an instant get rid of Gerrymandering, and open the way for new parties that actually has a chance to get a say.

Now, obviously neither the Dems nor the GOP is in any way interested in that, so it might take a full collapse of the current system for this to happen.

Sadly both current parties in the US are way to the right of a proper political compass, so both will fight proportional representation and getting rid of the EC...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›