158
DNC to elect new chair as party grapples with how to rebuild after 2024 losses
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
158 points (95.4% liked)
politics
19634 readers
3002 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody else seems to have the take that when the Democrats ran a woman for President, they lost both times. When they ran men they won, going back to 2008.
Maybe the country isn't ready to elect a woman.
Mexico elected a woman. I guess they're just more progressive than the US.
Funny how female Dem senators won in three of the swing states Kamala lost. Given the limited data, it's hard to imagine how we could possibly have more evidence that you're wrong.
Your dataset is two, and they both ran with very similar strategies of moving right to try to appeal to moderate Republicans. Biden meanwhile had the enormous failure of Covid working to his advantage.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
And yet she wasn't President. So sexism can still matter.
Except that voter sexism isn't what kept her out of the office. She won the popular vote by 3 million. That means people voted for her. The electoral college is at fault here.
Stooping to any despicable thing, including sexism, in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting neoliberalism is a loser.
First, the question itself is not sexist. If I ask if a black candidate didn't get a job due to discrimination, the question is not racist.
Second, it's a legitimate question. You have a narrative that Clinton and Harris lost because they don't support progressive causes. They could also have lost because many Democrats and fence-sitters have a hard time getting fired up to vote for a woman. Sorry if that doesn't automatically mean you'll get what you want next time.
Someone's scared of AOC.
You'll have to expound on your logic, because it isn't clear.
I think the Democratic Party has only decided the electorate is sexist and that a woman of color can't win because they want an excuse to shut out AOC in 2028.
Particularly after how much hay they tried to make during the 2020 primaries about Warren's accusation that Sanders said she couldn't win because she's a woman.
I see where you are coming from.
None of that means that the electorate isn't sexist, though. It definitely is a factor. The debate should be over how much.
None of that depends on what an old white man did or didn't say to Elizabeth Warren.
People are down voting but there was some element of that. People saying shit like "I just can't see her behind the desk". That's either about her gender or her race. I don't think it lost her the election though.
Pathetic